Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald: Recent Episodes
Newstalk ZB
Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.
It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.
If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio.
With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector.
Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.
I think there’s a real risk that the city council is drunk on the Kool Aid with its ongoing involvement in this bid for a second NRL rugby league team, based in Christchurch.
Because, if it’s such a good idea, shouldn’t the people campaigning for a team front-up with the money to see if it’s even possible?
You would think so. But no, it’s ratepayers, paying for a consultant to do the leg work.
Yesterday, it was announced that the group behind the Southern Orcas proposal have got their eyes on former Crusaders and All Blacks coach Scott “Razor” Robertson to be coach.
League legend Sir Graham Lowe and former rugby league administrator Andrew Chalmers have offered him a four-year contract, apparently.
Today, we’re finding out that the city council has hired and paid for a consultant to work through the nuts and bolts with league bosses on establishing a Christchurch-based team.
Our newsroom has asked the council for details of this consultant’s work. How much, how far down the track things are.
So far, no response.
And I know why that is. Because the council knows, like me, that hiring a consultant to do this donkey work with the NRL won’t go down well with ratepayers.
Because it is not the council’s job.
More to the point, does the council really know all the ins-and-outs?
For example, does the council know that the NRL is desperate to get another team in the competition?
There’s one starting in Perth next year and one in Papua New Guinea the year after that. Which will take them to 19 teams.
But the Sydney Morning Herald says they have to have a 20th team up and running by 2029, or they will start losing $20 million a year from the big $5.3 billion broadcasting deal signed earlier this year.
Sir Graham Lowe, when he was on Newstalk ZB this morning, was full of gusto about what a great meeting they had with NRL bosses when they were in Christchurch earlier this year for the Warriors game.
He went on about the Warriors match against the Panthers at the weekend showing why another NRL team in New Zealand would work. But, with respect to Sir Graham, it was an unconvincing sell job. Which the city council seems to have fallen for.
Because, if a second team here in Christchurch is such a great idea, the people behind it should be fronting up with the money to see if it’s even possible. Not ratepayers.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How would you feel about an area of Christchurch’s Red Zone being made permanently available for homeless people?
There’d be positives and negatives, for sure.
And yes, it would probably put some people off going into the area. But, when you weigh everything up, would it really be such a bad idea?
The thing is, homeless people are living there right now. But not for much longer, if the city council gets its way.
There’s up to 60 people living in the Wetlands Grove area in Bexley in cars, trucks, buses, tents and shacks. And they’ve been saying over the weekend that there’s a sense of community there and they’ve got nowhere else to go.
However, they’ve been told they have to pack up and leave by the end of February. Because the city council wants to start work on landscaping and flood protection work in the Bexley area.
Which is all part of the master plan developed for the Red Zone which stretches from the city out to the coast.
There are bike tracks and walking paths planned. But also a big wetlands area to help with flood protection and filter the water before it ends up in the Ōtākaro/Avon River.
It’s a plan that’s going to take decades to put in place. But the council wants to crack on with some of the work next year. So it needs the homeless campers to up sticks by February.
The land’s been sitting empty since after the quakes. But it seems it was only two years ago when people really started congregating in the area and calling it home.
A woman by the name of Fire, who is 65, is saying that she moved in about a year and a half ago after feeling lonely and unsafe in some sort of transitional housing she’d been in. So she joined the crew in the Red Zone.
Another one of the people living in the Red Zone, Moko, says there are all sorts of people living there. Some of them have jobs.
He says they’ve got toilets and showers and a security team. They’re people who care about each other because they understand the living arrangement and have regular dinners together.
And, when you think about it, these people want the same thing we all want.
They say they’ve got their own rules to keep things under control. But they also say the most important thing for them is staying together and maintaining their sense of belonging.
Who doesn’t want that?
What’s more, it’s very easy for those of us not living rough to tell these people to get their act together and find somewhere decent to live. It’s also very difficult to understand why some people even choose to live this way.
But they do.
Which is why I think that, at the very least, the city council should look into a better solution than just telling these people they have to be gone by the end of February.
Because, when it comes down to it, would it really be such a bad idea to let them have somewhere else in the Red Zone to stay? I don’t think it would.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Politically-speaking, the current MMP coalition government is the most successful one we’ve ever had.
Because, unlike coalitions of the past, the minor parties - ACT and NZ First - have managed to maintain their presence and identity.
In the past, the minor parties have been swallowed up by the bigger parties and, generally, disappeared from view.
This time around it’s a completely different story. With ACT and NZ First making their presence well and truly felt.
Not just recently. But for the whole term.
Some might put that down to Christopher Luxon’s failure to keep David Seymour and Winston Peters under control.
But no one can say that ACT and NZ First have disappeared off the radar the way the Maori Party did after being in cahoots with National.
Even the Greens found the confidence and supply arrangement they had with Labour between 2017 and 2020 took the spotlight off them.
This time, though, we’ve had a coalition government like never before. In that none of the parties have become bit players.
So, from a purely political perspective, it’s been a raging success.
But Christopher Luxon wants a referendum on our voting system to find out if people are still happy with MMP. He’s obviously not a fan, because he says he doesn’t want to work with “yahoos and numpties” in a coalition cabinet.
His ham-fisted announcement on Newstalk ZB yesterday was news to his caucus colleagues. It was news to his coalition partners too. With Winston Peters describing it as an “inexplicable power grab”.
But I reckon that if we didn’t have MMP, there’d be a truckload of people unable to bring themselves to vote in this year’s election.
That might be an easy thing to say, given we’ve had MMP for the past 30 years and because MMP has given us more voting options.
But the idea, after all this time, of going back to the days where it was pretty much Labour or National doesn’t sound great, does it?
And, whatever your politics, you’vec got to say that the choice and the variety MMP gives us is brilliant. There’s certainly no way I would want to see it go.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from the Prime Minsters seemingly off-the-cuff call from an MMP referendum if re-elected, Labours small business policy, and what they think about the Greater Christchurch council's amalgamation plans.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Do we need a dedicated plane for the Prime Minister? I’m starting to think that we do.
Before now, though, I’ve been of the opinion that we’re New Zealand for goodness sake, we’re not the United States, so why should we blow money on a plane?
But, after listening to Sir John Key talking to Heather last night about Christopher Luxon using the Air Force to get him around a bit, I’m thinking it would make sense.
Heather was talking to him after Chris Hipkins ripped into Luxon for getting the Air Force to fly him from Whanganui to Auckland after being at a National Party fundraising dinner.
Which was kind of dodgy. Because, if Christopher Luxon was going there as the National Party leader as part of his campaign to get re-elected in November, then he shouldn’t be using the Air Force to get him there.
Which is why Labour’s Chris Hipkins is accusing Luxon of using the Defence Force as his own “private fleet”.
But the way the Prime Minister’s Office explains it, is that he got to the fundraising event on a commercial flight. But left afterwards on the Air Force flight, so he could get to Auckland for prime ministerial commitments.
What happened is that he needed to get to Auckland for Sir Bill Birch’s funeral. Which meant some re-arranging of the schedule and him needing to travel sooner than was originally planned.
You could say he flew there as the National Party leader and left with his Prime Minister’s hat on. So, a bit of dancing on the head of a pin there.
The reason we’re talking about this is because this wasn’t just a one-off. It follows a string of times the PM has used the Air Force to get him around.
Generally, it’s accepted that during a civil defence emergency, for example, the PM will jump on a Defence Force plane or helicopter.
John Key flew to Christchurch in a Defence Force plane pretty much straight after the 2011 earthquake.
Christopher Luxon’s been doing the same sort of thing during more recent emergencies.
But, in the last week or so, there have been reports about him getting the Air Force to fly him to non-emergency events such as an event he went to at Mystery Creek in 2024 and a trip in 2025 to visit the Kmart distribution hub in the Hamilton area.
Overall, since becoming Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon has flown 41 domestic flights with the Air Force, which, according to official documents, weren’t part of a disaster or civil defence emergency response.
I’m with Sir John Key on this, whose view is that it makes sense for the PM to use the Air Force planes because they’re there, anyway. The crew have to be paid, anyway.
And what would you rather? A plane and crew sitting on the ground doing nothing? Or a plane and crew helping the Prime Minister make the most efficient use of his time?
What’s more, it hasn’t just been the Prime Minister on these flights. There are staff and security and all the usual hangers-on. So pretty cost effective when you consider that we’d, otherwise, be buying all these people tickets to fly on commercial flights.
So, when you consider that, doesn’t it make sense for the Prime Minister to have a dedicated plane available at all times? I think it does.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Waimakariri Mayor Dan Gordon says his council has shown leadership by asking the community for their preferred amalgamation option before their unanimous decision to amalgamate with Hurunui District Council.
Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, Gordon says he is grateful that Christchurch City Council voted to remain in their current boundaries, and deciding against taking over urban areas of both Waimakariri and Selwyn.
"I've made it very clear from early on that that wasn't a viable option or something that we wanted to see happen."
The mayor also discussed the Pegasus Golf Course fast track application, and his view on building restrictions being mooted by Christchurch City Council and Christchurch International Airport.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that our local councils have made such a hash job of coming up with amalgamation ideas.
These are the ideas the Government has asked for, giving them until this Sunday to send them through.
They’ve had three months to do it. Which I think isn’t actually long enough. Nevertheless, it’s turned out to be a real dog’s breakfast. And, because of that, I think we’re just going to have to let Wellington decide what happens.
So the city council is going to vote on its preference today. Waimakariri councillors are also voting today on what they want to happen.
But, already, Mayor Phil Mauger is saying he thinks the urban areas of Selwyn and Waimakariri should be cherry-picked and become part of Christchurch. With the remaining bits joining up to create some sort of new rural council.
This is the first time Phil Mauger has talked publicly about his preference. Up until now, he’s been all tippy-toe on it, not wanting to brass-off the other councils, apparently.
But, now that he’s talking, he’s gone nuclear on it. Especially, when you consider the consequences of what he’s talking about.
Picture this: Selwyn has already said no to any merger. Its councillors have said they’re not interested in merging with any other council.
And the only change they’re prepared to make is taking on the work Environment Canterbury currently does in its area. Because regional councils like ECan are getting the chop as part of the local government reforms.
So we’d have Selwyn wanting to stay independent from all the other councils around here. But, at the same time, you’d have Phil Mauger trying to take places like Rolleston, Lincoln and Prebbleton off Selwyn.
As well as taking Kaiapoi and Rangiora off Waimakariri and letting the bits left in both Selwyn and Waimakariri join up to create some sort of rural council.
That’s never going to happen. Which leaves us with one option: the government stepping in and banging some heads together.
Because Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri have blown it. Which is exactly what the government is going to think too when it sits down on Monday and looks at the hotch potch plans the three councils in the greater Christchurch area have come up with.
This was their chance to lead. Their chance to determine the future of local government. But they’ve blown it, because of petty parochialism.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Opposition Leader Chris Hipkins says while Winston Peters performs well in some aspects of his Foreign Affairs portfolio, he would not keep him in the role if Labour were elected.
"There's parts of the job he does quite well, you've seen him up to the Pacific, he does quite a good job of schmoozing in the Pacific and strengthening New Zealand's relationships there"
"If not being racist is a key criteria, he's doing a terrible job."
Hipkins' comments come after Peters told Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan to "Go back to his own country" in the House last week. Xu-Nan was born in China and has lived in New Zealand since 1997.
Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, the Labour leader also discussed the latest Roy Morgan poll, Labour's plan to raise the birth rate, and ACT's policy to remove disruptive students from classrooms.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There are two types of people in the world.
There are the ones who think Prime Minister Christopher Luxon shouldn’t be apologising for what he said to business owners at a meeting in Rotorua the other day.
And there are the ones who think he should. And I’m one of them.
Because what he said was so dismissive and so tone deaf, that he had no other option but to apologise. Which he did yesterday.
What happened, is the Prime Minister was at a business breakfast in Rotorua organised by the local Chamber of Commerce. Which, you would think, would be the type of gathering where there’d be absolutely no chance of him putting his foot in it.
Because business people are his people, aren’t they?
But he did. And, quite rightly, he has apologised. Because if I was one of those business owners at that event, I would be furious.
It happened when the Rotorua Business Chamber’s Melanie Short stood up and said the city had experienced the “sharpest fall” in business confidence in almost a decade.
She said: “The affordability of doing business, it’s getting harder and harder. How long can we hang on?”
Christopher Luxon, though, wasn’t having any of that sort of talk.
He told her that her view was “quite negative”. He said New Zealand businesses needed to move away from a “parent-child mentality” of waiting to see what the government is going to do for them.
“Who cares what the government will think or do?”, he said. Which I thought was a staggering comment to make, considering he is the leader of a political party that bangs on all the time about National being the party for business people.
Thankfully, the Chamber of Commerce boss wasn’t going to be shut down and went on to tell him about the Chamber’s Business Pulse survey, that’s done twice a year.
She told him that the latest survey had found optimism among members in relation to where the economy is going had dropped 62 percent.
And that members’ confidence in their own businesses had dropped 43 percent. And that they were absorbing a lot of the rising costs they’re dealing with, rather than passing them on.
Because business is down enough, without giving customers more reasons not to buy their products or use their services.
But Luxon was having none of it.
He told the people in the room that, if they weren’t “retooling and radically disrupting” their businesses then “you ain’t doing your job”.
He said he knew the reality of running a business. And said when he was, “the last person I wanted to ever talk to as a CEO was the government.”
He said: “I’m a business person. I’m building a kick-ass company that actually has commercially superior returns, great customer experience and awesome internal culture.”
And he went on to say that, when he returned to New Zealand after working overseas, he found that business people here had a “parent-child mentality” and were too hung up on what the government was going to do for them rather than just getting on with it.
He said: “Who cares what the government thinks or does? Our job is to be adult, adult, adult”. Telling his audience to “go out there and smack it and go create the road”.
Over the weekend, his office was complaining that his comments hadn’t been reported accurately.
But, by late yesterday, he realised he’d put his foot in it and apologised. As he had to do.
Because, even though he’s a former chief executive of Air New Zealand and even though he’s had very senior roles with Unilever in Canada and the U.S., Christopher Luxon has never done what most of those people in that business breakfast have done.
He has never started or owned his own business. He’s been the highest paid employee of some big business organisations, but he’s got no experience of opening or running a business of his own.
Particularly, a small business. Which most businesses in this country are. Which, apparently, are best represented by the party Christopher Luxon leads.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How is it that a political party which attracts its fair share of people who think there are women having babies just to get on the benefit, now thinks we should pay people to have more kids?
It makes no sense to me.
Its great we’re talking about the birth rate problem in this country. But this isn’t the solution.
Because incentivising people with money would only have one outcome. More deadbeats bringing children into the world just so they can get their hands on money from the government.
NZ First has come out with this policy becuase it says it’s concerned about the declining birth rate and thinks people would have more kids if the government paid them $15,000 per child.
Leader Winston Peters says the payments would be available to New Zealand citizens for up to three children, meaning families could receive as much as $45,000 from the government.
Former Work & Income boss Christine Rankin can smell a rat. She’s saying today the fact that NZ First would limit these payments to families where at least parent is a New Zealand citizen, means it’s more anti-immigration than pro-family.
And, like me, she sees it being something people would take advantage of for all the wrong reasons.
Such as the deadbeats I’ve already mentioned. But also, she says, people struggling who would look at the chance to make $45,000 if they had three kids, see it as a decent chunk of money, and not think about the ongoing costs once the kids turn three and the government money dries up.
Australia's already tried it. They started paying families a baby bonus in 2004 to encourage people to have more babies.
The line the Australian government used at the time was “have one for your husband and one for your wife and one for the country".
But it was scrapped in 2013. For several reasons.
Their government realised it couldn’t afford to keep it going. It was paid to anyone and everyone, meaning rich families who had kids got the money - even though they didn’t need it. And the public didn’t like that.
The other reason it was dropped, is that people were using it to by things like big screen TVs and flash phones. The kinds of things new babies really need.
And I can tell you now, the exact same thing would happen here.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The weird thing about Winston Peters is that, when he’s overseas, he’s all Henry Kissinger or Kofi Annan on it. The ultimate diplomat.
But then he comes back here, goes through Customs, and turns into Nigel Farage.
Which is why, on one hand, we shouldn’t be all that surprised by the appalling things he said to Chinese-born Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan. Comments which, quite rightly, are being described as racist. And which he needs to apologise for.
Politicians across the political spectrum are saying the same thing - including some of his own coalition colleagues. National’s Simeon Brown is one of them.
Because, of course, telling someone to go back to where they came from is racist. It’s also dumb, when this person you’re accusing of only being here five minutes - as Winston Peters did - has lived here more than 30 years.
Christopher Luxon, though, is being Christopher Luxon. At least he isn’t taking Winston’s side, but the strongest thing he seems too capable of saying is that Winston Peters has a long track record of making inappropriate comments. And that what he said was “unhelpful”.
Which just plays into those tired old excuses that some people keep making for the NZ First leader. You know: “Oh, that’s old Winston up to his usual tricks”.
And, yes, he is up to his usual tricks. But is that an excuse for such appalling, antiquated behaviour? Not in my book.
And that’s why he has to apologise. He can’t be sacked as Foreign Affairs Minister. So he has to apologise.
So how this all started, is that Peters was speaking in Parliament’s debating chamber and this Green MP - who was born in China and moved here when he was a child in 1994 - started a bit of the usual heckling that MPs on all sides of the House like to do.
Peters was talking about the Covid inquiry and Lawrence Xu-Nan called out, asking if he was vaccinated.
Winston wasn’t happy about that and said: “Go back to your own country. You only came here just five minutes ago. Go back to your own country, that's where they lie like a flat fish. But they don't lie like that here, alright. This is what we call democracy.”
Saying: “This is called a democracy, unlike what you’re used to.”
Not surprisingly, China isn’t happy.
And former Trade Minister and former Speaker of the House Sir Lockwood Smith says that’s going to be a bit of a problem. Because China now knows how he feels about our biggest trading partner.
The other thing, is that if racism isn’t tolerated anywhere else - if it isn’t tolerated at schools and universities and at workplaces - then why should it be tolerated at Parliament?
Answer is: it shouldn’t.
What’s more, the Human Rights Commissions says this on its website: “In 1972, New Zealand signed up to the UN’s International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This requires the government to take action to eliminate racism and racial discrimination and promote understanding between all races in Aotearoa New Zealand.”
For now, Winston Peters is part of New Zealand’s government - one of its most senior ministers - and, as part of that government, he is obliged to honour this commitment.
And, instead of pushing back and saying that those of us who think he’s behaving like an out-of-touch fossil are just pearl clutchers indulging in faux outrage, Winston Peters needs to pull his head in and apologise.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If anyone tells you today that they believe all this talk about the government being more transparent when the next pandemic hits, just put it down to a bit of the old Covid brain.
And, if you find yourself believing it, just tell yourself too that that’s what it is and that it will eventually wear off and you’ll come to your senses.
Because are we really expected to believe this?
So, what’s happened, is the government has released its response to the Covid-19 Royal Commission of Inquiry.
The inquiry which made 63 recommendations. All of which have been accepted by the government in some way, shape or form.
With Health Minister Simeon Brown saying that a key thing is going to be rebuilding New Zealanders’ trust. After the way things went during Covid.
Which is why he’s saying that, next time, any key advice used by the government to make decisions which affect our individual rights will be made public within five working days.
Which sounds great, doesn’t it? But don’t think for a minute that that will mean you and I knowing more and understanding things more.
Because, for starters, while the current lot might think this should happen. There’s no guarantee any future government will think the same. Can you imagine Labour, for example, signing up to this?
They're not going to make this any sort of legal or constitutional requirement. It’s just what the current government says, in an ideal world, should happen. And has its fingers crossed that another crowd in government would feel the same.
Also, what Simeon Brown isn’t telling us, is the level of detail the government of the day would share with us. Within five working days.
There’s a big difference between releasing information that is useful and enlightening and releasing information just because you said you’d release information.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If we’re not prepared to stop paying the NZ Super pension to people whether they need it or not, then we need to think very seriously about whether we pay it to people who move here from overseas.
Sounds tough, I know. But, hopefully, this revelation today that we are paying $1 billion a year in pension payments to people from other countries - double what it was 10 years ago - will bring us to our senses.
Because we can’t keep carrying on the way we are.
So, $1 billion a year in pension payments is going to migrants over the age of 65. Which Finance Minister Nicola Willis is OK with, saying changes that require someone to be a New Zealand resident for 20 years - instead of 10 years - are enough.
Winston Peters, though, disagrees, saying that we should “watch this space” for some sort of announcement from NZ First sometime soon.
But, if we go by what NZ First has said previously, the party could be about to announce that it’s bringing back an idea that it floated about 10 years ago but never got anywhere with.
But it’s an idea I like.
So what NZ First has talked about previously, isn’t stopping paying the pension to migrants full-stop. But running a pro-rata system, based on how long they’ve lived here between the ages of 20 and 65.
Funnily enough, Labour and the Greens supported the idea when it was floated in 2015. But National, at the time, opposed it, with some of its MPs saying the policy was “disgusting, bigoted and racist”.
It seems, based on what Nicola Willis is saying today, that it hasn’t changed its tune since then, either.
But something needs to change. Because, over the next 30-odd years, the number of pensioners is expected to roughly double. And the cost of the NZ Super scheme during that time is expected to grow 1.5 times faster than the economy.
Which is why Winston Peters is right when he says we haven’t gone far enough just requiring migrants to be New Zealand residents for 20 years before they qualify for the pension, instead of 10 years.
The thing is, I understand how odd it would be for someone to move here, spend a decent chunk of their working life here, and then - when they turn 65 - be told that there’s no pension for them and to fend for themselves.
But when the cost of the NZ Super pension scheme is going to blow out to the extent that Treasury says it is, what do we do?
Banning people who move here from overseas from getting the pension would put us at odds with other countries, such as the UK, where you can go and get a pension after being there for 10 years.
That’s why I think the pro-rata idea, that NZ First may be about to resurrect, would be a much more realistic approach. Because doing nothing isn’t an option anymore.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I wonder if Christopher Luxon woke up this morning and thought he might have jumped the gun a bit yesterday, saying he wasn’t interested in working with Opportunity.
Possibly not. Because, as one political commentator said recently, the National Party leader and Prime Minister has a few faults, but self-doubt isn‘t one of them.
Either way, I think he should be having second thoughts. Because, when you’ve got a party sniffing around the 5 percent mark needed to get into Parliament, there’s a very real chance they’ll be needed down the track.
And I think Christopher Luxon might very well have to eat his words come election night and get on the blower to Opportunity leader Qiulae Wong and ask her to forget about what he said yesterday.
I’m confident in saying that because I’ve been amazed at the number of people across the political spectrum who have told me that they’re thinking very seriously about voting for Opportunity in November’s election.
Now I know thinking about voting for them and actually voting for them are two different things. But I think ruling them out of any arrangement after the election is very shortsighted.
Of course, as soon as you mention Opportunity, people start reminding you about their land tax policy.
Which is one of the reasons why Christopher Luxon says National doesn’t want a bar of them. With Luxon saying that National doesn’t do business with “people who want to increase taxes”.
Which is consistent with what National is saying in its pre-election advertising about Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori tripling our taxes.
So Luxon is very much “on brand” with yesterday’s announcement.
But, when you look at the state of the coalition right now, the National Party is going to need as many friends as it can get come November.
And, if you look at the state of the country right now, I think Opportunity is one of the very few parties prepared to front up and state the obvious.
That we can’t expect things like hospitals and schools and the pension, without doing our bit and paying our taxes.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Congratulations to Catholic Bishop Michael Gielen, who has announced that he’s not going to be asking the city council or the government for money to rebuild Christchurch’s Catholic Cathedral.
This is the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament on Barbadoes Street, which was demolished after the earthquakes.
And I think the Anglicans need to take a leaf out of his book and drop their request for more public funding.
It’s expected to cost $80 million. The church says just over half of that will come from insurance and selling assets. The rest will come from fundraising. Half of which has already been raised. Talk about just getting on with it.
The key thing for me from yesterday’s announcement, is that the Catholic Bishop won’t be putting his hand out to ratepayers and taxpayers.
Instead, he’s asking Catholic parishioners to donate the money that still needs to be found.
Talk about learning from the debacle the Anglican Cathedral project has become.
Also, to be fair, when you’re building from scratch, you can be more confident about your costings. Compared to when you're fixing something up.
So, when Catholic parishioners went to mass yesterday, a letter from the Bishop was read out to them.
In it, Bishop Gielen said he hoped every Catholic in the diocese would contribute over the next five years.
It’s a structured gifting programme. Giving local Catholics the option of donating $10-per-week over five years - which would add up to $2,600. Or $25-per-week for five years - which would add up $6,500.
We know partly why the Bishop is taking this approach. Because he will have seen the Anglicans get the push-back from central government when they went asking Nicola Willis for more money.
Her argument was that the Anglican Cathedral in Cathedral Square is a place of worship and not a truly public facility. And she would say the exact same thing if the Catholics knocked on the door asking for money.
So the Catholics didn‘t have much of an option, other than to put their hands out to parishioners.
But, as Bishop Gielen says, when the original cathedral was built, it was the Catholic parishioners who paid for it then. So it makes sense to do the same thing again.
While I think the Anglican Church should be doing the same and dropping this idea of getting more money from the city council and the government, I doubt they will.
Because there’s this superiority thing going on. This thinking that the real cathedral, or the only cathedral worth worrying about, is the one in Cathedral Square.
There’s the fact too that it’s the Anglican Cathedral putting the handbrake on any further development in the square. Whereas, the Catholic Cathedral site is conveniently out of the way on Barbadoes Street.
But that doesn’t change my thinking that the Anglican Church and the people involved in the Anglican Cathedral reinstatement should be watching what the Catholics and doing the exact same thing.
Because, if local Catholics are being expected to have some skin in the game, then local Anglicans should too.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I know the real reason why Federated Farmers is so brassed-off with Environment Canterbury. Nevertheless, I agree with them.
They’re saying that ECan is showing “flagrant disregard” for the community, with this push it’s making for Ngāi Tahu to have a permanent role in the region’s resource management after ECan disappears.
Because, with the Government’s local government reforms, ECan is toast.
But what ECan wants to do before it goes out of existence, is sign a deal with Ngāi Tahu and eight of the 10 Canterbury rūnanga, which would have given them a mandatory, permanent role in planning, resource consent processes, monitoring and reporting.
Which has got Federated Farmers’ RMA spokesperson Mark Hooper all excited. He is condemning the move - saying it shouldn’t be happening before the local government reforms. And he wants the Government to step in and tell ECan to drop the idea. And I agree with him.
The real reason Federated Farmers is so spooked by this, is that it wil be thinking that it’s a repeat of the co-governance sideshow we saw with the previous Labour Government’s 3 Waters reforms.
But what ECan is doing here is, to put it politely, a case of the cart before the horse. And the Government must step-in and tell them to drop it.
Because, if these reforms are going to be worth all the upheaval, we can’t have any premature side deals and arrangements being made before it’s even known how many councils there are going to be and where they’re going to be.
To me, this move by ECan looks like an outfit that has its nose out of joint because of the reforms and wants to make some sort of political statement doing this deal with Ngāi Tahu.
What ECan will tell you, is that, since 2013, it’s had an agreement with Ngāi Tahu which effectively means it doesn’t do anything without getting the iwi’s approval first.
But, because ECan is going to be disestablished, it wants to sneak this one through before the lights go out.
Which is a bit like someone selling a business and, before they hand over the keys, giving all the staff a massive pay rise and signing them up to lifetime contracts.
Which wouldn’t be tolerated. And that’s why this move by ECan, which is refusing to talk about it, shouldn’t be tolerated.
As Mark Hooper from Federated Farmers says: “ECan is showing flagrant disregard for its community, pushing this through with no public notification before it appeared on the agenda.”
He says: “That’s deeply concerning and we’re calling on the Government to intervene, so councils can’t rush these agreements through before the system is reformed.” And he’s spot on.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Dan Rosewarne joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
Doocey rejected claims the Woodend Bypass has been put on the back burner, while Rosewarne accused National of over-promising and under-budgeting, and said Labour would prioritise its construction.
However, when repeatedly asked whether Labour would deliver it sooner than National, Rosewarne couldn't provide a clear explanation of how that would be achieved.
They also covered some of the other biggest stories from the week, from David Seymours idea to ban smartphones for under-sixteens, to the Green's new policy to make union membership opt out rather than opt in.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
ACT Party leader and Acting Prime Minister David Seymour joined John MacDonald in the studio.
They discussed his idea of a smartphone ban for under-16-year-olds, Paul Henry throwing his hat into the ring for ACT, and Seymour's views on the Government’s school lunch programme.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The political angst over kids on social media has gone next level with this idea David Seymour is pushing today.
He’s saying that, instead of banning kids under-16 from social media, we could just ban them from having smartphones.
Quite rightly, he thinks it would be too easy for kids to get around a social media ban, that the likes of National are in favour of.
And I couldn’t agree with him more on that.
But banning kids from having a smartphone? Dream on!
At least with the social media ban idea, it sounds good on paper. And only on paper.
But trying to ban kids from having a smartphone doesn’t even sound good on paper.
I’m not sure what David Seymour is trying to do here. If he just doesn’t support a social media ban, leave it at that.
Because we know already that it isn’t working in Australia.
In just the past week, we’ve found out that over there it’s failed at the first hurdle.
Because the social media companies aren’t even complying with the requirement to check the ages of new users.
As I’ve said all along, we should - at the very least - be waiting for this experiment in Australia to show some positive results before we start going down the same track.
But it won’t work. The early results show that. And we shouldn’t be thinking it would work any better here.
Because the horse has already bolted. And the horse is going to keep on bolting. Because that’s what happens in the online world and the technology world.
Kids under 16 wouldn’t just use virtual private networks to access their social media accounts. There’d be some kids who would create their own social media platforms. That’s how it is.
And don’t just listen to me. Listen to experts from Queensland University who say banning under-16s from social media is a pipedream.
They say there is insufficient evidence to show social media is responsible for the increase in youth mental health problems. They say some marginalised young people actually benefit from social media. Example: I remember hearing someone who works with young members of the Rainbow community saying that social media can be really valuable for the kids he works with.
These researchers in Australia also say there is a lack of clarity as to what social media actually is. For example, are all those WhatsApp groups you’re part of, are they social media?
David Seymour needs to forget about this idea of the government coming in and telling kids they’re not allowed to have a smartphone. Because, just like the kids using VPNs to access social media if they were banned from using it in New Zealand, they’d also get around a smartphone ban. Because it wouldn’t stop them using their laptops and tablets.
So it’s a weird idea David Seymour is floating today. The fact that it’s coming from someone who is all for personal freedoms and liberties, makes it even weirder.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger has pushed back on a Councillor's suggestion the city's relationship with central government is failing.
Heathcote Councillor Nathaniel Herz Jardine says the council is still waiting for a reply after writing to South Island Minister James Meager in February.
According to Herz Jardine, the lack of communication is creating uncertainty around infrastructure planning and future collaboration with the Government.
However, Mauger says those concerns are overstated.
Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, he described the comments as "bollocks" and said he speaks with Meager "from time-to-time".
"We're doing okay and I don't want Christchurch to be seen as greedy buggers."
Finance Minister Nicola Willis claimed last month the Christchurch City Council did not ask for anything in this year's Budget and that was why it missed out on funding.
Mauger also discussed the council's proposal for an additional glass recycling bin, local government amalgamation, and the Government's plans to shift responsibility for climate adaptation planning to councils.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Paul Henry is everything Christopher Luxon isn't. He’s everything Chris Hipkins isn’t. He’s everything his potential new boss, ACT leader David Seymour, isn’t.
Which is why his announcement that he’s standing in this year’s election has taken a lot of people by surprise. And has got some people excited.
But aren’t we over celebrity politicians? I certainly am.
Nevertheless, if there was a political party in New Zealand that Paul Henry might be a good fit for, philosophically, it would be the ACT Party.
But is he a good fit for Parliament? Or is Parliament a good fit for him?
Or, more to the point - is this personality and wit that people are talking about - are they the kinds of things we need in our politicians right now?
I don’t think so.
It’s what the ACT Party needs right now. Because, of the three parties in the current coalition government, it needs a bit of a boost.
And there’s no doubt that Paul Henry’s announcement has put the spotlight on the ACT Party.
But, a lot of the time, publicity doesn’t lead to substance or delivery.
Take Jacinda Ardern, when she became leader of the Labour Party just weeks out from the 2017 election, she was a publicity darling.
She was someone who could spin a good yarn. A great communicator, as they say. But we all got sick of that.
And, as Thomas Coughlan points out in the NZ Herald, Paul Henry’s announcement yesterday was a communications “masterclass”.
Thomas writes: “After a brief introduction from Seymour, Henry gave probably one of the best ‘new job’ press conferences since Dame Jacinda Ardern’s famous 2017 effort after becoming Labour leader.”
He does point out, though, that there were some differences.
Yesterday, Paul Henry wasn’t facing the full gallery of political journalists. He didn’t need to defend any policies. And he didn’t have to look like he could credibly be Prime Minister in a matter of weeks.
Nevertheless, he made a good fist of it. Which you would expect from someone who’s been in the public eye for yonks. Who is well used to talking about himself in front of an audience and who has a truckload of experience in the live broadcast environment. Where you have to think on your feet all the time.
No wonder David Seymour and the ACT Party welcomed him with open arms. Because they need him way more than he needs them. And he has said as much.
But I thought, after the Jacinda Ardern experience, that we were over celebrity politicians.
I certainly am. Which is why I can’t get excited about Paul Henry potentially being in Parliament after this year’s election.
Because I don’t care about charisma. All I care about is substance.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Fresh off the announcement he's headlining Selwyn Sounds 2027, British musician and co-founder of the iconic group Eurythmics Dave Stewart joined John MacDonald ahead of the tenth anniversary for the popular all-day music festival.
They discussed the new sound of Eurythmics all-female band, and how he started creating the renowned 1983 album Sweet Dreams in his bedroom.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If only the people who run Mt Hutt Ski field were also in charge of our roads up and down the country.
Because I think it’s brilliant what they’ve done after a few muppets turned up there at the weekend and decided the request to use chains on the access road didn’t apply to them.
Which meant, of course, they got stuck.
Not only that. They got stuck and caused something like a two-hour delay for a lot of the other people using the road and wanting to get up the mountain and make the most of the brilliant skiing and snowboarding conditions.
In fact, the delay was so significant that they kept the mountain open for an hour longer than usual at the end of the day to make up for the disruption.
But the reason I think Mt Hutt should be in charge of all our roads is that they actually did something about this situation at the weekend.
The very next day, they brought in an $800 fine for anyone who ignores their request or their instruction to use chains on the access road.
And I’m thinking that, if a ski field can do this, should we be doing the same on public roads? Yes we should.
The council in Queenstown has seen the light on this one and, earlier this year, announced a $750 fine for drivers who don’t use chains when they’re required.
So, if it’s good enough for one council and one ski field to crack down on this, why can’t we apply the same logic everywhere else?
I see absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t. And I see absolutely no reason why we can’t.
Because, in Queenstown for example, it’s going to be the police who enforce the chain rule there.
So the cops could do the exact same thing here in Canterbury and everywhere else.
Because, just like Mt Hutt is finding, people do what they’re told if they know there are consequences if they don‘t.
It was Friday when those clowns went up the access road with no chains and got stuck. And, from Saturday, the new fine was in place and everyone has done what they’ve been told to do since.
Unless we do the same for all drivers on all of our roads, the type of people who think it’s all sweet to drive up a ski field access road without chains will do the same everywhere else.
Because there are so many know-alls out there who either think they’re God’s gift to driving or are so selfish that they don’t give two hoots about inconveniencing other people.
I don’t know which ones are worse. The know-alls or the muppets who don’t think twice about the impact their behaviour has. Not only on other drivers, but the people who have to come to their rescue as well.
And I guarantee that taking a leaf out of Mt Hutt’s book and fining drivers on any roads who don’t use chains when they’re supposed to would make a real difference.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Coast to Coast founder Robin Judkins joined Canterbury Mornings ahead of his new album, I'm a Slut for a Beat, that recently released.
The album is composed of a collection of poems transformed into songs and brought to life by a heavyweight cast of local musicians and songwriters.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Yet again, the South Island is taking a back seat to the North Island.
With Transport Minister Chris Bishop announcing that the Government had done a re-think on all the new roads it promised before the last election.
And for us here in the South Island, that means none of the ones we were promised going ahead anytime soon - including the much-anticipated Woodend Bypass.
More than 20,000 vehicles go through Woodend every day and local residents, the council and MP Matt Doocey have been fighting for years for a bypass to divert traffic away from the township.
This has been going on for 20-odd years, or so.
But the Government says there’s no more money for the project. Other than what’s already been approved for design work, land purchases and some early works.
But there’s no money for actual construction of the road and, therefore, no start date. And I wouldn’t put money on it happening anytime soon.
Waimakariri Mayor Dan Gordon isn’t taking no for an answer. And he’s demanding answers from Wellington.
But good luck Dan. Because what you’re fighting here is bigger than just the Woodend Bypass.
What Dan Gordon and the rest of us are fighting is the fact that the South Island has always and will always take a back seat to the North Island.
And, despite what any politician from any political party says, the South Island will always play second fiddle.
And that’s exactly what we’re seeing here.
The Woodend Bypass is effectively on ice. The same with the only other major South Island road promised at the last election - the Hope Bypass, in the Nelson-Tasman area.
As someone was pointing out over the weekend, the Roads of National Significance have become the Roads of North Island Significance.
And it’s not just a Woodend thing. Just look south of Christchurch for another roading example of the South Island playing second fiddle.
Someone was telling me this morning that it took them two hours to get from just south of Ashburton to Christchurch last night.
Another traveller heading home after the long weekend told me they had similar issues on that stretch of road last night. With the average speed between Ashburton and Christchurch about 60 kilometres per hour.
There may have been a crash somewhere. But it just reinforces how hopeless that stretch of road is.
And is another example of how happy Wellington is to dish out the lip service to the South Island, but that’s all.
I’ve never been a “cut the cable” kind of guy. Because that sort of stuff is way too parochial for me.
But, at the same time, I can’t ignore the fact that our political parties - when they’re in government and when they’re out of government - don’t care as much about the South Island as they do about the North Island.
And this announcement about the Woodend Bypass going nowhere anytime soon is just another example.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Whatever happened to this country’s ability to think big on the energy front?
And why is it that we’re not doing the same with solar energy and why are our politicians relying on households to do the heavy lifting?
I mention thinking big intentionally. Because that’s what we did back in the 1970s and 1980s, especially with the big hydro power schemes.
These days, though, instead of thinking big about energy we’re tinkering around the edges.
The latest example is Labour’s solar energy policy which, like National’s policy which came out the other week, is all about getting more households going solar.
Essentially, both policies focus on giving people the chance to take out a cheap loan to pay for solar panels and batteries.
Some banks already offer this. But you have to have a mortgage with them to qualify.
Labour’s policy has a few extras. Such as option for renters to use plug-in panels, which are all the rage in some overseas countries, apparently.
But I reckon that, if our politicians are really serious about using solar to get cheaper and more reliable power supplies, then they need to be thinking bigger than just solar panels on the roof.
And we should be investing in state-owned solar farms.
Instead of relying on people to take out loans and put panels on top of their houses, the government should have some skin in the game and get into the business of mass solar generation itself.
If it was good enough for us to build big hydro power stations back in the day, the state should be doing something similar and building massive solar farms.
You could say it’s already doing a bit of that, with its shareholding in the big power generators.
But I think it could and should do more.
Because, as much as Labour and National will tell us that it’s all about dealing with the cost of living and reducing household power bills, that’s not the real issue.
The real challenge is ensuring we have enough power to keep the lights on at the likes of big manufacturing plants.
That’s the real challenge facing us. And that’s where solar can play a vital role. But we’re not going to do that with you and I getting a cheap loan and adding a few panels and a battery to the house.
Which is why I think large-scale government investment and ownership of big solar farms would be an absolute no-brainer.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I think the animal welfare people are clutching at straws with this last-minute legal action they’re taking to try and stop this weekend’s feral cat hunt.
You’ll know the event. It’s all part of the North Canterbury Hunting Competition. Which raises funds for Rotherham School.
It hit the headlines a few years back when people got all excited that wild cats were going to be included.
As they should be. Because they’re a pain in the backside. Wildcats are pests.
But we had people jumping to all sorts of conclusions. Saying it was going to be impossible to tell whether a cat was wild or domestic. And pet cats could end up being killed. A lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Well, the wailing and gnashing is happening all over again. Except, this time, the animal rights people are going next level and taking legal action to try and stop it.
And wait ‘til you hear some of the claims they’re making.
They being former regional councillor Kathy White, NZ Cat Foundation founder Anne Batley-Burton and a bunch of animal and child protection advocates.
Let’s start with the animal side of it. Because that’s pretty much more of the same.
With Kathy White saying today that “bounty-based slaughter will incentivise the catching of any cat, including pets.”
She says: “We know from watching videos of previous hunts that people pay little attention to checking the cat for a microchip.”
Going on to say: “One video of a dog about to catch a cat cuts out just as the dog is about to tear the cat apart. Not only do they have no idea if the cat is a pet, but there are serious Animal Welfare Act breaches, and we want it stopped.”
The hunt organisers are poo-pooing that. Saying any cat has to be 10 kilometres away from any residential or lifestyle block before it’s taken out. Box traps need to be checked daily, and kids need to be hunting with adults who have a firearms licence.
That’s good enough for me.
But here’s where things get really weird.
The anti-cat-hunt people are now also claiming that the United Nations might also be unhappy about this wildcat hunt. Because they’re saying today that it may contravene the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Saying kids shouldn’t be exposed to violence against animals.
They’ve got a letter from an international law firm, apparently, which has been signed by several animal and child protection organisations and says kids being involved in the wild cat hunt isn’t consistent with New Zealand’s international child rights obligations.
But let’s remember where this hunt is happening and the kids who are going to be involved.
It’s rural and these are farming kids who hunt, anyway. They’ve been brought up with it. Which is exactly what competition organiser Mat Bailey is saying.
He says: “They’ve seen Dad kill a sheep every month. It’s farming. It’s rural New Zealand, and that’s the thing that these people don’t get because they live in their little Auckland world thinking everything’s lovey-dovey. Well, sorry, it’s not how it works.”
Amen to that. Which is why these people need to give it a rest and tell the lawyers to stand down.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour Leader Chris Hipkins is open to working with the Government on a bill banning social media for under-16s.
Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, Hipkins said any social media ban should go through the select committee process, and New Zealand should take lessons from Australia's recently introduced restrictions.
"We've got to do more to keep our kids safe online, but the Aussie experience has shown that it's not easy".
Hipkins also shared his views on recent policy announcements from NZ First, National and the Greens, as well as China's missile tests in the South Pacific.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Former Defence Minister Wayne Mapp has come out firing today, saying that China’s nuclear-capable missile test yesterday was smack bang inside the South Pacific nuclear-free zone.
Just hours after giving the New Zealand Government a heads-up, China launched a long-range ballistic missile from a submarine into the area. It’s not saying where it was launched from, nor where it landed.
I get where Wayne Mapp is coming from. But there’s a technicality. Which I’ll get to.
It’s being viewed by some as China retaliating to Australia and Fiji signing a new defence alliance, which also happened yesterday.
This is called the Ocean of Peace Alliance.
Anthony Albanese was in Fiji yesterday for that. He’s also heading to the Solomon Islands to continue negotiating a treaty there.
And, when he gets back to Canberra, he’s going to be hosting leaders from Tonga, Samoa and Papua New Guinea.
So, if China was sending a message yesterday, it won’t just be aimed at the Fiji agreement. It’ll also be ticking-off Albanese for his South Pacific charm offensive.
But there’s a chance here that the people jumping up and down about what China did yesterday might look somewhat hypocritical, given the United States did its own missile testing in the South Pacific back in March.
There’s also the fine print in the South Pacific nuclear-free zone agreement. It was originally signed by Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Island countries in 1985 and bans the use, testing and possession of nuclear weapons in the South Pacific area.
China signed up to parts of it two years later, in 1987, but didn’t agree to the no-testing part.
So, technically, it was fully within its rights to do what it did yesterday.
Besides which, it was a dummy missile.
Which is why I think we need to calm the farm and see it for what it is.
It’s just a bit of flexing, and the Pacific region is under no greater threat from China than it was before this happened.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I enjoyed the temporary seating set-up at One NZ Stadium on Saturday night so much, that I want to give it a name.
I’ll admit that, after being told by stadium boss Caroline Harvie-Teare that those of us in the temporary area would only have access to the internal hospitality and toilet facilities until 6pm, I had my doubts.
But I have to say, the experience was brilliant.
We were perched right on the try line and, like many other areas in the stadium, we were so close to the action.
The view was spectacular. Being at the south end of the stadium, we looked straight out to the rest of the crowd.
Granted, the weather was good and going outside to get a drink or go to the toilet wouldn’t have been much fun if it was raining.
But there were more than enough portaloos and topping-up our drinks was straightforward and relatively quick.
Well done too to NZS Group and everyone else involved in getting the seating in place.
I gather that, after 18 months of planning, engineering and building, they worked back-to-back shifts, handling 250 tonnes of equipment.
If anything, they did too good a job. Because stamping the feet wasn’t as effective as it was at Addington.
Nevertheless, even though it didn‘t sound like the old temporary set-up, all the scaffolding and strops certainly looked a bit like it.
Which is why I think stadium bosses should add a touch of nostalgia to the shiny new venue and name the 5,000 extra seats, when they’re needed, the Addington Stand.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
All Blacks legend-turned-All Blacks Tour Guide Ian Jones joined Canterbury Mornings ahead of the first test against the French in Chirstchurch.
Jones now wears many hats, one of them is being the General Manager for the All Blacks Experience in Auckland - taking tourists and rugby tragics alike through the motions of what an All Black or Black Fern experiences before a test match.
He also touched on the improvements in awareness of mental wellbeing in the game, with his perspective of how things were back in the day compared to now.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
All Blacks legend Richard Loe has always worked on paddocks, albeit pasture on the farm or the rugby field.
He joined John MacDonald ahead of the first All Blacks test in Christchurch, what his thoughts are on a "weaker" French side, and they also touched on "Loey's" work on promoting health and safety on the farm.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Inkster company owns a large portfolio of local pubs, bars and restaurants across Christchurch, and they are soon set to have another pub right across the road from One New Zealand Stadium, affectionally called "The Lancaster".
Nick Inkster joined Canterbury Mornings to talk about his journey from moving out of home and straight into buying his own property with his brother, his time working in Western Australia, and how he got to his high position on the local hospitality scene.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The temporary seats are up at One New Zealand Stadium ahead of the first All Blacks test, and Venues Otautahi CEO Caroline Harvie-Teare joined Canterbury Mornings to hear about the excitement brewing for tomorrow night.
She was asked about the fee that Christchurch paid to lock in the test under the roof, and why those on the temporary stands can only use the stadium bathrooms until 6pm on the night.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What were the people at Wolfbrook Property Group thinking when they decided to fill the holes at the Pegasus Golf Course with concrete?
As if they haven’t put enough noses out of joint with their plan to build houses on the site. They’ve now gone and rubbed those noses in the dirt with this carry-on, which one resident is describing today as childish.
And I completely agree.
Yes, I get it that this land is now theirs. I get it that it’s not a public facility. In fact, as the company itself is pointing out, it’s never been a public facility.
And yes, therefore, the public does not - technically - have any right to use it. But what a stupid thing to do.
I don’t have a problem with the company buying the land and wanting to develop it. The golf club at Pegasus went under, Wolfbrook bought the land and it’s theirs. I’m good with all that.
I’m not comfortable, though, with the company using the Government’s fast-track legislation to try and get things happening sooner rather than later.
Fast-tracking it would be bad for something so controversial. Because people need to feel they’ve, at least, had their say and I don’t think that would happen if it was fast-tracked.
And, even though I don’t have a problem with Wolfbrook wanting to turn the golf course into housing, I think they need to calm the farm and pull their heads in.
Because filling the golf course holes with concrete isn’t going to get anyone on their side.
As one Pegasus resident is saying today: "It's sort of pettiness. If they want to protect their brand and if they want to have a good name with their investors, I would have thought they'd be encouraging us to play and perhaps look after the golf course in the meantime until this is sorted out legally."
Couldn’t agree more.
Because it’s not as if the developers want or need to protect the golf course.
As soon as they get it approved, they’ll be moving in with the diggers and trucks and ripping the whole thing up.
So they’re not trying to maintain some sort of pristine facility.
And so what if the people at Pegasus want to use it in the meantime? The company is saying today that, as the owners of the land, they’re the ones paying for its upkeep.
Which, as I say, I get.
But this is not any old piece of land. It’s a piece of land that the people who live at Pegasus believe - wrongly, I think - should stay as it is forever.
The company was buying enough of a fight in the first place. It’s now ramped that up with this behaviour which, quite rightly, is being described as childish.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Jeff Wilson played at the highest level for New Zealand for both the All Blacks and the Blackcaps, and these days he follows rugby all around the world as a Sky Sport commentator.
"Goldie" took some time to chat with Canterbury Mornings ahead of the All Blacks first test of the year, and first match in Christchurch for over four years.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Sam Darry may play for the Auckland Blues, but he grew up in Christchurch.
He’s been named in the starting line-up for tomorrow night's test against France and joined Canterbury Mornings ahead of the first test under the roof at One NZ Stadium.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Yesterday, Treasury released a whole lot of documents showing the advice it gave the Government during the early days of the fuel crisis.
One of the key things was a recommendation not to cut fuel taxes or road user charges, because it didn’t think it was needed.
The Government went with the advice. But, you might also remember, that the Government went a step further than that and said that the fuel tax increase - due to kick in at the start of next year - was unlikely.
Which I thought was a bad move. And I still do.
In the reports I’ve seen about yesterday’s document dump, there’s nothing about any Treasury advice on next year’s increase.
But there’s two reasons for that: 1. This advice was to help the Government deal with things in-the-moment. And 2. When Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop poured cold water on the fuel tax increase, that was just politics.
Because, as you’ll remember, there were all sorts of people crying out for help.
The Government went ahead with the support for low-to-middle income earners. But that was it.
And it knew it wouldn’t be a good look if it said no to everyone else wanting help and, in the same breath, said it was also going ahead with next year’s fuel tax increase.
But that was a bad move by the Government. My view on that hasn’t changed. And that’s why I think the Government needs to bite the bullet and press on with the fuel tax increase early next year. As planned.
There’ll be plenty of people who will say that they couldn’t afford fuel taxes increasing.
But I don’t think the country can afford not to increase them. And I’m not the only one.
Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour thinks the same.
He says the Government shouldn’t do anything to limit its revenue from fuel taxes because of the long-term consequences for the Government’s finances.
And what he’s talking about there, is limiting or restricting the amount of money the Government gets in to pay for road maintenance and construction.
It also helps pay for things like public transport.
The Finance Minister even acknowledged this negative impact when she said a few months back that the fuel tax increase was unlikely to go ahead.
So, in its heart of hearts, the Government knows that increasing fuel taxes is a no-brainer. Which it is.
The Government knows it. We know it. So there’s only one thing for it to do.
It needs to stop being so antsy and it needs to commit to putting the fuel taxes up, as planned, early next year.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Chef and co-owner of Christchurch's popular fine-dining restaurant INATI Simon Levy joined Canterbury Mornings after his restaurant won a Michelin star on Tuesday evening.
He told John MacDonald about his beginnings as a young chef under Gordon Ramsay, and what he reckons won over the judges when they anonymously visited his central city restaurant.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Can we all just accept now that David Seymour’s school lunch programme is a dog’s breakfast?
With this report out from the Auditor-General saying only 50 percent of the lunches are up-to-scratch on the nutrition front and about 20,000 meals a day aren’t being eaten.
The Associate Education Minister has hit back of course, using his usual tricks of discrediting the report and going on about how much money he’s saved.
Tell that, though, to all the people who have been vindicated by this report.
People like Christchurch principal Peggy Burrows who ended up in a tit-for-tat spat with Seymour over mouldy lunches, and who was to blame.
The Auditor-General’s report paints a pretty shambolic picture. It says last year only 50 percent of the school lunch collective’s meals met the ministry of education’s nutrition standards.
That improved a bit later in the year.
I’ll come back to the nutrition part. Because I think a re-think is needed on that front, but I reckon the biggest concern has to be how much food is being wasted.
Not that that’s a major surprise. because we’ve seen plenty of reports of food being fed to pigs and principals getting into trouble for letting their staff take uneaten food home.
Now I’m a big supporter of the government providing school lunches.
But I can’t support that level of waste. 20,000 meals a day.
I’m a big supporter because, as anyone will tell you, it’s no use sitting a hungry kid in front of a teacher.
You know what it’s like trying to do something yourself when you’re hungry, hopeless, and that’s why we just can’t have hungry kids at school.
And if that means the government feeding these kids at lunchtime, then I’ve got no problem with that.
But I can’t turn a blind eye to 20,000 meals a day being chucked out. Which brings me to the criticism in this Auditor-General’s report that the school lunches aren’t nutritious enough.
I’ve always said that we can go on as much as we like about our school lunches when we were kids being pretty basic.
And I guarantee my school lunches would never have met these nutrition standards the ministry of education has these days for the lunch programme.
The difference is, though, I didn’t go to school hungry in the first place. I had breakfast and I had dinner at night.
Some kids these days don’t, but aren’t we defeating the purpose if the kids themselves aren’t even eating the lunches because they don’t like them?
Which is why I think the ministry of education needs to accept that it's got things wrong. It needs to go back to what you might call the basics and serve up something the kids will actually eat.
And if that means something basic like a cheese sandwich, then do it. Because eating something has to be way better than eating nothing.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I think the people at the NZ Initiative thinktank need to have an away day in Christchurch
Then they would understand why I’m poo-pooing this claim they’re making today that having multiple local councils in close proximity to each other is a good thing.
Because if there’s one thing that proves how wrong they are, it would be the disjointed situation we have with housing developments in Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri.
A situation I would sum up as the left hand having no idea what the right hand is doing.
So what the NZ Initiative is saying, is the government is wrong reducing the number of local councils. It thinks that having multiple councils in close proximity to each other is a good thing, because it allows them to keep an eye on each other.
I think he’s wrong. And I don’t think our three councils have any idea what each of them is up to.Because we have the Christchurch council flat out consenting townhouses and apartments to get more people living in the central city.We have Selwyn building homes too fast for the infrastructure to keep up. And, in Waimakariri, we’ve got that 850-home development proposed for Ohoka.Not to mention the Pegasus golf course development.
If these three councils were keeping an eye on each other, as the NZ Initiative guy seems to think they are, we wouldn’t have this piecemeal approach to housing developments.
But we do.
Christchurch city council has been signing off any townhouse or apartment development that comes across its desk, meaning all the people wanting to build or live on a full section in a 3- or 4-bedroom house are flocking to Selwyn and Waimakariri. Selwyn, especially.
So much so, that the infrastructure in Selwyn isn’t keeping up
You might have seen the reports about developers striking problems with sewerage capacity.
Selwyn council’s executive director of building, planning and regulatory services, Robert Love, says the systems in Selwyn are definitely under pressure.
He says: “The scale and speed of growth in Selwyn is among the highest in the country, which creates ongoing pressure on all infrastructure networks. While significant investment is being made and major infrastructure upgrades are under way or planned, including working with Selwyn Water, our treatment plants and networks are currently nearing capacity.”
And that, right there, is proof that the three councils in the greater Christchurch area are not keeping an eye on each other - as the NZ Initiative claims - and is proof that we desperately need one council. To get a much more co-ordinated approach to where homes get built.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’ve never been on a sickness benefit. But I imagine that, for anyone who is, the government telling you what you can and can‘t spend your benefit money on, and spying on you to make sure you toe the line would be pretty degrading.
Tell that to the ACT Party, though.
Not only that. In this policy announced yesterday, instead of your own GP signing you off for the sickness benefit, you'd need to see a government-approved doctor.
Which sounds a bit like ACC, doesn’t it?
Last week, when we were talking about ACC, people were telling us about their dealings with ACC’s own doctors and how it felt like their main priority was turning people down.
Which is exactly what it would be like under this system David Seymour wants to introduce for the sickness benefit.
He says a person’s GP or specialist would still be able to provide medical history details, clinical notes and supporting evidence. But it would be doctors employed by the government who would decide whether someone qualifies.
And we know what would happen, don’t we? More and more people would be turned away. We know that, because the only reason David Seymour wants to make these changes, is to get less people on the benefit.
David Seymour says these government-employed doctors would have one job. Getting people back to work. Which sounds all kind and supportive. But I don’t buy that for a minute.
Then there’s this bit where he wants to stop paying the sickness benefit into people’s bank accounts.
Instead, the benefit would go onto a payment card that would track how the money is spent and wouldn’t let people spend it on alcohol, gambling and tobacco, or get cash out.
This would kick-in after someone has been on the benefit for four months.
I’m not sure which of these two ideas is worse.
Getting through the hoops with these government-employed doctors, as I say, sounds like ACC all over again.
But I actually think telling people what they’re allowed to spend the benefit money on and forcing them to use this special card that would be monitored by the government would be nothing short of degrading.
Because, yes, I know there will be people out there on the sickness benefit who are taking the mickey.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I don’t know what to make of the fact that thousands of people have put their name to this petition calling for the Christchurch City Council’s rates increase to be paused and put to a referendum.
I don’t know what to make of it for a couple of reasons.
First of all, I’m not a petition guy. Because I don’t think they achieve much.
It’s very easy to stick your name on something. But does it achieve anything? No.
The other reason I can‘t believe people are getting behind this, is that they seem to have forgotten what city councillors are elected to do.
They’re elected to make decisions. And one of the biggest decisions they have to make every year, is how they’re going to spend ratepayer money.
Which means that, quite a lot of the time, they get criticised left, right and centre.
Like yesterday, when I was ripping into the council for getting involved in this apparent bid for a second professional NRL rugby league team.
But I’m not starting a petition over it. Because, while I might think it’s not what the council should be getting involved in, I respect the fact that it’s the job of the councillors around the council table to make the decisions.
Just like it’s their job to decide how much of a rates increase they need to hit us with to make the city tick.
Tell that to James Pawson, though. He’s the guy behind the petition. Who is saying today that the 7.35 percent rates increase the council has signed-off on is a burden and people should get to have a say before being expected to pay up.
He’s dreaming. Just like the 7,000-plus people who have put their name to the petition in the past 48 hours. No doubt us talking about it this morning will get more people adding their names.
One of James’ particular concerns, is the council including $15 million in the budget for the Anglican cathedral reinstatement.
His introduction to the online petition describes this particular spend as “staggering”. Saying: “It raises critical questions around funding priorities and equity, especially in an economic climate where many residents are already facing financial hardships.”
He says: “The decision to allocate $15 million of ratepayer money to a project that should arguably be funded by the Anglican Church sends the wrong message to the people of Christchurch who are directly affected by this rates increase.”
What James doesn’t say in his petition blurb, is that the council’s $15 million is dependent on the government chipping-in the same amount. And we know that’s never going to happen.
Yes, Winston Peters has pledged $15 million if he’s part of the next coalition. But that’ll be forgotten about.
Just like he was going to be the first person to walk into the Pike River mine. Remember that promise?
And whether I agree with the council wanting to spend more on the cathedral or not, it comes down to the fact that it’s the job of the council to make these decisions.
What’s more, if the people signing this petition want a referendum on this rates increase because they’re brassed-off about more of their rates going into the cathedral or whatever, what happens next time there’s something they disagree with?
Have another referendum? No thank you.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Newstalk ZB's voice of football Jason Pine joined Canterbury Mornings live from Vancouver ahead of New Zealand's game against Belgium.
The All Whites must win against The Red Devils tomorrow afternoon to secure any change of proceeding to the round-of-32.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from Nationals solar panel policy, what can be done to make rural roads safer, and if the fast-track process is appropriate for the Pegasus Golf Course.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The idea of having a National Rugby League team based in Christchurch sounds brilliant.
Last weekend, when the Warriors were here, the place was teaming with people. Four-thousand of them from out of town.
Including a couple of National Rugby League honchos from across the ditch who, no doubt, were eyeing up One NZ Stadium and thinking they’d like a bit of the action here.
Which has the Christchurch City Council all excited. Because, apparently, it’s getting involved in trying to get a new NRL team up-and-running here.
It would be New Zealand’s second team in the competition, along with the Warriors.
The question is, though: Is this something the council should be getting itself involved in? Is it the council’s job?
My answer to that is, no.
So, what’s happened, is reports have surfaced that the city council is trying to bring two rival groups together to make a joint proposal for a new South Island-based NRL team.
It’s all tight-lipped on it. Refusing to say yay or nay.
But, as it’s being reported, it’s getting involved because the advice has been that, if a bid for a second NRL team in New Zealand is to be successful, then it needs community backing.
A bid just from a privately-owned outfit isn’t enough.
And that is why I don’t think the council should have any involvement in this.
Because this “community backing” is code for community money. Community underwriting.
And I’m not just making that up. Because there’s a new NRL club starting up in Australia next year called the Western Bears.
It’s had a truckload of public money poured into it by the Western Australian government, which has poured $85 million into it.
Now I’m not saying here that the Christchurch City Council is going to be pouring money into this new South Island NRL team if it eventuates. But I am saying that it’s not the council’s job to be involved in any way, shape or form.
Whatever happened to focusing on the basics?
What’s more, these two separate groups wanting to bid for an NRL team here - to put it politely - can’t stand each other.
Why the council would want to be some sort of peace negotiator, I’ll never know.
What it should be doing, is listening to Warriors CEO Cameron George. Who told me last week that, yes, a second New Zealand team would be great. But, first, the NRL itself needs to invest more to grow the game here.
He’s the guy I’m listening to. Because he’s known the realities of running an NRL club for the past nine years.
David Moffett and Sir Graham Lowe should be listening too.
And the Christchurch City Council should be staying well out of it.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour has no plans to change the retirement age. No plan to start means testing the NZ Super pension. Nothing.
Basically, Labour’s plan is for us all to keep sailing into our sunset years with our fingers crossed and the she‘ll be right attitude we’ve clung to for years. And, somehow, we’ll find the money to keep paying to NZ Super pension to anyone and everyone.
I think it;s dreaming. Which is why I’m very interested in what Auckland University economist Susan St John is saying about a middle ground between lifting the retirement age and means-testing the pension.
And, even though I’ve been pushing the idea of means testing for a while now, I’m listening to what she’s saying about this middle ground.
It’s something we’ve done before in New Zealand but, politicians being politicians, they ditched it. Because it wasn’t popular.
The superannuation surcharge, which we had during the 80s and 90s, hit people working beyond the retirement age with a special tax if the money they earned from their jobs went beyond a certain limit.
It got up as high as 25 percent and the politicians got rid of it in 1998 because there was this view that it put people off working beyond the retirement age.
That’s because about a quarter of people over the retirement age had to pay back some or all of their pension.
But, given we have an ageing population and the cost of the NZ Super pension scheme is only going to become even more unaffordable in its current form, then I’m listening to what Susan St John is saying.
Because if means testing the pension is too much for our politicians to stomach and if raising the age of entitlement spooks some of them too, then let’s meet in the middle and bring back the surcharge.
It would be much more straightforward than means testing. Because how you define a person’s means?
Is it just the money they earn over-and-above the pension from their job? Or is it also the money they earn over-and-above the pension from term deposits and other investments?
Does it include any property they own?
With the surcharge or the surtax, it would be very clear.
And just like it was in the 80s and 90s, it would be unpopular. But so what?
As Susan St John says, it would free-up money for those in genuine need.
She’s done the numbers and reckons the surcharge would save us $3 billion, with little or no impact on the majority of low income retirees.
Sounds like the perfect middle ground to me.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Chris Hipkins says he's not worried by his party's showing in Tuesday night's 1News poll, showing his party down 5 points at 30 percent.
Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, the Leader of the Opposition said polls bounce around, but he's confident in the trends he sees in Labour's internal polling, showing them sitting in the "high thirties".
"I never get particularly obsessed about one individual poll, but you do look at the trends of polls, and trends have been showing Labour's support"
Hipkins was also asked his thoughts on the Opportunity Party's continued rise, what Labour knew about the failed $32 million Immigration NZ IT project, and his thoughts on the New Zealand Initiatives' report on ACC.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There were truckloads of people in Christchurch at the weekend for the Warriors game at One NZ Stadium.
How many? 6,000.
That’s how many out-of-towners were here during the weekend just gone. And they reckon the economic benefits for the city will be somewhere in the area of $4.7 million.
That’s on top of the $13 million that came into the city during the big Super Rugby Super Round weekend back in April.
Now, if you’re the government, you’d probably point to that and say this crowd calling today for a new bed tax to help cover tourism costs are barking up the wrong tree.
But I think the government needs to wake up to the fact that councils around the country are struggling to keep up and need a bed tax to take the burden off ratepayers.
The argument being that visitors should help pay for the infrastructure they use. Which I think is an absolute no-brainer.
So what’s happening, is Christchurch is one area pushing for a bed tax to help fund infrastructure and services to support and grow tourism.
The way it would work, is IRD would take in a nationwide visitor and accommodation levy and distribute the money back to the areas where it was collected.
The tax funds could only be used by councils on tourism spending. With the mayors and tourism leaders pushing for it saying it would ease the burden on ratepayers.
And it would be the same rate across the country. That’s why IRD would be involved, so that different places didn’t charge different amounts.
It would be a relatively straightforward solution to a major problem facing areas which have to rely on ratepayer money to pay for tourism infrastructure, as well as all the other stuff.
The government isn’t overly interested. And I know why.
It’s because it’s bought into this weird idea that, if you start charging visitors extra taxes, they won’t bother coming here. Which is such a backward way of looking at it.
Because, if you’ve been overseas, you’ll know how in other countries you pretty much pay to breathe. Slight exaggeration, but you know what I mean.
And if we think that paying a bit extra for accommodation - through this bed tax - is going to put people off coming here, then we’re not very confident about the place or ourselves, are we?
What’s more, this is the government that isn’t interested in a bed tax but, at the same time, increased the visitor levy for people from overseas.
The other thing, is whether a bed tax should only apply to visitors from overseas or whether it should apply to New Zealanders travelling around the country, as well.
My view is that it should apply to everyone - locals and people from overseas. Because when we go to places such as Queenstown or Twizel or up north somewhere, it’s very unlikely that we have contributed anything towards the key infrastructure that supports the tourism sector.
By and large, it’s local ratepayers who pay for that.
So, for me, I think we should have a bed tax in New Zealand. And we should all pay it, wherever we’re from.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Selwyn Mayor Lydia Gliddon joined John in the studio for their regular catchup.
They discussed the council’s response to the Government’s push for council amalgamation, her district’s efforts to slow drivers down and create safer roads in growing residential areas, and her views on Selwyn residents having to pay full price to tour the new One New Zealand Stadium.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There’s one thing I like about the National Party’s KiwiSaver announcement. And there’s one thing I don’t like.
Let’s start with the good bit. Making it compulsory for everyone to have a KiwiSaver account.
It’s amazed me how we say in one breath how critical it is for Kiwis to be saving for their retirement and then, in the second breath, tell people they only have to do it if they want.
Which is like saying to people, what would you prefer? Getting your hands on every last cent of your pay right now? Or would you prefer to have some of it taken away and locked up in a KiwiSaver account?
It’s just like those TV shows where they tell kids they can have one lolly now or two lollies in five minutes. Most of them go for instant gratification.
And that’s how a lot of people are with KiwiSaver. But, if it was compulsory, they wouldn’t have a choice.
Which is why I’m a big fan of this part of what National announced yesterday.
The other bit, though. I’m not keen on. This is where National wants employers to be forced to make KiwiSaver contributions for people working beyond the retirement age.
At the moment it’s voluntary. National wants that to change that. And says, if re-elected, it will make it compulsory for employers to continue making KiwiSaver contributions for staff who work past the age of 65.
I’m not a fan. For several reasons.
For starters, the retirement age is 65. And, until that changes, employers shouldn’t be forced to pay into people’s KiwiSaver if they decide to keep working beyond the retirement age.
Another reason I’m not a fan, is that someone over the age of 65 who is still working is not only getting their wages or salary, but they’re also getting the NZ Super pension from the government.
And, looking at it from the perspective of employers, if National makes it compulsory for everyone to have a KiwiSaver account - as I think it should - that, on its own, will be an extra cost for businesses and organisations.
This from a party that claims to be on the side of businesses.
I also see it backfiring on the people themselves who don’t want to stop working at 65. Because employers will be way less inclined to keep them on if they know they’re going to be forced to keep paying into the KiwiSaver accounts of these older workers.
Which would be a shame. Because no one can argue that people still have a lot to offer beyond the age of 65.
But surely a wage or salary and the NZ Super pension is enough, without forcing employers to throw more money into their KiwiSaver accounts.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Nurse Maude has opened their new state-of-the-art hospice in Merivale this week, with its $16m price tag which has been fully funded entirely from the community.
Board Chair Jane Cartwright joined Canterbury Mornings after the ribbon was cut and their patients had moved in. She discussed why hospice care is so important not just for those who are nearing the end of their life, but for their loved ones as well.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How much does the number of people on the dole actually impact your life?
If you’re like me, it has no impact.
I’m asking because Treasury is putting more flies in the government’s ointment this week, telling it that its goal of having 50,000 less people on the dole in four years’ time than there were when it came into office isn’t going to happen.
In fact - according to Treasury - instead of having 50,000 less on the dole, the numbers will actually be about 60,000 higher than the government’s target.
When it came into office back in 2023, there were 190,000 people getting the jobseeker benefit. The government wants to cut that back to 140,000 by 2030. But Treasury says that’s more likely to be just over 200,000.
So, 60,000 over target.
Social Development Minister Louise Upston says it’s her job to reduce the number of people relying on welfare.
She’s admitting that the target is ambitious. But she says she’s not going to shy away from it, despite what Treasury says.
Now, no argument from me that working is way better than being on a benefit. And, despite the clichés about dole bludgers, I reckon most people feel the same.
Sure, there are some out there who think life on the dole is what it’s all about. But they’re a minority.
I for one, have never seen the unemployment benefit as some sort of lifestyle choice. And I have never encouraged my kids to see it that way, either.
That said, thank goodness we have these benefits. Because those of us who aren’t on the dole, are all just a few steps away from it.
I’d like to think that, if my job ended today, I would have something else lined up pretty quickly.
But I might not. Which is why I never get me all worked up about “dole bludgers”.
Some other people, though. They do. These are the people the government is pandering to with this target. Which Treasury, quite clearly, thinks is a pipedream.
What we should really be getting worked up about today is that it seems there is going to be a growing need for the unemployment benefit over the next four years.
Forget about this arbitrary target of 50,000 less. Spend less time worrying about that and more time worrying about the fact that it looks like unemployment numbers are set to go northwards.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If the device that tells you how many steps you’ve taken could also measure your faith in government departments, what would it be showing after this $33 million debacle at Immigration NZ?
Despite the amount of money involved and the number of years it’s taken to come to light, I’m not in the least bit surprised by this.
But Immigration Minister Erica Standford is “furious”. Not only that, she’s also saying that she’s lost confidence in the public servants responsible for this failed technology upgrade.
A technology upgrade that took seven years and chewed through the cash with nothing to show for it.
What’s more, Erica Standford says Immigration NZ used creative accounting practises to hide crucial information from this government and the last government.
She says these “creative accounting practises” meant that the project's costs appeared to be below the budget agreed to by Cabinet.
One report I’ve seen describes that part of the whole thing as “jaw-dropping”. But I’m not in the least bit surprised.
Because I’ve had experience with government departments and I know how these kinds of things get a life of their own.
I also know how antse people working in these departments are of the government minister they report to.
You put those two things together and what do you get? You get $33 million of taxpayer money going down the gurgler.
You get people doing what they can to avoid brassing-off their minister. And it would seem, in this case anyway, hiding information to avoid brassing off their minister.
And you get people being sucked into these special projects and some of them pretty much see it as a job for life.
I know, because I’ve sat in on meetings and workshops and briefings and wondered whether anyone involved in these projects actually remembers why the government department they work for exists.
That’s why I’m not in the least bit surprised by this.
And that’s why public service boss Sir Brian Roche - if he is serious about this investigation he’s launching - then he needs to be looking way beyond Immigration NZ.
Because who knows where else this is happening?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
One NZ Warriors CEO Cameron George is in town ahead of the Warriors first game under the roof at One NZ Stadium.
He joined Canterbury Mornings ahead of a packed week of events in town ahead of the match against The Cowboys, and was asked what he thinks about the prospect of a South Island ever having its own NRL side.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
"A slap in the face to all Iranian people."
That’s what an Iranian woman living in New Zealand is saying about this peace deal between the United States and Iran.
And I can understand why she feels that way. Because she’s saying it’s another case of meet the old boss, same as the old boss.
Which raises the question: is this actually a peace deal or is it a out of jail card for Donald Trump?
Trump will claim it’s a peace deal. But I don’t believe that for a minute.
But it will be enough to keep the president happy. He’ll probably even add it to his list of wars he has ended. Conveniently ignoring the fact that was also the one who started it.
But never let reality get in the way of delusion.
The benefit for Trump, though, in this whole thing going on way longer than some people thought it would, is that some people will have forgotten why it all started in the first place.
Even Trump seemed to forget pretty early on in proceedings.
But Mehrdad Soltanifar hasn’t forgotten.
She’s an Iranian living in New Zealand and she is gutted by what’s happened.
She’s saying today that any deal with the Islamic Republic is unacceptable. She had hoped the conflict would lead to a regime change and she says any agreement with the current “monstrous” regime feels like “a slap in the face” to all Iranian people.
But for everyone else who isn’t Iranian, they’ll just be thinking about diesel and petrol prices.
But don‘t go thinking it’s going to be back to the old days anytime soon.
Just because Donald Trump has told the shipping companies to start their engines and get the oil flowing around the world again, the outfits that own and run the ships won’t be quite so gung-ho.
Global shipping company Maersk, which has 700 container ships and operates in more than 130 countries, is saying it’s too early to know how the peace deal will impact logistics and maritime operations in the Middle East.
And we know why that is. The risk of mines planted by Iran in the Strait of Hormuz.
Just the other day, the International Energy Agency said it could take a minimum of two to three months of mine clearing for things to get back to what they were before the war.
Which is why the shipping companies will be telling the commander in chief to cool his jets when he tells them to start their engines.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
CEO of One New Zealand and self-confessed Rugby League tragic Jason Paris joined Canterbury Mornings ahead of a massive weekend of Warriors action in Christchurch.
Paris discussed One NZ's longstanding sponsorship of the Warriors, as well as the telco's partnership with Te Kaha, whether his loyalty to the “Wahs” would be tested if the South Island were to secure its own NRL team.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Don’t you think it’s a bit rich of Nicola Willis to be criticising Labour when, last election, she did exactly what she’s accusing Labour of doing? Keeping us in the dark.
Every politician is guilty on this front. Which is why I’m right behind the idea being floated by economist Cameron Bagrie today. He’s saying that we need to set-up an independent outfit that would help us decide whether what politicians are promising stacks up financially.
But let me take you back to the last election. When National was promising tax cuts and saying they were going to be paid for by taxing rich foreigners buying houses here.
The party said it was going to get $740 million from the foreign house buyers and, because of that, we were going to pay less tax.
And, pretty much straight away, economists and tax experts were poo pooing the idea. Which had us all wanting National to say who gave it advice that this was going to work, when everyone else seemed to think it wouldn’t.
And what was National’s response? Not telling you.
I do remember Nicola Willis saying she’d resign if the tax cuts weren’t delivered. But she wouldn’t - and Christopher Luxon wouldn’t - give the type of detail she’s now accusing Labour of hiding from us.
Which economist Cameron Bagrie says could all be avoided if we had an independent fiscal watchdog, separate from Treasury.
He’s saying today: “We saw this in 2017, 2020, 2023. One side has a crack at the other in regards to making their numbers stack up. We’ve been here before. Not surprising.”
It was happening way before 2017. Remember in 2011, when there was a pre-election debate in Christchurch, and John Key trotted out the line, which some people think won him the election.
“Show me the money,” he said to Phil Goff, who was the Labour Party leader at the time.
Fifteen years on, the only thing we can still rely on are the numbers and costings trotted out by the politicians.
Labour’s public transport policy is an example.
They say $65 million and we’ll be in bus heaven. I’m not convinced. Maybe I would be if we had this independent outfit Cameron Bagrie is calling for today.
Just like we would have had numbers rather than the “just trust us” we got from National at the last election over the foreign buyers tax coviering the cost of you and I paying less PAYE.
But we didn’t. We thought it was smoke and mirrors. And that’s what it turned out to be.
Just like Labour’s promises and the $18 billion Nicola says isn’t accounted for.
If we had more transparency, we wouldn’t have to rely on politicians on one side telling us we can afford whatever they’re promising and politicians on the other side saying no, we can‘t.
To give Nicola Willis credit. She has been a fan previously of some sort of way to cost-out party policies.
In fact, she wanted to see a publicly-funded outfit that would have done the numbers and worked-out the actual cost of election policies. Or election promises.
It had the potential to work-out whether all the talk we get from political parties before an election stacks up. It didn’t happen, though. Because ACT and NZ First wouldn't let it happen.
But I think we deserve this kind of transparency. In think an agency separate from Treasury that would tell us exactly how things are on the fiscal front, would be brilliant.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How weird is this? We don’t let people like bus drivers, taxi drivers and truckies drive with alcohol in their systems, but we let everyone else on the road do it.
Apart from people under-20. But everyone else, all good.
Now I know the difference between your average motorist and professional drivers - especially the likes of bus drivers and taxi drivers - is that they’re responsible for the safety of passengers.
But, just like the rest of us, they’re also responsible for the safety of every other road user around them.
And I think it’s time to do away with this double standard and it’s time we had have a zero alcohol limit for all drivers.
They do it in other countries. So why not here?
Because I think this coroner is pushing it uphill saying today that he hopes a case he’s been looking into reminds us of the dangers of drinking and driving.
I sense he’s also banging his head against the wall. Because Stephen Burdes is also saying today there’s nothing more he can add to what we already know about the dangers of drinking and driving.
So he’s just keeping his fingers crossed that, maybe, this latest example will get through to the muppets who think they’re perfectly fine to drive with a few drinks on board.
I don’t like the chance of that happening. Because how many times have we heard about people dying on the roads because of alcohol and nothing changes?
The case the coroner is referring today happened in February 2023.
Michael Sadler and Tangiwai Heurea were regulars at a place called Slim’s Bar in Ōpōtiki. And on the 10th of February 2023 they spent nearly eight hours there drinking.
They arrived at 5:30pm and left at 1:10am the next morning.
That would be their last night at Slim’s Bar. Crashing on the way home after their car left the road on a gentle corner.
They weren’t wearing seatbelts. But, more importantly, the driver - Tangiwai Heurea - had a blood alcohol level five times the legal limit.
They were discovered dead in their car the next day.
You could say that they weren’t the only ones at fault here. Anyone in that bar would have seen how trolleyed they were and could have done something.
The person in charge of the bar that night probably has a few questions to answer too.
But what it comes down to for me, is that we leave it up to individuals to decide whether they’re ok to drive or not. And that’s what makes it so fraught and dangerous.
Fraught and dangerous because of those who think they can handle their grog and they’ve got no problem driving home. Even if they’re a little bit tiddly.
Fraught and dangerous too because, even for the responsible types, it’s still a guessing game whether they should be driving or not.
And we should not be playing guessing games when it comes to drinking and driving.
The best way to remove the guesswork would be to make it easy as and tell people that, even if they have just one drink, they can’t drive.
Because, unless we do, people will keep on drinking and driving and dying. And coroners, like the one speaking out today, will keep on banging their heads against the wall.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National's Hamish Campbell and Labour's Reuben Davidson joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
They covered some of the biggest topics from the week, including Labour's public transport policy, the governments LNG levy backdown, and if the correct process was taken to select Labours latest candidate and current police Superintendent, Rakesh Naidoo.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Waimakariri Mayor Dan Gordon joined John MacDonald to discuss the issues that matter to Waimakariri residents.
They covered the proposed council amalgamation options the council has put out for feedback, and the strong interest from potential partners to help buy back the Pegasus Golf Course from a developer.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What do you think needs to happen with public transport?
According to some, we need to get more people using it. For all the usual reasons: less cars on the road. Lower emmissions. All of that.
Which is why Labour has come up with this election policy which, for those of us in the greater Christchurch area, would mean paying no more than $20-a-week to take as many bus rides and ferry rides as we like.
National’s responded with its own idea. But I think they’re both flogging a dead horse.
At the bus interchange in Christchurch yesterday, people were saying they liked the sound of Labour’s policy.
The same with people using the Diamond Harbour ferry. Bring it on, was their reaction. But no surprises there.
Because, you ask anyone if they want to pay less for something and, of course, they’ll say yes. Which is what this policy would mean.
At the moment, Christchurch public transport users pay a maximum of $30-a-week. Labour is pledging to take that down to no more than $20-a-week.
And, being election year, the government has responded straight away with its own idea. An idea that it, obviously, didn’t think was worth including in the budget a couple of weeks ago.
Nevertheless, today we’ve got transport minister Chris Bishop saying the government could take $450 million from its emergency fund to put more buses on during peak periods.
His thinking is that, if more taxpayer money is going to go into public transport, then it should be spent on improving services - instead of providing subsidies.
But, do you know what I think?
I think we could throw as much money as we want at public transport and it wouldn’t make much difference.
I think National’s idea is better than Labour’s. But I don't think either of them would achieve much.
Not to mention the fact that taking $450 million out of the government’s emergency fund to spend on public transport would be a very risky thing to do.
And this is coming from someone who uses public transport at least a couple of times a week.
I don’t use buses to get to work. So I’m not on them every day. But, here in Christchurch, buses can be a great way of getting around.
But, the thing is, there are two types of people in this world and I don’t see any political party policy changing the way these people behave.
The first type are the ones who have probably always used public transport and always will. They’re already taking the bus now and don’t need any encouragement to continue. Yes, they’ll like the idea of paying less. But they’re converts already.
Then you’ve got the people who have always seen the bus as the loser cruiser and there’s no way in hell they would start using buses just because it’s cheaper.
So that’s why Labour’s idea isn’t going to work.
As for Chris Bishop’s idea of dipping into the emergency fund to put more buses on. I don’t see that shifting the dial, either.
Because we would need to spend way more than $450 million to have a public transport system that the non-users would even think about using.
People would only buy into it if we had services like you have overseas in countries with way more people than us.
Trains, trams, buses and ferries that run day and night - pretty much whenever you need them.
That would be the gamechanger. But we’re dreaming if we think anything like that is achievable here.
So my advice to the politicians is this: don’t think throwing money at public transport is going to get more people using it. It’s not worth the money and effort.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
British actor, comedian and author Alan Davies joined Canterbury Mornings ahead of his first visit to New Zealand in a decade.
He's returning with his new tour, Think Ahead, which he is calling his best show yet.
Davies’ Think Ahead tour will come to the Christchurch Town Hall on Wednesday, August 12. Tickets are available on Ticketmaster.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The reassurances from Labour leader Chris Hipkins that the party is no longer the smug, arrogant outfit we all got sick of three years ago are not only starting to sound hollow. They are hollow.
Because if any other party had recruited a top cop for its party list without the top cop telling police bosses about it until the very last minute, Hipkins and his crew would be going nuts.
And if he wants to deny that, then he’s more arrogant than I’m giving him credit for.
But, given it’s not another party and it’s the Labour Party that announced yesterday that Superintendent Rakesh Naidoo was number 13 on its list, it’s not a problem, apparently.
In fact, Hipkins is saying that Naidoo has handled the matter with integrity.
I’d like to see him say that to Police Commissioner Richard Chambers, who is brassed off that Naidoo waited until last Thursday to tell him that he was intending to stand for Labour.
And it wasn’t until Sunday - the day before Labour released its party list - that the commissioner found out that Superintendent Naidoo had actually accepted a list spot.
Which is very bad form, because who knows what information Labour’s latest candidate has been privy to? Without anyone in the police having any idea that he’s about to run for Parliament for the Labour Party.
Hipkins isn’t commenting on how long the party has been in discussions with the senior police officer, other than saying there had been a couple of conversations over the last few months.
But the Police Commissioner didn’t know about it until it was pretty much a done deal, which is not acting with integrity, as Hipkins seems to think it is.
Acting with integrity would be having a quiet word with the bosses as soon as you start having those quiet conversations with the Labour Party.
Because this isn’t about a cop moving to Australia for a new job. This is about a senior cop signing up to a political party wanting to take down the current government.
The current government that this particular officer serves, whether he likes it or not.
So no, Chris Hipkins, this hasn’t been handled with integrity. And for you to try and convince us that it has speaks volumes about the arrogance of you and your party.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I think we’d be biting off our nose to spite our face if we turned our back on this overseas company wanting to take over the running of the port of Lyttelton.
Because this could be exactly the type of in-road to foreign investment that the government has been banging-on about but hasn’t yet managed to pull off.
Tell that to the unions, though. Which are all antse about executives from global port operator DP World being in Christchurch and wanting to do a deal to manage the port here for as long as 30 years.
The port company and the port’s owner - Christchurch City Holdings Limited - aren’t saying much. Other than acknowledging speculation over what they describe as “a potential proposal” involving DP World and the port company.
But the maritime union isn’t holding back - making all the usual noises. Which you would expect it to make.
Saying it would be a terrible move. Not just for Canterbury. But a bad move for the South Island and the whole country.
It says profits would head overseas and it must not happen.
But before you fall for all the noise, I want you to think about Fremantle, in Australia.
Because it is just noise. Saying something should stay locally-run for the sake of it staying locally-run is noise. There’s nothing the unions are saying about this that convinces me that the port company and the council which owns it shouldn’t, at the very least, think about it.
You might remember Fremantle from the 1987 Americas Cup. It’s also a major port. A major port which has been operated by the same company that wants to run Lyttelton port for the past 20 years.
And we need to be looking at Fremantle before swallowing all the rhetoric regarding this potential deal at Lyttelton.
Because, in December last year, the company started work on an $18 million rail connection at the port. To move more freight by rail - from 22 percent to a third of the freight it handles.
The company itself paid for this.
What’s more, it plans to have spent $1 billion upgrading port infrastructure in Australia by 2028.
Which is exactly what it could end up doing here.
And, if the port company and Christchurch City Holdings are in fact having these negotiations, then that’s exactly the sort of stuff they should be talking about.
They should be saying to DP World, if we agree to let you run Lyttelton port for the next 30 years, we want to see the same infrastructure investment you’re making in Australia.
Remembering too that Lyttelton needs to spend as much as $900 million on its expansion work.
And, if they did manage to get that kind of commitment as part of any deal, then we’d be on to a winner.
Not that I’m drinking all the Kool aid. Because there have been issues in Fremantle since DP World took over 20 years ago.
The unions over there have accused it of putting profits ahead of jobs. But those kinds of accusations are made about the Lytelton port company already.
The unions in Fremantle aren’t happy about DP World wanting to use more automation. Of course they wouldn't be happy about it.
Thing is, though, unions here are going to be concerned about all those things irrespective of who is running the show.
So why not have an outfit with the money behind it running the port and investing in the port in a way we can only dream about?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you ever needed proof that victims of crime are taking a back seat to the criminals, this is it.
And if you ever needed proof that the parole board is out of touch with the rest of us, this is it.
Because on Tuesday this week, convicted rapist George Murphy Starling was released from Christchurch’s Rolleston Prison after serving just two years of a six year sentence.
Why’s that? Because the parole board doesn’t consider him to be an undue risk to the public.
This is a man who drugged and raped two women in Christchurch who has been released from prison after serving two years of a six year sentence.
It gets worse.
But the question we need to be asking ourselves is this:
When it comes to deciding whether to release a criminal from prison, what’s more important? Public safety or the amount of time they’ve spent behind bars?
In this particular case, there’s only one answer. Because I don’t give a damn whether this guy is considered to be a threat or not, which is what the parole board thinks and that’s why it’s let him out early.
I give a damn about the fact that he went to the home of two women. He was waiting for them when they returned from a 21st party. He poured them drinks, vodka laced with sedatives, and after they became incapacitated and went to bed, he went in and raped them.
That’s not the only shocking part of this.
Because he’s not just a two time rapist. He’s a three time rapist.
In 2013, the same guy was sentenced to five years for another rape and got out after two.
So we’ve got a three time rapist out of prison this week because the parole board doesn’t consider him to be an undue risk to the public.
As the judge said when he was sentencing this guy two years ago for raping the two women in their flat, the offending was pre meditated, with him arriving at their place with alcohol mixed with a drug.
The judge said: “These rapes took place inside their own home. They were entitled to feel safe and secure in their own beds.”
Can you imagine how this guy’s victims must be feeling right now?
Well, according to one report I’ve seen, one of them asked the parole board not to let him out because she doesn’t think he’s ready to be released.
At the time this monster was sentenced, one of his victims said it had changed her life forever. That gives us some idea how they’ll be feeling.
As for the rapist himself, he has told the parole board that he now understands what consent is and that he must get consent if he wants to have sex with someone.
For goodness sake. And that’s enough to let him out early after serving two years of a six year sentence?
He’s a monster who should still be behind bars and this decision by the parole board is nothing short of monstrous.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Ahead of the Qualifying Finals round against the Blues, John MacDonald up with Crusaders Coach Rob Penney at Rugby Park.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Reuben Davidson joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from early prison releases, the Pegasus Golf Course, and a petition gaining signatures to increase bereavement leave from three days to ten.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A Christchurch mother is calling for changes to bereavement leave laws.
Sheena Hemens’ 27-year-old daughter Lauren was killed in a car accident nearly three years ago.
Hemens says grief kept her from working for months, but currently, the law only provides three days of leave.
She’s launched a petition to increase minimum bereavement leave to 10 days, saying many people don’t realise how little time they get.
Sheena joined John MacDonald to discuss her petition.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There was a story on the news last night about the government’s push to have fewer local councils and how it’s given them just a few months to come up with a plan.
The threat being that, if they don’t, the government will force it on them.
And a couple of things struck me.
First, it occurred to me how successful the government has been in getting these councils to toe the line.
The councillors and mayors on the news last night were all going on about having the opportunity to choose their own destiny.
Which, for some of them, will be looking for another job.
One of them said it was great to do it to yourself instead of having someone else doing it to you, which they might have phrased a bit differently if they were given the chance.
Nevertheless, I thought that if the government’s objective was to make these councils sit up and take notice, then objective achieved.
The other thing that occurred to me, and I see that Wellington mayor Andrew Little is saying the same thing, is that this local government reform has rip, shit and bust written all over it.
Yes, 67 councils in a country the size of New Zealand is too much. And yes, amalgamating these councils makes perfect sense.
I mean, I’m a big advocate of the greater Christchurch councils joining forces. Have been for a long time now.
But, as Andrew Little is pointing out, establishing the super city in Auckland wasn’t an overnight or rushed thing.
He says the Auckland Council was created after a Royal Commission that ran for years. And he reckons it’s going to be impossible for councils to properly design and submit proposals in the timeframe set by the government.
And he’s right. Although we know why the government’s got the rush on, don’t we?
It’s election year and it needs to be able to say before the election that it’s delivering on its promise to overhaul the local government sector.
But that’s where the risk comes.
Because if the government’s motivation is to put itself in a position where it can trot out that line about getting stuff done, then we may end up with a local government structure no better than the one we’ve got.
Yes, we might have fewer councils, but that might be about it.
Because sometimes there’s nothing wrong with taking your time to do something properly. And, for me, this is one of those times.
We were talking about the Waimakariri Council yesterday and it’s back in the news today, with this public consultation it’s started as part of the plan it has to deliver to the government in just over two months from now.
It’s put three options on the table: staying on its own but picking up the work that ECan does in its neck of the woods, amalgamating with the Hurunui and or the Kaikōura councils, or joining forces with Christchurch City and Selwyn.
Which is all horse before cart, just like the government’s approach is horse before cart.
Because right now things are still up in the air in terms of what these councils are going to be responsible for, especially with the government’s intention to do away with regional councils such as Environment Canterbury.
And until that becomes much clearer than it is now, it is futile asking councils to find another council or councils to join their team, because none of them have got any idea at the moment what they’re going to be responsible for.
So yes, press on with your local government reforms, but do it in a way that means we do actually end up with something better than what we’ve got now, and not just a rearrangement of the deck chairs.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What planet is the Waimakariri District Council on even entertaining the idea of spending public money to buy the golf course at Pegasus?
You’ll know the story behind this. People living in the area, north of Christchurch, are very upset that a large property development company has bought the land where the golf course is and wants to turn it into housing.
The company - Wolfbrook Property Group - bought the land after the golf club at Pegasus went under. And it plans to try and use the government’s fast track legislation to get things happening sooner rather than later.
Like hell, say the Pegasus residents. Who include former cricketing great, Sir Richard Hadlee.
He was at this public meeting last night where the Waimakariri mayor Dan Gordon announced his hair-brained idea the of the council going to Wolfbrook and offering to buy the golf course land back off them.
Which, of course, is exactly the sort of thing the hundreds of people at the meeting last night wanted to hear. But it’s bonkers.
But here's what mayor Dan Gordon said last night: "We have agreed to test whether purchasing the golf course for the benefit of the community could be possible with other partners.
"We've got the support of the council today to explore this, to see if we can protect this asset for the community and safeguard it for its future."
Which is the sort of thing any politician likes to say in front of 400 people. Especially when they all start cheering and clapping.
But, when you take away the emotion of it all, this idea just doesn’t stack up.
Because let’s say the council did buy the land, it would then be on the hook for maintaining it as a golf course.
Remember too that Wolfbrook bought the course for $6 million. Not to mention all the other costs it would have incurred going through the sale and purchase process.
Is that the kind of money a local council should be spending on buying a golf course, just because the people living nearby say the place wouldn’t be the same without it? Of course not.
Now to be fair to Dan Gordon, he did say last night that the council would be looking for other partners to go into cahoots with to buy the land.
But who's going to do that? If there was any other parties out there interested in buying the golf course land and keeping it as it is, don’t you think they would have put their hand up long before now?
Of course they would have.
What’s more - and this is the biggest issue I have with this - if the Waimakariri Council did go and buy the gold course land, what sort of precedent would it set?
Because next time someone somewhere gets upset about a piece of land in their neck of the woods being sold off to developers, they’d go running to their local council pointing to Pegasus, wanting the same strings pulled for them.
That’s why this cannot happen. Because this is not just about Waimakariri. If this happens, every council will be expected to buy up land to keep NIMBYs up and down the country happy.
And who wants that?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I reckon we are dreaming if we think having teacher aides in every classroom is the answer to aggro kids.
New numbers out today show that New Zealand students have been restrained more than 9,000 times since 2023. That’s an average of 15 a day.
The vast majority happen at primary schools and, when we say they’ve been restrained, we’re talking about situations where there is an imminent threat of harm and no other options are available.
So picture that for a second: a school kid is behaving in such an aggressive or violent way that the only option available to their teacher is restraining them.
Physically stopping them from harming themselves or others. That goes on 15 times a day, on average.
Which is something not even the security guards down at Pak’nSave are allowed to do most of the time. But that’s what we’re expecting our school teachers to do.
It’s mad that we expect our teachers to step up and do that, and it’s mad to think that having a teacher aide in the classroom, as well as a teacher, would make any difference.
Because, quite often, we’re not talking here about kids losing their rag. We’re talking about kids who have suffered all sorts of trauma or abuse. And do you really think a kindly teacher aide in every classroom is going to stop them from losing it?
Of course not.
Which is why I think we need to seriously think about what some people might say is the unthinkable, especially here in New Zealand.
Security guards in schools.
Because this isn’t just a behaviour issue. This is a workplace health and safety issue and a public safety issue.
It’s a public safety issue because we know the rest of the kids in these classrooms where this is happening are at some sort of risk, because restraints only happen when there is an imminent threat of danger.
As for the workplace health and safety side of it, why should teachers be forced to put themselves in such risky situations?
I’m not exaggerating here when I say that, if nothing meaningful is done about this, it could be fatal for some teacher.
You imagine how stressful some of these situations must be, not to mention the physical exertion that must be required to get these kids under control, and what that could do to the old ticker.
Not surprisingly, some are blaming the parents of these kids for what’s going on.
But I think that view is way too simplistic. Because, yes, there are some parents who are hopeless when it comes to discipline.
But the kids we’re talking about here aren’t necessarily the products of no-hopers.
Some of the kids being restrained will be neurodivergent, through no fault of their own, or their parents.
Some of the kids being restrained will have suffered abuse and trauma, through no fault of their own, or their parents.
So, we can blame the parents as much as we like. But that won’t make teachers any safer.
And I think the only way to do that, to make teachers safer at work and keep kids safer at school, is to have security guards on site.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Opposition Leader Chris Hipkins says if Labour wins power at this year’s election, it's position on public funding for the Christ Church Cathedral will not change.
Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, Hipkins said the party’s verdict still stands.
“I just don’t think it’s something we can prioritise at the moment,”
Hipkins also addressed leaks from a Labour Party online Q&A, which included Aysha Verrall singing, Barbara Edmonds’ “duckface” comment, and Greg O’Connor’s criticism of the Fourth Labour Government. They also discussed Hipkins thoughts on the incoming 2% rise in MPs’ pay.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What part of no does the Christchurch City Council not understand?
Because, despite us knowing what the answer would be, councillors yesterday voted in favour of putting another $15 million into the Anglican Cathedral reinstatement project, providing the government came to the party.
And, wouldn’t you know it - within just a few hours of the vote happening - Finance Minister Nicola Willis was already pouring cold water on the idea.
Saying the government has already contributed $25 million to the cathedral and there won’t be any more.
She said there are many pressing infrastructure needs and the cathedral isn’t one of them. She’ll get no argument from me on that one.
Not that anyone should be surprised.
Because she said the exact same thing last year when the people involved in the reinstatement went knocking on the door asking the government to come to their rescue.
Which she reminded us of last night. Saying: “In declining the cathedral’s funding ask, we noted that the requested amount represented a significant contribution for a building that would not be owned by the public, and where public use could be limited due to the cathedral being a private, religious space.”
Which was a polite way of telling the cathedral people, and now the council too, that it was no the first time, it’s no this time and don’t bother asking a third time.
Because, as far as she’s concerned, it is end of story. And fair enough, too. Because it would be obscene, given the state of the country’s finances and the state of our infrastructure, for more taxpayer money to go into it.
I even think it’s obscene that the City Council thought it was ok to ask for it. How more tone deaf could it be?
It’s end of story too as far as Labour is concerned.
Chris Hipkins has previously said that he doesn’t think more taxpayer money should go into the cathedral.
And local Labour MP Tracey McLellan said the same thing last night.
Winston Peters, though, has already pledged $15 million if he’s in the next government.
But I can’t imagine that being one of his non-negotiables in any coalition talks. So I think the cathedral can kiss goodbye to any money coming from any government.
In case you need it, let me remind you of the numbers.
The reinstatement project is $90 million short. They’ve asked for a total of between $40 million and $45 million from ratepayers and taxpayers. And, so far, somewhere around $90 million has been spent.
More numbers for you: when the vote was taken yesterday, 11 councillors and Mayor Phil Mauger voted in favour. Three were against and two abstained.
And there were emotional scenes around the council table, apparently.
One report I’ve seen says Councillor Melanie Coker was fighting back tears.
Saying she was torn about spending the council’s surplus, because of the other things it could be spent on, but said the cathedral is the heart of the city.
She said: “We had an earthquake and it kept us out of the city. It was like a break-up with the city that we knew and we never got it back again, so we need to heal our broken heart.”
Councillor Andrei Moore was very anti.
He told the meeting that he’d done a survey and, of the 1,200 who took part, 91 percent were opposed to the council funding the cathedral.
He said he wasn’t prepared to ignore what the people had said and, if he did, he would be breaching their trust.
He said: “I don’t think we are doing the right thing.”
Never a truer word said.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Even though I understand why a new independent supermarket in Christchurch has been told by the High Court that it can’t sell meat for two years, I still think it’s strange.
The Harvest Market is in the same spot where a Mad Butcher franchise used to be until earlier this year.
The people who ran the franchise also ran a grocery business alongside it. Which the Mad Butcher was happy with - as long as they didn’t sell meat.
But the Mad Butcher shop isn’t there anymore because the franchise owners had a falling out with head office. And the Mad Butcher accused them of helping the Harvest Market guy set up the meat side of his business, because their nose was out of joint. That’s why it all ended up in court.
And the court has ruled that this two-year non-compete clause that prevented the grocery operation on the same site from selling meat still stands, even though the Mad Butcher shop is no longer there.
In the eyes of the law, it makes sense. But how can you be accused of unfairly competing with a shop that is no longer there?
And it does seem nuts that, at a time when we’re being told that we need more competition in our grocery sector, we have this ruling that stops the Harvest Market from competing with a non-existent competitor.
There is the chance that the Mad Butcher chain wants to set up shop in that part of Christchurch again. Because it was, after all, one of its most successful franchises.
But why shut down competition for the sake of shutting down competition? Or more correctly, why shut down competition that doesn’t actually exist?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I had the joy of using State Highway 1, south of Christchurch, over the weekend.
Which is a bit of a goat track. And it’s why there is a bit of excitement about the government announcing that it wants to look into making it a four-lane highway.
At least between Christchurch and Timaru. Which, to many people, is a no-brainer.
This is part of a wider study the government wants done into transport links between the ports at Lyttelton and Timaru.
As well as a better highway, replacing the bridge at Rakaia and the role rail plays in freight movement will also be looked at.
Which is only happening because it’s election year.
So that, when the National, Act and NZ First leaders turn up during the campaign and people start asking them about State Highway 1, they can say they’re doing this study and kick it to touch until the 2029 election.
But a four-lane highway - at least between Christchurch and Ashburton - is something that’s been talked about for years.
Which I’ve always thought is a no-brainer.
But - after driving down south and back up again at the weekend - I’ve been thinking, would it actually be worth it? Is it really a priority? And what other government funding we might miss out on?
Not that we’re like a pig in muck when it comes to road funding.
In the most recent round of government funding for roads, just 6 percent went to the South Island.
Which, as I said at the time, was nothing short of pitiful.
I wasn’t alone. Leeann Watson from Business Canterbury said, considering the South Island’s contribution to the national economy, the amount we get back in road funding is definitely out of whack.
In terms of the government’s upcoming study also including the potential replacement of the bridge at Rakaia, we’ve had construction consultant Mike Blackburn saying that needs to happen. Sooner rather than later.
Mike says it’s urgent because of the number of people moving south, buying houses in places like Ashburton and commuting into Selwyn or even into Christchurch.
And that’s where I’m landing, too.
I reckon we need to face up to the fact that we’re never going to have four lanes on State Highway 1, south of Christchurch. And I think we need to focus our attention on getting something done about the bridges at places like Rakaia.
Not that I no longer think a four-lane highway would be brilliant. And not that I no longer think we’re being ripped off not having one.
But the reality is, it will never happen.
New bridges, though, are a much easier sell when it comes to government funding.
Because if a bridge packs a sad, you’re shot.
Yes, there are always alternative routes. But, especially when it comes to freight movement, the bridges between Christchurch and Timaru are much more of an issue than the two-lane highway.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger is defending One New Zealand Stadium for its lack of facilities for general admission concert goers.
Some of the 12-thousand people with standing tickets at Saturday's 'Once In A Lifetime' show, were surprised to have to use port-a-loos and food trucks outside the roofed venue.
The permanent facilities were designed for the seated capacity.
Mayor Phil Mauger told Newstalk ZB's Canterbury Mornings this was always the plan.
He also said that One New Zealand Stadium may have a smaller set up for the Foo Fighters if sales don't reach a certain threshold.
"It'll be the cut down version for Foo Fighters if they don't reach a certain number of people."
They also discussed the consultations taking place for Cathedral Square, and what can be done about accident-prone roads across the city.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Sometimes it feels like an easy thing to say that politicians have no idea what really matters to us. What’s important to us - the people who put them in their positions of power.
Today, it may be the easiest it’s ever been to say that sort of thing.
Let’s start with Labour leader Chris Hipkins. Who, I think, said one of the most arrogant things I’ve heard any politician say.
This happened yesterday. When he was talking about pretty much the only policy his party has been able to come up with since it was turfed out of government at the last election.
The future fund. Which would use some of the profits from our state-owned enterprises to invest in new start-up businesses.
Chris Hipkins has been saying that Labour’s not going to be announcing any new election policies until after next week’s budget. Until it has a better handle on the government’s finances before promising things the country can’t afford.
Yesterday, he went next level. This was after he said earlier in the week that he wouldn’t be giving any more detail about Labour’s future fund policy until after the election.
He almost sounds like he knows he’s got no show of forming the next government and doesn’t want his people putting too much work into policies and things that won’t go anywhere.
I genuinely think that’s what he and Labour are starting to sound like.
Because, after the election, they won’t be needed.
But that’s not the worst bit.
Yesterday, when he was asked if he thought voters might want to know more about the future fund before the election, he said New Zealanders don’t really care about the detail.
This is in relation to which state owned enterprises would have to contribute some of their profits to the future fund if Labour formed the next government and put this policy in place.
When he was asked about that, Hipkins said New Zealanders don’t really care about those key details.
He said: “I don't think the public really care which companies are going to go in or not. I think the public care about the fact that we’re going to keep state assets and National’s going to sell them.”
The arrogance.
And, at the same time as we’ve got the Labour leader trotting out that nonsense, we’ve got MPs debating a bill that defines the meaning of man and woman.
That one’s courtesy of NZ First, which says it’s fighting “cancerous social engineering” and “woke ideology”.
Do you think, in the grand scheme of things, pointless legislation like that really matters?
And, on top of that, public service minister Paul Goldsmith has told government departments they’ve got until the end of next month to make sure they prioritise the English version of their names over the Te Reo version.
It beggars belief, doesn’t it? The arrogance of telling us to wait until after the election for policy details because, apparently, that’s not important to us.
And the pointlessness of a law defining what a man is and what a woman is; and the pointlessness of government departments having to change their logos because some people can’t handle a bit of Te Reo.
All of the examples I’ve just given tell me that our politicians have absolutely no idea what’s important to us.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Bruce Springsteen's Born to Run album is going to be performed in its entirety in the first Come Together concert for 2026 at the Christchurch Town Hall on Friday 29 May.
One of the musicians involved is Christchurch's Adam McGrath, from local band The Eastern. He joined John MacDonald on Canterbury Mornings ahead of the big gig and he took his guitar along to cover one of "The Bosses" biggest hits.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’ll make a bet with you.
These 9,000 job cuts in the public sector that the government’s announced won’t happen.
It’s easy to say. But making it happen is a completely different story.
There’ll be some, for sure. But the whole 9,000? They’re dreaming. Because, from what I’ve seen and heard so far, they are flying blind.
At the moment, there are about 65,000 people working in the public service. Cutting that by 9,000 to get it closer to 55,000 is what the government wants. Nicola Willis reckons that would save taxpayers $2.4 billion.
But, as well as reducing the number of workers, the government also wants departments to make better use of AI technology.
And this is why these 9,000 job cuts aren’t going to happen. Because the government clearly knows no more about artificial intelligence than the rest of us.
I despaired when I heard Nicola Willis saying she got one of her staff to have a play with it and produced a document within minutes.
It was like me thinking I could educate a 16-year-old about social media. Pretending I’m all over it.
Nicola Willis isn't the only one. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, for example, says he doesn’t quite know how AI could be deployed across the public service.
He says there are “enormous opportunities right across the board, and none of us know what they are yet. Some of them will be things that we've never even thought about.”
And that’s the basis they’re using for getting rid of 9,000 jobs over the next three years.
What’s more, who says we have too many public servants?
Probably the ones who say we should be more like Singapore.
They’ll tell you that Singapore has 16 government ministries and that’s what we should have too.
They’ll say Singapore is a similar sort of size population‑wise. Singapore has 6.1 million people. New Zealand’s population is 5.3 million.
But guess how many public sector workers there are in Singapore? This is what these people don’t tell you.
We’ve got 65,000. Singapore has 158,000.
So, not only does Singapore have way more government workers than we do on a purely numbers basis, it also has way more than us on a percentage of the population basis.
The government in Singapore is using AI. But it’s pouring a truckload of money into it too.
The government here isn’t talking about that. Because, yes, it might save $2.4 billion in wages and salaries reducing the number of public servants, but how much is it going to have to spend on technology?
Because you can’t just say “get AI to do it”. You need all the systems to talk to each other.
At the very least, that’s where it should be starting. Instead of the finance minister coming on the radio saying she’s used AI to make a document.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
First world problems and all that but, is it really ok to make people use portaloos outside Christchurch’s new $683 million One NZ Stadium?
Some people who were in the general admission standing area at Saturday night’s “Once in a Lifetime” concert don’t think so.
And I agree.
As you may have heard - or found out yourself if you were there on Saturday night - people who didn’t have seats but were standing on the pitch on front of the stage weren’t allowed to access the toilets or the food outlets inside the stadium.
And they had to use the temporary toilets outside and buy food from vendors outside, as well.
So, combine a trip to the portaloo and then another queue to get a drink or some food and you can see why some people are saying today that they missed some of the performances because of how long it all took.
Venues Ōtautahi, which runs the stadium, says this was always part of the plan. Which it may well have been. But is it good enough?
I don’t think it is.
And here’s the irony. As far as general admission standing ticketholders go, the toilet facilities at the temporary stadium were better than they are at the new stadium.
At Apollo Projects, there’s those portacom toilet arrangements. Not ideal either. But give me that any day over a portaloo.
What’s more, at the temporary stadium, everyone was in the same boat. Or on the same loo.
Same with the food outlets. Everyone got the same access. There wasn’t this two-tier situation going on.
And, when you consider the fact that $683 million has been spent on this new venue, you wouldn’t expect portaloos to be part of the equation, would you?
I certainly didn’t.
The tricky thing is, the stadium has been so long in the making and most of us are excited as that it’s up and running.
Excited about the sports and concert events we’re going to enjoy there.
Not to mention the money it’s going to being into Christchurch with all that new activity.
And, because of that, complaining about it so soon after the thing has opened feels like a bit of an elephant in the room moment.
Should we say anything or not?
Well, even though I’m a huge stadium fan, I think we should.
And I know some people will say it’s just a communication issue and as soon as everyone’s aware that’s what the situation is everyone will be sweet with it.
But I don’t think that at all. Because, on Saturday night, the people in the general admission standing area were lucky it wasn’t raining.
What use is a stadium with a roof if a truckload of people have to queue in the rain to go to the loo? With the flash Harry loos inside taped off.
Or queue in the rain to get something to eat and drink.
Stadium boss Caroline Harvie-Teare, from Venues Ōtautahi, is saying today that the stadium was designed for 25,000 people and to allow for bigger crowds at large concerts, creating an external precinct has “always been part of the plan”.
She says: “It's just how the building has been designed, so it's not a choice that Venues Ōtautahi have made.”
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When I first heard about Winston Peters’ idea to give every newborn baby $1,000 so they can have a KiwiSaver account from birth, I liked the sound of it.
Until I did some numbers. Which I’ll get to.
Announcing the NZ First policy yesterday, he said it would be compulsory for every newborn to be signed-up to KiwiSaver and the state would throw in $1,000 to get things started.
He said the policy would ensure every child began their financial life as a KiwiSaver member and would be a nest egg for what he’s calling “the KiwiSaver generation”.
Which sounded pretty good on first blush. Until I did some numbers.
Let’s start with what it would cost the government.
There were about 58,000 births in New Zealand last year. So, on those numbers, that would put the cost of this policy at around $58 million a year.
And what would that $1,000 government contribution, on its own, be worth after 65 years?
Assuming 4 percent interest for 65 years, it would come to $12,800. If we assumed 7 percent over 65 years, it would come to about $80,000.
And, when I consider those numbers - plus the tens of millions of dollars of government money every year for that kind of return - I think it’s a dud of an idea.
But Winston does have another KiwiSaver idea that I think is an absolute no brainer. Making it compulsory.
Winston and I are not on our own thinking this.
Sam Stubbs, who is managing director of the Simplicity KiwiSaver outfit, does too.
He says it has to be compulsory because we have to make sure everybody is saving for their retirement while they're working. And the only way to do that is to make it compulsory.
Across the Tasman, it’s compulsory for employers to contribute but not for workers.
Which doesn’t sound terribly fair to me. Because why should employers be forced to make contributions if the people who work for them aren’t?
I remember reading about the number of people who don’t have a KiwiSaver account and some work that had been done to work out how much people are missing out on because of that.
Collectively, with so many people not even saving the minimum 3 percent of gross salary, the KiwiSaver pot is going to be about $110 billion less than what it should be or could be if we all had an account we were putting money into.
And it’s not just the people who don’t have accounts. About a third of those of us who do have KiwiSaver accounts aren’t contributing anything. Which is why it has to be made compulsory.
And it’s not like people would be out marching in the streets if it was made compulsory. Because a survey a couple of years ago found that 62 percent of us support the idea.
I don’t know if that level of support may have waned since then because of the cost of living.
Nevertheless, making KiwiSaver compulsory for workers is a no-brainer and a way better approach than NZ First’s idea of making it compulsory for newborns.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I can understand why people living at Pegasus, north of Christchurch, are upset about the golf course there being sold to a large property developer.
But, at the same time, how long can anyone expect the area they live in to stay the same?
And, while I might not make friends with the Pegasus people saying this, I think they are just going to have to accept it.
What happened is we got a tip-off earlier this week that the golf course was about to be sold.
The resort-style golf club opened in 2009 and was one of the key attractions for people who moved there, but the club went belly up in March, owing about $9 million to creditors.
We were also told earlier this week that there was a plan to use the Government’s fast-track legislation to get houses built on the land.
So our newsroom started looking into it. The Waimakariri Council said it was news to them. They said they hadn’t been approached about rezoning the land, and they knew nothing about it being fast-tracked.
There was nothing about it on the Government’s fast-track website either.
Then we found out that the deal on the land is due to be signed today, so maybe that will be the catalyst for trying to get it all fast-tracked.
Much of the property would have to be rezoned for housing before it could be fully developed. I gather the first two holes on the course, as well as the clubhouse and the driving range, were rezoned by previous owners who had planned to build a resort and a hotel there.
A housing development is not what Pegasus residents saw happening. They are gutted. “Heartbroken” is another way they’re describing the way they’re feeling.
The question this all raises, though, is how long can we expect the areas we live in to stay the same?
Whether we like it or not, I think it’s unreasonable to expect no change.
The concerns people in Pegasus have about a housing development swamping the golf course and changing the nature or the vibe of the area where they live aren’t limited to Pegasus.
And, yes, I’m sure having that big green area at Pegasus must be great.
But nothing stays the same forever, wherever you live.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Matiu Walters and Marlon Gerbes from Six60 joined Canterbury Mornings ahead of "Once in a Lifetime" at One New Zealand Stadium - the first ever music gig at the new stadium.
They discussed their journey as a band so far, the excitement to headline the first gig at the new stadium, and the look back at their first performances in Christchurch from years gone by.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National's Vanessa Weenink and Labour's Reuben Davidson joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from fast-track projects, Air New Zealand being deep in the red, and if Pharmac should fund weight loss drugs such as Wegovy.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Where do you think government spending should be prioritised?
According to new survey findings, a third of us reckon health funding and access to medicines is most important and must be given top priority.
And I find it hard to argue with that, because we’re all involved in the health system in some way, shape or form, aren’t we?
This is at the same time as we have the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister saying there’s more belt tightening on the way, with a $300 million cut in the amount of new spending in this year’s Budget, which Nicola Willis will deliver in two weeks.
And it will be the third year in a row that there’s been a cut in new spending, or the operating allowance, as it’s officially known.
So, instead of $2.4 billion in new spending in this year’s Budget, there’ll be $2.1 billion.
That was the heads-up we got from the Prime Minister yesterday in his pre-Budget speech.
But just as he was doing that, the findings of a new survey emerged which show how or where people think government spending should be prioritised.
It’s a survey done for pharmaceutical lobby group Medicines NZ, and it shows that a third of the people spoken to say their vote in this year’s election will be strongly influenced by policies which improve healthcare.
When people were asked which area of government spending was most important, 55 percent said health, 15 percent said economic development, 8 percent said infrastructure, and 7 percent said education.
And of the people who said health was their main priority, 37 percent said hospital and specialist services were most important to them; 23 percent said GP services; and 16 percent said better access to medicines was their health priority.
Which rings true to me, especially access to specialist services, because unless you have medical insurance, you can wait ages to see a specialist, can’t you?
Access to a specialist can, for some people, be the difference between life and death, so that’s an area of the public health system I want to see more investment in.
What about you?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Opposition Leader Chris Hipkins wouldn't say whether his internal polling indicates he would need Te Pāti Māori's support to form a government if Labour is successful in this year’s election.
Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, the Labour Party leader said the internal polling he receives shows Labour in the “high thirties”, and he is confident the party is on the right track to win in November.
"My goal is to make sure Labour gets the most votes and is in the strongest possible position going into any post-election discussion."
After it was revealed that an ex-Labour staffer is behind the social media account "luxury_marmite_sandwich", which has been trolling Government MPs, Hipkins said it had nothing to do with his party, and that some of the content posted by the page was objectionable.
"To be very, very clear, that has nothing to do with us"
"I have asked my office to go back to him (ex-staffer) and be very clear that no footage that he had access to from his time working for us should be used in any of the material that he is producing now."
They also discussed proposed changes to climate change laws, whether Hipkins believes there should be any further public funding for Christ Church Cathedral, and his thoughts on Judith Collins as she bows out of politics this week.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Why do councils bother with public consultation when, it seems, they don’t even listen to what people have to say?
I’m asking that after the announcement by the Christchurch City Council that it wants to put another $15 million into the reinstatement of the Anglican Cathedral.
That’s on top of the $10 million the council has already committed to the project.
I’m asking because, even though only a minuscule amount of people have told the council that it should, it wants to do it anyway.
Back in February, the council launched a public consultation process to find out whether people thought it should give more money to the cathedral or not.
Only 14 percent of the people who took part said it should, which equates to less than 200 people.
Nevertheless, the council wants to go ahead with it anyway.
To be slightly fair to the council, it only wants to give the cathedral project half the amount it was asking for.
You’ll remember too that the cathedral reinstatement people said they wouldn’t be looking elsewhere for money until the council coughed up.
Which, as I said at the time, was very arrogant.
So they haven’t got exactly what they were after, but it looks like they’re going to get another $15 million.
The problem with public consultation, of course, is that a lot of people just don’t bother.
Either because they don’t have the time or inclination, or they just don’t have faith that they’ll be listened to.
And I know that, even when you run a consultation process, not everyone’s going to be happy with the outcome, because everyone has different opinions on things.
That said, though, how the Christchurch City Council can even think that 14 percent is some sort of ringing endorsement for more ratepayer money being spent on the cathedral, I’ll never know.
Handing out another $15 million makes a mockery of this consultation process.
The council will probably try and defend itself, pointing out that this $15 million will only go to the cathedral if they can manage to get money from elsewhere too.
The council will also point out that it will only hand over the money if the church sells some of its property to put more money into it itself.
And it might even say something about 14 percent explicitly supporting it and another 51 percent not having an opinion either way.
But that still leaves the 35 percent who said they were explicitly opposed to more council money going into the cathedral.
A final decision is expected on 26 May, but the fact the council is even considering it tells me that it shouldn’t have even bothered asking what people think.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When I was a first-home buyer, I can honestly say that I never expected any parental assistance with the finances.
Now, granted, my father was no longer alive and I probably thought it would be a stretch for my mum to help out. But I had no expectations.
And, as far as I can remember, I didn’t grow up with any expectation that the Bank of Mum and Dad would be there to get me onto the property ladder.
Fast-forward to today, though, and we find out that nearly 50 percent of young adults do expect financial help.
That’s according to the latest OneChoice Kiwi Housing Trends Report, which says 48 percent of 18-to-39 year olds say they need and expect help from their parents to get into their first home.
Which I think is very unfair on parents, to have that expectation.
I’m sure it’s probably very natural to want to help your adult kids buy their first homes. None of mine are at that stage yet.
But the bigger question is whether it’s fair to have these expectations placed on parents.
And I don’t think it is.
The most common way for parents to help out is to use the equity in their home to get a loan, which they then pass on to their kids.
Which is fine. But what if life throws those parents some sort of curveball and not having as much equity in their home as they used to works against them? If one of them needs to go into care, for example.
Which is pretty much what a financial adviser is getting at today. The way I’d describe what he’s saying is that it’s a bit like being on the plane and putting your own oxygen mask on before you help the kids put theirs on.
Tom Hartmann, who is a personal finance expert with Sorted, says he’s concerned about parents disadvantaging themselves by putting money into their kids’ homes.
He says you shouldn’t be dishing out money to the kids to buy houses if it means retirement becomes more of a struggle than it should or could be.
“Before someone is trying to help the next generation, they also need to take into account how they’re going to fill that gap.”
He also says parents helping out with money for a first home need to be clear from the outset whether it’s a loan or a gift.
And to formalise it.
So, if it’s a loan, then people should get legal advice and get a loan agreement drawn up so that everyone’s clear what’s going to happen.
As I say, my kids aren’t buying houses yet. And when it comes to helping them out, for me the bigger thing to consider is whether buying a house still makes sense.
Because I don’t see houses necessarily being the asset they used to be, partly because I don't see future generations enjoying the same level of capital gain that we did.
What’s more, owning a house might deliver you some financial gain down the track, but owning a home costs a lot of money day in, day out, doesn’t it?
So is it really worth it?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins won’t be loving the news out today that the coalition government is on its way to a second term, but Christopher Luxon shouldn’t be either.
According to the NZ Herald - Motu research Poll of Polls, there is an 88.3 percent chance of the coalition getting back in this year.
Election results from the last 12 years have been run through 4,000 simulations, and it’s shown there is nearly a 90 percent chance of us having the same government as the one we have now after November.
The Poll of Polls says National would have 37 seats - down 12. That’s 12 current National MPs without a job after November. But not just that, National losing 12 seats makes it even more dependent on Winston Peters.
Which, given what Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis have been saying about NZ First these last few weeks, is the last thing they want.
They might bang on about strong, stable government but the last thing National wants come November is to have to go into coalition talks again with Winston Peters. And that’s why Christopher Luxon will be unhappy about these numbers today.
And, if he’s not unhappy, he should be.
Because, according to this new Poll of Polls, NZ First would have twice as many seats - going from eight to 16. Which you won’t hear me poo-pooing because I think it’s a very real prospect.
Not just because of what's happening in Australia with the One Nation party, and with Nigel Farage’s reform party in the UK, but also because people here are so disillusioned with Labour and National.
Nevertheless, going from 8 MPs to sixteen MPs would be amazing for NZ First, wouldn’t it?
Act would have 10 seats - down one from 11, so it would be NZ First saving the current coalition’s bacon, which National will just hate.
All up, the National/ACT/NZ First combo would have 63 seats. That’s assuming, of course, that NZ First would stick with National and ACT.
On the other side, Labour would have 43 seats - making it the largest party in parliament - up from 34 - but still not in Government.
The Greens would have 11, down from 15, and Te Pāti Māori would have three seats, down from five.
So, all up, the left would have 57 seats, and Labour would be sitting there, the largest party in parliament, but back in opposition for another three years.
So, what do we make of that?
I think it’s pretty much inevitable. It doesn’t excite me, but there’s no way Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori deserve to be in government.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I have my reservations about the Government’s new fast-track laws, because it encourages that whole “do something for the sake of doing something” mentality.
And my reservations are only being amplified with this news that Christchurch City Council staff want to use the fast-track legislation to get on with the job of rezoning the land where the old temporary stadium is, in Addington, so it can be sold to developers.
It’s not the legislation itself that I’m concerned about today. I’m concerned that the city council hasn’t thought this through enough.
Because, even though I love One New Zealand Stadium just as much as the next person, I think it would be a mistake to put all our eggs in one basket.
And I can see a time when we might actually regret deciding to do away with the facility at Addington.
Because, even though the Crusaders match at the stadium tonight is another sell-out, which is brilliant, it’s not always going to be the case.
So wouldn’t it make sense for us to keep the grounds at Addington? I’m coming around to thinking that it would.
So, what’s happened is council staff are recommending to councillors that they ask Resource Management Minister Chris Bishop to fast-track a change to the land’s zoning.
That would let the site be used for things like retail and housing. I gather it would also allow car parking and parks of some sort.
If city councillors agree with council staff and do go to Chris Bishop, and he agrees to use the fast-track legislation, that would mean most of us would be excluded from the process.
Things would happen much quicker, six months compared to two years, but only those affected by the change would get to have a say.
And you can bet that the definition of those directly affected would be pretty narrow. That’s why I think that, before the council runs off to Chris Bishop and fast-tracks things so it can sell off the land, we need to calm the farm a bit and work out whether it is actually a good idea to get rid of it or not.
And I’m not convinced that it is.
When Newstalk ZB’s Jason Pine was in town the other week for the Super Rugby Pacific Super Round, he was telling me that the temporary stadium is a brilliant venue for football, because of the shape of it, apparently.
But also the capacity.
In fact, he was saying that he would love to pick it up and move it to Wellington. That’s how good he thinks it is. So why would we get rid of it?
What’s more, who has the council actually spoken to about this?
I know the rugby league people would probably love to return there. What about Mainland Football? Maybe they’d like to see the Addington stadium kept on.
See what I mean?
There’s been this assumption over the years that, because we’ve considered it to be the “temporary” stadium, it would go once the new one is up and running.
And that seems to be what city council staff are thinking too, with this recommendation that they try to get things fast-tracked.
There’s no denying that flogging it off would bring in some coin for the council. It’s got a rateable value of $6.6 million. But if it was rezoned for housing, it would be worth $26 million.
Nevertheless, is that something we should even be doing?
I don’t think it is, until we have a much better understanding of whether there might actually be a need for a second, smaller stadium, and not just the shiny new one.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National's Hamish Campbell and Labour's Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from the OECD's latest report, The Government's plan to introduce a test for citizenship, and if the high number of short-term-rentals are ruining Christchurch's CBD.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Quite rightly, people living in the central city in Christchurch have had a gutsful of the number of places being rented out as Airbnb-type accommodation.
They’re speaking out today, saying they don’t want to live in what they call “pretend neighbourhoods”. And they want action. And I’m with them.
Because I reckon the council has sat on its hands way too long on this one. It seems to me that it’s been happy to turn a blind eye to what’s going on, in the belief that having so many Airbnbs in the centre of town is some sort of sign of progress.
But it’s not. Because, the way it’s turned out, it’s working completely against the council’s objective of having more people living permanently in the centre of town.
These residents aren’t imagining things, either. Because the numbers back them up.
In the last year, 484 new homes were built in the central city - but the number of people living permanently in the area in that same period has only increased by 50.
That’s less than 1 percent growth in the number of people living in the centre of town.
So what’s happening with the rest of the apartments and townhouses?
Some might still be on the market. But, again, here are some more numbers to back up what these central city residents are saying.
In one new development, residents there say about 80 percent of the places have become Airbnb-type properties.
At another one, on the corner of Kilmore and Manchester streets, where there are 25 new townhouses and the people living there reckon only four of them appear to be occupied by long-term residents.
As one of these central city residents is saying today: “I don’t want to live in a pretend neighbourhood.”
Ester Vallero is her name. She moved into the central city quite a while ago, in 2018. She says, since then, the number of homes around her place has increased.
But, as she put it, the excitement of getting new neighbours and the promise of living in a vibrant central city has fallen flat because of the number of places that have been snapped up and being rented out as holiday accommodation.
As another central city resident says, being surrounded by Airbnbs is worse than living next to a hotel.
Because there’s no reception, no security and the cleaners only deal with the inside of the property. And so it’s the permanent residents living nearby - like him - who end up dealing with things like overflowing rubbish and recycling bins.
There is a tiny, tiny bit of hope on the horizon. Because, next month, Christchurch city councillors will decide whether to make property owners renting out places for holiday accommodation pay business rates, instead of residential rates.
They’ll also decide whether to change resource consent requirements for owners renting out their places for holiday accommodation.
But I don’t think that goes far enough. Because that won’t necessarily lead to less Airbnbs.
What would, though, is doing what’s been done in other cities around the world.
In Barcelona, for example, by 2028 there’ll be no short-term apartment rentals. The idea behind that is to get more people living full-time in these places.
Now, I’m not saying we should go that hardcore, but I think a limit on the number of places in the centre of town that can be used for Airbnb accommodation would be a great start.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger has defended the co‑governance model of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Committee, which is investigating potential regeneration of the residential red zone. He says progress had stalled, and locals wanted the council to “get on with it.”
“It was going round in circles, so we decided to grab it by the throat, sit down, and get on with it and make decisions.”
The City Council has agreed to engage with community housing providers, Kāinga Ora, iwi, charitable trusts, and private developers, focusing on more than 10 hectares of red‑zoned land.
Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, Mauger also acknowledged concerns from central city residents about the rise of Airbnbs in the Christchurch CBD, but believes the market will correct itself.
“If there are a lot of Ubers around, the price goes down. If there are a lot of Airbnbs, the price will go down, and people will think, ‘I’m not making money from this,’ and put them back on the market.”
“So it’ll sort itself out, I’m sure.”
Mauger also discussed his idea to establish a solar farm in Bexley, as well as his views on the Government’s push for council amalgamations.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I heard Barry Soper say yesterday that, despite all the hard talk, the Government’s so-called fast-tracking of local government amalgamation won’t actually happen anytime soon.
Certainly not before the election. Which is true. Because this is a big change the Government wants to see happen.
But, in my mind, it can’t happen soon enough.
The fast-tracking bit is the councils being told that, if they don’t come up with an amalgomation plan within three months, the government will do it for them.
Waimakariri Mayor Dan Gordon is already pushing back. He’s not excited about the idea. Saying his community has made it clear that it doesn’t want change.
Tell that to the Government, though. Which admits that it didn’t campaign on local government reform at the last election but believes there is “broad support” for what it’s planning to do.
There’s no doubt in my mind that having nearly 70 local councils in a country the size of New Zealand is crazy. So, of course, something has change.
But what that change looks like, is what matters.
And for me, there’s only one option for us here in the greater Christchurch area.
And maybe it will only happen of the Government forces the issue. Because I don’t see people like Dan Gordon jumping on board of their own accord.
But the only realistic option here is to do something I've been in favour of for quite a while now. A super-city.
Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger is saying today that the Christchurch City Council has already said it’s keen to take over the work Environment Canterbury does.
So why not go the whole hog and join ECan, Christchurch City, Selwyn and Waimakariri together? It makes sense to me.
It’s being reported today that, to keep the government happy, Christchurch is going to have to amalgamate with at least one other council.
How crazy would that be? Amalgamating with just one. Christchurch amalgamating with Selwyn, but not with Waimakariri. Crazy.
But, every time a super-city is mentioned, some people are quick to point to Auckland as an argument against it.
The Auckland super-city brought together seven city and district councils, and the regional council back in 2010.
But a super city in the greater Christchurch area would be nowhere near the same scale. We’re talking here about just three councils - Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri. Plus ECan, of course.
Half of the people living in Selwyn still come into Christchurch every day for work and school, and they contribute nothing towards the cost of the running of the city.
They’re using the city’s roads and so many of the other facilities that they pay nothing for.
Not to mention the relatively small distance between Selwyn, Christchurch and Waimakariri.
Which is why, for me, a greater Christchurch super city is a no brainer.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you woke up this morning hoping things had somehow sorted themselves out in the Strait of Hormuz, sorry to disappoint.
It’s still the cluster it was yesterday. In fact, worse, actually. With hostilities ramping up overnight.
Which will probably have Singapore's Prime Minister saying “told you so” to anyone who poo-pooed the comments he made after meeting with Christopher Luxon yesterday, that he doesn’t see things getting any better on the fuel front for another six months. Maybe longer.
Which tells me one thing: we need to do more to prepare for that here. In my mind, there is one thing The Government should be doing. Which I'll get to.
So, Christopher Luxon has been in Singapore with the finance minister and the trade minister and a delegation of business leaders for the signing of a new trade deal. But, in light of what’s happening in the middle east, they also confirmed the fuel for food deal that’s been tacked on to the trade agreement.
They came up with that after the war in Iran started impacting oil prices. Which pretty much says we’ll keep sending food products to Singapore, even when things get ropey - as they are at the moment.
And, in exchange for that, Singapore will keep sending us refined fuel.
It was after doing the paperwork and signing on the dotted line when Lawrence Wong, the prime minister of Singapore, said he sees shipping disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz extending into next year.
He says infrastructure in the Middle East has been destroyed and shipping operators will want to know they’re not going to be attacked before they send their crews through.
Not to mention the insurance issues shipping companies must be dealing with in that part of the world.
Quite rightly, Lawrence Wong says that won’t happen overnight, and he thinks the disruptions to fuel shipments will continue for at least another six months. Potentially longer.
Which means one thing: higher prices are here to stay.
And, as we’ve found out over the last few weeks, it’s not just fuel that’s affected. There’s fertiliser. There’s plastics. Medicines.
Which is why I think Christopher Luxon and Finance Minister Nicola Willis need to spend the time on the flight home from Singapore drafting a recommendation to cabinet to ramp things up.
Because they need to listen to what Singapore's PM is saying and act on it.
And, in my mind, that has to be relief for major diesel users.
Yes, I know diesel prices have been down again. But, if we’ve learned anything from the past couple of months, it’s that when oil prices go up, diesel users are impacted way more than petrol users.
And that’s why we need to listen to what Singapore's Prime Minister is saying and prepare for another six months or more of this.
And we should be getting ourselves ready to subsidise major diesel users.
I’m talking here about manufacturers and distributors of essential food products.
It wouldn’t have to kick in straight away. The Government could say that, as soon as diesel prices go higher than petrol, subsidies will kick-in for the big food producers and trucking companies.
Because the price of diesel affects all of us. The higher the price of diesel, the more we’ll end up paying at the supermarket.
And, if the government is serious about trying to keep some sort of lid on the cost of living, this is the way to do it.
If the Prime Minister of Singapore, where we get 30 percent of our refined fuel from, thinks this is going to go on for another six months, we need to be ready for when the price of diesel goes through the roof again.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
ACT Leader David Seymour seems to be going all Winston Peters on it, with his party’s new immigration policy.
There’s stuff in it I think is ok. But there’s one part I don’t think is okay. This ridiculous idea of banning immigrants from getting any sort of benefit until they’ve been here for at least five years. I’ll tell you why shortly.
But essentially, ACT doesn’t want immigrants getting any sort of free ride.
It wants people here on temporary work visas to pay for the privilege of being here - charging them $6-a-day to help pay for infrastructure.
That’s another crazy part of this policy. Federated Farmers is already saying it would just put people off coming here. Which is true. If someone has got a choice of where they go to work, they won’t go somewhere where $42 disappears from their pay each week. As well as the tax they’d already be paying.
David Seymour also wants us to get tougher on deporting immigrants who commit serious crimes. Which I don’t have a problem with.
And, he wants people coming here to be better at English - with a higher standard of English required before they’re allowed in. I don’t see any problems with that.
ACT also wants to set-up a specialised enforcement unit targeting overstayers, which has the Green Party all excited. I heard its immigration spokesperson saying it sounds like ACT wants to set up a New Zealand version of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency in the United States, or ICE, as it’s known.
I think others are saying too that we already have a unit targeting overstayers. So I'm indifferent on that part of David Seymour's plan.
But, as I say, the aspect of this policy that I have a real problem with, is banning immigrants from getting any sort of benefit until they’ve been here for at least five years.
You imagine someone moving to New Zealand, things going ok for the first two-or-three years but, then, they lose their job or get crook.
They can’t afford to travel back to their home country, so what are we going to do?
Do we say “Oh sorry mate, get back to us in two or three years - that’s when you’ll be entitled to the unemployment benefit or the sickness benefit or whatever.”
What happens to that person? They end up on the street probably. And is that what we want?
Someone’s life spiraling out of control, all for the sake of kicking immigrants off this so-called benefit gravy train some people seem to think people who come here from other countries are on.
No thanks. And what’s more, we’d deny them a benefit, but they’d still be entitled to ACC. It doesn’t stack up.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Duncan Webb joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from Coalition dramas, the medias behaviour in Parliament, and if the Residential Red Zone should be built on again.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Is it a flip flop? Is it a sign of things to come? Or is it just something Labour leader Chris Hipkins said off the top of his head when he was asked about it yesterday?
Means testing the NZ Super pension.
Because, back in 2023 - when he was Prime Minister - Hipkins completely ruled out the idea of means testing the pension.
Now, though, he’s saying he’s open to the idea.
And thank goodness he is. Because we can’t go on the way we are - dishing out the pension to anyone and everyone, whether they need it or not.
I will never see the pension as an entitlement. As some sort of reward for reaching the retirement age.
And it seems Hipkins is finally coming around to that way of thinking too.
Now he says he wouldn’t want to see means testing across-the-board and he doesn’t want to change the retirement age. His thinking there is that some people just can’t physically keep working beyond 65. And I get that.
He says, generally speaking, they tend to be people who have been in lower-paid jobs and they are the people who should be getting the NZ Super pension.
But he says questions have to be asked whether someone who is still working full-time and being paid a six-figure salary should be entitled to the pension.
And my answer to that is no. It always has been.
Tell that to some people, though, who think the pension is unlike any other benefit and everyone should get it. No questions asked.
No questions, such as: are you working or are you retired? Basic questions such as: if you didn’t get the pension, would you be out on the street?
Here’s another one: do you need the pension to buy groceries or do you want it to buy beers at the pub with your mates?
We don’t ask those questions. But Chris Hipkins is saying that he’s open to the idea.
Which is somewhat surprising for a Labour leader. Especially, a Labour leader who, so far, has unveiled next to no pre-election policies or promises.
He claims he’s holding off because he wants to wait until the Budget in a few weeks time. So he knows how much is in the Government books for him to play with.
But you don’t need to wait for that detail to know we’re in a mess with our pension commitments and something has to be done about it.
It is also a bit rich of Hipkins to be talking about means testing the pension on one hand but, on the other hand, wanting to give anyone and everyone free doctor’s visits. Whether they need it or not.
That’s just about the only policy he has released - the capital gains tax to pay for you and I to go to the doctor three times a year free of charge, whether we can afford it or not.
Nevertheless, despite the contradiction, it’s brilliant to hear some commonsense coming through.
The argument some people put up against means testing, is that people who still work after 65 pay secondary tax on their pension. The inference there is that they don’t get the full amount, so what’s the problem?
But that doesn’t sway me. Because we have an ageing problem - meaning our NZ Super bill is only going to go in one direction.
That’s why we can’t keep paying it out to people just because they’ve made it to 65.
And, rather than just talk about it, Chris Hipkins and all our other politicians need to have the fortitude to do something about it.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Winston Peters has gone too far this time.
Last week, Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis were telling us not to trust him.
They‘ll be saying it even louder now. After the NZ First leader released emails to the media which show how the Prime Minister was talked out of expressing “explicit public support” for the war in Iran.
And I'm in no doubt that peters has betrayed Luxon's trust.
The two of them, apparently, had what are being reported as “crisis talks” last night. With a spokesperson for the prime minister saying the NZ First leader has put politics ahead of national interest.
Which, of course, he has. And, if I was Christopher Luxon, I'd be ropeable.
Because that’s what he’s done. He’s put politics ahead of national interest. And i would have thought, after all the huffing and puffing about cool heads being needed when it comes to foreign affairs, that he wouldn’t have released these emails.
It’s this claiming credit thing that he just can’t resist. Like that time when Christopher Luxon went on social media and said he’d done a trade deal with Southeast Asian nations.
And Peters responded with that one-word tweet saying “we”. As in “we” did the deal, not “you”.
But releasing these emails about the Iran war is next level.
Because it shows a very clear difference of opinion within the government. With the prime minister thinking the attacks by the U.S. And Israel were and are a good thing - but saying something different publicly.
Which happens all the time in governments. But you don’t go telling the world about it. Which is exactly what Winston Peters has done.
Just as an aside, even though I think Winston Peters is in the wrong here, it does show how out of his depth the prime minister was when this all blew up.
As the released emails show, he was all gung-ho and wanted the government to show “explicit public support” for the war when it started.
But, as we saw publicly during those first few days (which is backed up these emails), it was Winston who was all calm the farm and don’t panic.
That’s what he was saying to media on the Sunday after the attacks started.
It seems to me that one of the things Winston is going to campaign on in this year’s election is “experience”.
Because last week he criticised the prime minister for putting his leadership to the test with that confidence vote. It was clear that he thought Luxon was naive doing that - because it only invites another confidence vote next time a bad poll comes out.
Now, by releasing these emails, he’s pointing to Luxon's naievity on the foreign affairs front.
Which is true. Christopher Luxon is way out of his depth when it comes to foreign affairs and international diplomacy.
But you don’t go showing to that to the world the way Winston Peters has.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There’s that saying that you should never waste a good crisis.
And, according to Winston Peters, the trucking companies are taking that advice and using the current fuel crisis as an opportunity to get what they’ve always wanted.
Which is a rule change to let them carry more weight on their trucks.
The Government’s looking at allowing that as part of its response to the fuel situation, saying it would mean the truckies using less diesel.
But Winston Peters say he’s not on board with that, and we should be making greater use of rail. And I agree with him.
In fact, I've long held the view that it’s crazy the number of trucks we have on our roads and that we should be transporting more stuff on trains.
It’s crazy we have so many trucks because our roads, generally, are pretty tinpot, aren’t they?
Tinpot roads are not designed to cope with those heavy trucks. Let alone heavier trucks if these changes go through.
Which is exactly the point the NZ First leader is making today about increasing the weight limits for trucks so they can carry more on each trip.
Winston Peters says: “these weight limits are put there for good reasons, because of potholes and bridge strength and what have you."
And what makes this even crazier, when you think about it, is the government is also talking about pressing pause on fuel tax increases next year.
So, on one hand, it wants to let trucks carry more weight - which would undoubtedly mean more damage to the roads - and it wants to stop the fuel tax increase which would mean less money to fix the roads.
How does that stack up? Answer: It doesn’t.
What’s more, Winston Peters is accusing the freight industry of using the fuel crisis to get what it wants.
He’s saying today: "this isn't the first time the trucking industry's tried this on."
I can’t verify this for sure, but I'll take Winston on his word when he says that trains are two-and-a-half times more fuel efficient than trucks.
He’s also saying today, as the Minister for rail, that there are thousands of wagons available.
So is he on to something? I think he is. And I think we need to see rail as a solution not just to any fuel shortage we might have to deal with in the short term - but long-term, as well.
On an ongoing permanent basis, less trucks and more trains.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins says Christopher Luxon is running away from scrutiny after he cancelled his regular weekly interview on TVNZ's Breakfast programme.
"The reality is that's part of the job. You're going to be subjected to scrutiny, you're going to be asked tough questions."
Speaking on Canterbury Mornings, Hipkins was asked by John MacDonald whether he held the same view when former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern cancelled her weekly interviews with Newstalk ZB’s Mike Hosking in 2021.
"I thought she should have continued to do it, but ultimately that was her choice. I made a different choice, and that was to keep doing those interviews."
When Hipkins became Prime Minister in 2023, he reinstated the weekly prime ministerial interview on the Mike Hosking Breakfast.
They also discussed Labour’s support for the India free trade agreement, his views on drinking culture in parliament, and his reaction to a parent being taken to court by the government over their child’s chronic absence from school.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Anyone who didn’t feel excited for and proud of Christchurch over the long weekend might need to check if they’ve still got a pulse.
Because what a ripper.
And anyone who thinks our brand new One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha isn’t going to be Christchurch's greatest asset then, maybe, they were at home all weekend and didn’t see what was going on.
Thousands of visitors in town for the Super Rugby Super Round. Numbers thrown around say 14,000 people visited - 4,000 of them from Australia.
ChristchurchNZ had estimated it would pump $6 million into the economy. But it’s now saying that it will probably be more than that.
I’m in no doubt about that. I see the church pub alone sold 50 kegs of beer on Friday night. We did some numbers over dinner last night and worked out that that would have been at least $50,000 in beer sales.
At one pub. On one night. That doesn’t count the beer sold on Saturday and sunday.
Naturally, Crusaders boss Colin Mansbridge is pushing for Christchurch to host the Super Round again. I think he’s got a multi-year deal in his sights.
And, crucially, Super Rugby Chief Executive Jack Mesley isn’t ruling it out.
Although, he’s hardly going to poo-poo it when he’s here and everyone’s on a high because of how well it went.
But he did say before jumping on the plane back to Sydney that Christchurch definitely has a head start over other New Zealand cities.
Which we do. Tell that to the Mayor of Dunedin, though, who is saying this morning that they’re going to be looking into the viability of hosting the Super Round in Dunners.
One ting that occurred to me at the weekend, was who needs Russell Coutts and Sail GP now we’ve got this brilliant stadium facility?
Which is why I think it is going to be Christchurch's single greatest asset. If it isn’t already.
I know that Friday night, especially, was a milestone. It was the end of a very long wait. It was another one of those symbolic and emotional moments when we realise just how far we have come as a city.
And I know not every Crusaders game at One New Zealand Stadium is necessarily going to attract 25,000 people.
And I know that not everyone is a rugby fan.
But you can’t deny the good the Super Round did for our city over the weekend, and the good the stadium is going to continue doing.
Just imagine what it’s going to be like next month when Six60 headlines the first big concert at the stadium. Which is sold out.
You imagine what it’s going to be like when the Warriors play here in June. Again, another sell-out.
And imagine what it’s going to be like in July when the All Blacks play France under the roof. That match is well on its way to being sold out too.
So the weekend was just the start. And what a brilliant start it was too.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Ahead of the first fully ticketed event at One New Zealand Stadium, John MacDonald caught up with Greg May, owner of central city bar, Smash Palace.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Ahead of the first fully ticketed event at One New Zealand Stadium, Venues Ōtautahi CEO took John MacDonald on a tour of One New Zealand Stadium.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Make no mistake, today is a massive day for Christchurch.
Normally, you’d say the official opening - when the ‘hoi-polloi’ gather to cut ribbons and make speeches - is massive.
But today’s the day. Because today, the stadium becomes ours.
And I’m with Mayor Phil Mauger who is saying that it has been worth every penny.
It’s a spend that not everyone has been and will be happy about. But as the mayor is also saying today, he doesn't think people realise yet the benefits it’s going to bring the city.
Primarily, he’s talking about the economic benefits. And who can argue with the benefits from this weekend alone?
25,000 people at the stadium tonight. Tens of thousands more tomorrow and Sunday.
And, as ChristchurchNZ boss Ali Adams is saying today, the stadium will bring people here who will leave with a changed view of the city and some of them will come back. Not just for another visit - but to study, work and invest here.
But it’s also the social benefits that the stadium is going to bring us.
It’s a bit of a cliche - but, isn’t it amazing, how things change over time?
I can still vividly remember going to the old AMI stadium at Lancaster Park with my mate, Adam, taking our two first-borns to see the Crusaders play under the lights.
My daughter and my mate Adam's son were preschoolers and we had it all organised with enough snacks to keep them happy and enough clothes to keep them warm and all of that.
Sometimes, of course, half a game would be enough for the wee ones, and we’d shoot off home at half time.
I can still see the photo. My little girl in her black and red poncho and black and red beanie.
Fast forward to today and it’s the kids arranging to take me to the big opening game.
Buying me a ticket for Christmas, telling me the social plan beforehand and afterwards. Which I suspect will see me heading home to bed long before they’re ready to call it a night.
And just like Lancaster Park or Jade stadium or AMI stadium (whatever you want to call it), I know that our new stadium is going to be the place where future generations of Cantabrians fall in love with the thrill of rowdy togetherness.
Because this isn’t just a massive pile of concrete and steel in the centre of town. This is going to be the place where we will celebrate the wins. Together.
Where we’ll accept the losses. Together.
Where we’ll be moved by the artists and performers who will come to Christchurch from all over the world. We’ll do all of that together.
And if you’re going to any of the super round matches this weekend - or whenever you end up going - I guarantee that’s one of the first things you will feel.
I know that because, even at the crusaders training run last week, the overwhelming thing that got me as I walked through those shiny new doors was “here we all are again”.
15 years later - here we all are again.
And that’s why I am absolutely fizzing today.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Ahead of the Super Round weekend in Christchurch, John MacDonald caught up with former All Black and Crusaders legend, Dan Carter.
They discuss Dan's time as a Crusader during the earthquakes, what he reckons of the new One NZ stadium, and the 'Every Drop Challenge' that Dan is hosting at half time on Super Round Sunday.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
With One NZ Stadium finally opening its doors ahead of the Super Rugby Super Round, John MacDonald caught up with current Speaker of the House and former Christchurch Regeneration Minister, Gerry Brownlee.
They discussed his role in getting the stadium off the ground by convincing cabinet of its importance for Cantabrians, and if he thinks the stadium has matched his expectations from over a decade ago.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
With the Super Round days away, planning to get to the new One New Zealand Stadium will be a necessity for the over 25,000 fans who will be coming to the first event.
Environment Canterbury Chair Dr Deon Swiggs' joined John MacDonald to discuss the "Event Direct" initiative, providing shuttle buses to and from pickup points across the city.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A dog’s breakfast. That’s the only way I can describe the National Party’s handling of the speculation over Christopher Luxon’s leadership.
Because “nothing to see here” never works. What’s more, I just don’t believe what they’re saying.
Luxon called the confidence vote yesterday and came out of the caucus meeting saying he had the backing of his MPs and that was that.
He wouldn’t answer any questions from reporters after he read out his statement. But he did take the opportunity to fire a broadside at them, saying he was disappointed with the recent media coverage and wouldn’t be engaging in “speculation and rumour”.
But, as the likes of Thomas Coughlan from the NZ Herald have been quick to point out, this wasn’t made up by reporters. What was reported was what was actually happening. National MPs talking out of school. Telling the media what they really think of Luxon.
Not that we should be surprised by this misguided attack on the media. Because the reason this has been such a dog’s breakfast, is that the party and its leader have been in complete denial. Especially, since last Friday.
That was when the NZ Herald first reported on party whip Stuart Smith having no luck reaching his leader to tell him that some of his MPs weren’t happy with his performance.
And it got really weird yesterday when Smith himself - who had told One News on Monday night that he was definitely going to be at yesterday’s caucus meeting providing the storm in Wellington didn’t muck up his travel plans - was a no-show.
He said on Monday night he’d been trying to fly to Wellington but had been delayed by the weather. But he did intend to get to the capital on Tuesday morning.
Then next morning, he announced in a statement issued by the Prime Minister’s office that he wouldn’t be attending because he had a “longstanding personal appointment”.
I’m sorry. But that’s just nonsense. Because, if you’re the party whip, it’s your job to be at caucus meetings and you don’t go making longstanding personal appointments that clash with the caucus schedule.
What’s more, this is the guy who was saying on Monday night he’d be there. Then he wasn’t. Because of this longstanding appointment.
This is the sort of Keystone Cops stuff that might be acceptable from an opposition party, but not from a party in government.
A party in government that has never been shy of picking holes in Jacinda Ardern’s promise that her government was going to be the most open and transparent government in the history of governments.
It wasn’t, of course. But how rich of National to criticise Labour and be just as smoke and mirrors on it.
Because, for me, this isn’t just about the National Party. This is about the government. It’s not just about a party leader. It’s about the Prime Minister.
That’s why “nothing to see here” doesn’t cut it.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Selwyn Mayor Lydia Gliddon joined John MacDonald in the studio for the first of their regular catchups.
They discussed some of the biggest issues for Selwyn ratepayers, including the potential cutting of council jobs to keep rates down, what she thinks of the 'Super-city' debate and if she thinks the Christchurch City Council missed a trick by not asking Selwyn to foot some of the bill for One NZ Stadium.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Excitement is brewing across Christchurch as One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha will finally open its doors on Friday.
Christchurch City Council Senior Project Manager Dr Richard Gibbs joined Canterbury Mornings and discussed the part he has played in producing the world-class turf at One NZ Stadium, and his thoughts on the lack of horses that won't be moving with the Crusaders to their new home.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I can’t think of one negative impact people moving here from overseas have had on my life.
Not one.
I can tell you plenty of good things. But not anything negative.
Which is why I'll never understand why immigrants get such a bad rap. It’s an easy excuse, though. Not happy about something? Blame the immigrants.
And it’s NZ First’s Shane Jones is talking the nonsense he is. Warning us of a “Butter chicken tsunami” of new immigrants if New Zealand goes ahead with this free trade agreement with India.
NZ First is opposed to the agreement, because it says it doesn’t cap the number of students who could come here from India.
Which is an argument that has already been put to bed because there are no limitations on the number of international students who can come here from any country.
Tell that to Shane Jones, though.
But I'm with the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, who has hit back.
He was asked about it at the media conference after yesterday’s cabinet meeting.
Initially, he was a bit wishy-washy. But then he let rip. Saying New Zealand is a better place because of immigration.
Without immigration, a lot of things would struggle to keep going.
People moving here fill labour shortages.
Think of the nursing staff in the hospitals. Think of all those construction workers i see walking to work first thing in the morning.
Think of all the people who have migrated here to work on our dairy farms.
People move here to invest, as well.
Think of the people from overseas who have started businesses or bought existing businesses.
Think of the wealthy immigrants who have taken advantage of the golden visa scheme who are investing big money here.
These are genuine benefits.
Not to mention the benefit we all get from the extra diversity. Every time I go through town, I love the fact that I see the same mix of people I've seen in other cities around the world.
Some people, though, seem to think that’s a bad thing. These are generally the ones who will celebrate St Patrick's day - but won’t want a bar of Diwali.
But where are you on this one?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Green Party wants us to electrify everything, saying the current fuel crisis is a good reason to produce as much of our own energy as possible.
Which, by the way, is kind of ironic don’t you think? The Greens wanting us to produce our own energy, but not wanting us to drill for oil and gas?
Nevertheless, that’s what co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said in the party’s State of the Planet speech yesterday.
She wants to kick things off with solar panels. And one of the Greens’ policies in this year’s election will be cheap government loans for solar panels and batteries.
Which I think is one of those ideas that sound good but, when you think about it for more than five minutes, the cracks start to appear.
Nevertheless, Chlöe Swarbrick says cheap government loans would cut the upfront cost barrier that stops people going solar.
And she says it could cut household power bills by $1,000-a-year.
Which all sounds fine. But would it be enough to make me go solar? Probably not.
Because the thing i can’t get past with solar, is the upfront cost and the mystery that surrounds the so-called financial benefits.
You will have seen and heard the stories I'm sure about people paying all the money to get solar panels on the roof at home and not seeing their power bills get any cheaper.
There are also the conflicting reports about the merits of selling solar energy back into the national grid. Whether the payback is worth it.
Until that murkiness no longer exists, I don’t see myself rushing to go solar anytime soon.
As for this idea of cheap government loans for solar panels and batteries, here’s the issue I have with it.
Yes, it would take away the upfront cost. But debt is debt. Irrespective of how low the interest rate is.
And, while the greens claim you might end up with cheaper power bills, you’d still have this debt to service.
So your monthly power bill might be cheaper, but you’d still have to service the loan from the government.
According to the energy efficiency and conservation authority, a small-to-medium solar set-up will cost somewhere between $8,500 and $11,500.
That’s just for the panels. The batteries, on top of that, can range from $5,000 to $15,000.
So let’s go with the median prices and say that your panels will cost you around about $10,000 and the battery around about $10,000, as well. So, $20,000 all up.
In the scheme of things, that isn’t all that much. But, according to the energy efficiency and conservation authority, it takes on average seven-to-10 years for solar to pay for itself.
For the money saved on power to pay back the upfront cost of installing solar.
And that’s where this policy from the greens doesn’t stack up. Because if it’s going to cost $20,000 upfront and they say people are going to save $1,000 a year on their power bills, then it’s going to be 20 years before their solar set-up pays for itself.
And that, for me, is enough to say thanks, but no thanks.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Over nine-thousand punters turned up for the Crusaders open training session at One New Zealand Stadium on Thursday evening.
John MacDonald also went along and spoke with a few fans at the final test event before next week's Super Round.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
After hearing Chris Bishop on Newstalk ZB this morning, there are two things about the National Party and its leader that I am in no doubt about.
I am in absolutely no doubt that Christopher Luxon has to stand down before he’s pushed.
I’m also in no doubt that, if that happens, National will be toast in this year’s election.
But, when you weigh it up, there’s no way this speculation and doubt about the prime minister of our country can continue.
And that’s the key point here. We’re not just talking about a party leader. We’re talking about the prime minister.
And how can we take a government seriously when its own MPs don’t take their leader seriously?
NZ Herald political editor Thomas Coughlan is reporting today that Christopher Luxon is expected to face the most difficult two weeks of his leadership when Parliament returns next week.
He’s reporting that Luxon is up to his old trick of covering his ears and not listening to what people are saying.
With National’s Kaikoura MP Stuart Smith, who is also National’s party whip, unable to reach Luxon in the week before Easter to tell him about ructions in the National Party caucus.
Being the party whip, Stuart Smith is obliged to tell the party leader if drums are beating and MPs aren’t happy with their leader.
But he couldn’t reach Luxon. Or, more to the point, Luxon didn’t want to hear from him.
Because, as Thomas Coughlan is reporting, if the two had spoken, it would have likely led to a caucus meeting, which could have led to a change in leader.
So Christopher Luxon was avoiding Stuart Smith to stop a certain chain of events from happening.
Which Chris Bishop kind-of denied when he spoke to Mike Hosking, but he was a million miles away from being anything close to convincing.
Bishop is due to front again with Jack Tame on TV this weekend. His boss will be hoping for a more ringing endorsement than this morning’s failed attempt.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from Christopher Luxon's leadership, the new warrant of fitness changes coming this year, and their thoughts on The Crusaders losing the pre-match horses at One NZ Stadium.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’ve never had a problem with the chlorine that’s been in Christchurch's water.
Which is why I'm not at all upset at the news that it’s going to be in the water forever.
What’s happened, is city councillors have been told that - even if they spent $1.5 billion on infrastructure upgrades over the next 20 years - the chlorine would most likely still be needed.
That’s because of all the hoops that have to be jumped through to get a chlorine exemption.
On top of that, rates would have to go up to pay for ongoing maintenance.
Nevertheless, i think the council needs to bite the bullet and spend the money. Because, for me, this isn’t just about chlorine.
But what i see potentially happening, is councillors using the chlorine bit as an out. As an excuse for not spending money on infrastructure upgrades. When that is the last thing, they should be doing.
City Councillor Yani Johanson seems to be on the same page as me. He reckons that, despite the $1.5 billion price tag, it’s still worth looking into and he wants the public to have a say.
But Mayor Phil Mauger says it would be nothing other than a waste of money.
He says: “it’s all very well saying you can throw a shedload of money at every contractor in the country, digging up every road that we’ve got. But it’s not worth it.”
Phil’s got some alternative ideas, which I'll get to.
But what he’s advocating for is a continuation of what pretty much every local body politician in this country has done and continues to do. Kicking cans down the road. They’re experts at it.
Whereas, what Christchurch should be doing is seeing this as a critical piece of infrastructure spending that is needed in New Zealand's second-largest city.
Especially when you consider the alternatives ideas floating around.
Instead of the big spend-up on new pipes, Phil Mauger reckons it would be better for the council to do things like buying filtration systems for people to have at home and setting-up chlorine-free water stations around town.
Picture that. The council sending out filtration kits in the mail - the way it sent out those portable toilets after the earthquakes.
And the council running water station around town where people could go to get chlorine-free water. Really?
People bang on about the city needing to look less like a disaster zone. What do you think the council distributing filtering systems and running water pick-up points would look like?
And, all the while, crossing its finger and hoping that the underground infrastructure doesn't pack a sad.
It makes no sense.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Do we need more taxes?
There are two ways we can look at it. Does The Government need more tax revenue? Yes, I think it does. Which is why those tax cuts after the last election have backfired so badly.
And do we want to pay more tax? When push comes to shove, probably not. But that’s human nature, isn’t it?
But, if we look beyond human nature - beyond gut reactions to the tax question - maybe, one day, enough people will accept that we’re just going to have to pay more tax. Like it or not.
Which is exactly what a tax lobby group is saying today.
Tax Justice Aotearoa is saying New Zealand needs a capital gains tax, an inheritance tax and a wealth tax. For several reasons.
First of all, the fuel crisis and climate change. They say the government needs more revenue to cope with these kinds of things.
The other reason it wants a capital gains tax, an inheritance tax and a wealth tax is to shift the tax burden. To get high income earners paying more tax and to get low-income earners paying less.
Tax Justice Aotearoa also says our deficits are the problem. And the problem isn’t going to be fixed until we all start paying more tax.
It says deficits limit what we can do about the fuel crisis. As The Government has said, the $50-a-week tax credits for low-to-middle income earners are as much as it can afford.
And deficits mean The Government is limited in what it can do in response to climate change.
Example: no payouts for people who have to pack up and move because of things like sea level rise.
Former Council of Trade Unions Economist Bill Rosenberg is a member of this lobby group and he says: “It’s becoming obvious governments cannot continue to function properly and do the things that people expect of them without more revenue, so it is inevitable we have to debate these things.”
And I agree with him.
But, of course, show me a politician brave enough to stand up and advocate for you and I paying more tax, and they’ll be someone with the shortest political career in history.
Because who is going to vote for that?
Maybe we will, when we realise the inevitability of it.
Yes, it’s easy to bang on about not wanting to pay more taxes because governments waste money, anyway.
But do we want the “smell of an oily rag” set-up we have at the moment?
Or, do we want a country that can afford to deal with things like oil shocks and the climate crisis?
Tax Justice Aotearoa says if that’s what we want, then the government is going to need more revenue. And i agree. Even though I don’t like the idea of paying more tax.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins says ministers did not receive key advice about myocarditis risks for 12 to 17-year‑olds during the COVID response.
Speaking on Canterbury Mornings, Hipkins was questioned by John MacDonald about the findings from the Royal Commission into COVID‑19, which said expert advice on vaccine mandates for teenagers was delayed in being provided to ministers.
Hipkins said the advice, produced by a technical advisory group, was never passed on to responsible ministers at all.
“The particular report that came from the technical advisory group was never shared with ministers."
They also covered Labours concerns regarding the India free trade agreement, and what he thinks about National MP Rima Nakhle's bill to stop the public funding going to gangs.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Two questions: what does “woke” mean to you? And are states of emergency “woke”?
The reason I'm asking is that the Mayor of Wairoa thinks they are. Which I think is a load of old nonsense.
Unlike other mayors in other North Island areas - who declared states of emergency in anticipation of Cyclone Vaianu at the weekend - Craig Little didn’t. Because he thought it was all a bit over the top and not necessary.
He went further yesterday, saying that he thinks they’ve become “woke”.
He says: “we’re becoming woke as a country when it comes to states of emergency”.
That’s what he says. And I say: nonsense.
The Prime Minister thinks the same. Hitting back, saying he’s happy to be labelled woke if it means keeping people safe.
Christopher Luxon says: “I'll happily wear a woke label this time if it means we didn't lose anyone's lives.”
He says: “This was a significant event with 10 local states of emergency actioned, and in a number of regions there were road closures, power outages and flooding."
And Christopher Luxon is right. States of emergency aren’t woke and this mayor is just another one of these people who has no idea what woke actually means.
Put simply - and this is my definition - woke means being aware of how things impact people.
The more official definition - courtesy of the Oxford English Dictionary - says woke means "alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice".
What that has to do with states of emergency, I’ll never know.
Well, I do know actually. It’s got nothing to do with states of emergency.
And the Mayor of Wairoa is just another one of these people who think calling someone or something “woke” is a way of having a go at them.
But, whether we like it or not, it’s a word that’s been hijacked to the point where some people have no idea what it means, but are happy to bandy it around left, right and centre.
Nevertheless, are states of emergency “woke”?
Last October, when we had those huge winds in canterbury and a state of emergency was declared, one Christchurch business owner got in touch with me, very unhappy about it. Saying they thought it was overkill.
Their takings were down 50 percent, and they were criticising the decision to include Christchurch city in the state of emergency. Because the city wasn’t as badly affected as other parts of the region.
I disagreed with them. Because we had no idea how bad it was going to get, so it made sense to be cautious.
Because - and this is what i say to anyone who thinks we go a bit O.T.T with states of emergency these days - what would you rather have? Be prepared just in case? Or find out too late and deal with the consequences.
Which is why i think this mayor up north not only has no idea what woke means - he’s also wrong thinking states of emergency have become a woke over-reaction.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
After what happened at the weekend, I think Christopher Luxon needs to take a leaf out of Anthony Albanese's book, jump on a plane and head over to South Korea to make sure we don’t run out of fuel.
With negotiations between the U.S. and Iran falling over, President Donald Trump has announced that he’s now in charge of the Strait of Hormuz, with the U.S. Navy blockading the vital trade route.
He’s also talking about stopping any ships that have paid any sort of toll to Iran to sneak through.
Which says to me one thing: this fuel crisis isn’t going to be over anytime soon, and we now need to start doing a little bit more than calming the farm.
Which is where Anthony Albanese comes into it. He’s going to make his second trip in a week to Asia to shore up fuel supplies.
This week he’s off to Brunei and Malaysia. Last week he was in Singapore, where he signed a new agreement - which means Singapore has promised to keep sending fuel to Australia.
The other part of that agreement is that Australia has promised to keep sending gas to Singapore. Which is where Anthony Albanese has more to put on the bargaining table than Christopher Luxon does.
Albanese has been telling countries he’ll give them gas if they give him petrol and diesel.
Christopher Luxon might be thinking he doesn’t need to rush. Because he’s due to travel to Singapore next month, where he’s going to be signing the agreement with Singapore to keep fuel supplies flowing.
Which is fine. But what about South Korea, where we get about half of our fuel from?
That’s why, at the very least, Christopher Luxon should be on a flight to Seoul as soon as he can.
Because one of the things he is extremely good at is getting on with world leaders. He loves nothing more than working a room.
So let’s get him doing what he does best. Because this fuel crisis isn’t going to be over any time soon.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Finally, someone has come up with an idea for the Anglican Cathedral in Christchurch that makes a load of sense.
It doesn’t involve running to the Government cap-in-hand. And it doesn’t involve asking ratepayers to fork out more money.
Sound too good to be true? I know - if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
But I think this is an exception. And a brilliant exception, at that.
So, what’s happened, is business leader Humphry Rolleston has told the Christchurch City Council that what it should do, is sell its Enable broadband company to pay for the cathedral and get the square back to life again.
Not only that - it could also pay for other heritage projects around town that are in desperate need of money.
Before you go thinking that I've done some sort of U-turn and become a cheerleader for the cathedral, I haven’t. But I think we just have to accept that about $100 million has been poured into it, and so we’re stuck with it. It would be criminal to pull the thing down.
Even though I think that the cathedral doesn’t have the same level of community support that it used to have. Even though I don’t buy into this notion that the cathedral was and, could again be, a tourist attraction.
I still feel the same. But, despite all that, we have to decide if we want to be stuck with it in its current state forever or whether we want to look for a practical way forward.
And this is a practical way forward.
So the back-of-an-envelope numbers say that the council could sell the broadband company for somewhere around $1 billion.
Which, Humphry Rolleston says, could be used to set up a trust, and the interest earned on that money could be used to pay for the cathedral and other heritage projects.
These are the other three, as well as The Cathedral, that are short of cash. The Arts Centre, Canterbury Museum and the old Provincial Chambers.
A few more numbers for you.
Humphry Rolleston says the fund could be operating by Christmas - that’s assuming that the council could sell its broadband company that soon - and could generate about $42 million a year.
Which is around about the amount the Cathedral project needs.
Humphry Rolleston says: “I think this is an elegant and simple financial solution that will enable us to restore the buildings without calling on direct rate-paying support.”
Amen to that. Pun intended.
And the reason why I think this is such a good idea, again, comes down to numbers.
In the last financial year, the Enable broadband company paid out a $25 million dividend to the council. And that is expected to increase to $35 million a year in 2028.
That’s a 3.5 percent return on our money. Which is chickenfeed.
Now, you consider what the return might be to the city if the cathedral, especially, was fixed up and the square able to be returned to its former glory?
More than $25-to-$35 million. And you imagine all of that happening without more ratepayer money going into it.
It is an absolute no-brainer, as far as I'm concerned.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National's Hamish Campbell and Labour's Reuben Davidson joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from Iran, the idea from Humphry Rolleston to sell off Enable to fund the rebuild of the Cathedral, and how to solve the wastewater problem in Bromley.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Anyone who thinks the ceasefire agreement between the United States and Iran is going to last the full two weeks is dreaming.
How many reasons can I give you? Because there are plenty.
First up, there are these conflicting reports coming through this regarding the Strait of Hormuz. The stretch of water that is the reason why diesel users in this country are paying more for fuel than petrol users. Why Air New Zealand and Jetstar are cancelling the flights. The reason for all sorts of economic carnage.
The stretch of water that's pretty much been closed since the US and Israel started bombing Iran.
We’ve got Iran saying that this crucial shipping route is closed because of Israel's large-scale attacks on Lebanon overnight. But we’ve also got the white house saying that’s fake news.
Iran is also warning that any ships going through the strait without permission will be destroyed.
So that’s enough on its own to tell you that this isn’t going to last five minutes.
Israel is another reason why this ceasefire isn’t going to last.
Without warning, Israel dropped 160 bombs on 100 targets within 10 minutes. The heaviest bombardment on Lebanon since the war began.
That’s because it sees its campaign to destroy Hezbollah - the Shiite militia backed by Iran - as some sort of side issue.
Which Iran thinks is a load of nonsense and there are concerns that this could be enough for it to pull out of the ceasefire.
Which I think is looking increasingly likely now that U.S President Donald Trump appears to have sided with Israel on this one.
Trump initially didn’t comment one way or the other on Israel's claim - but he is now saying that Israel's attacks on Lebanon are “a separate skirmish” and not part of the ceasefire deal.
What’s more, with Iran apparently holding on tight to the Strait of Hormuz - how kindly do you think trump is going to take to that?
This is the guy who said on social media a few days ago: “open the f-in’ strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in hell”.
And let’s remember why Trump did what he did yesterday, agreeing to this very precarious ceasefire.
He gave in, not because it would mean victory for the United States - which he is claiming of course - Trump gave in yesterday because of the Strait of Hormuz.
This ceasefire is nothing to do with regime change and nothing to do with keeping the world safe from any nuclear ambitions Iran might have.
This ceasefire is about oil and trade and money and the markets. And the heat Donald Trump was feeling about the impact his war is having on the global economy.
And, if that oil doesn’t start flowing through the Strait of Hormuz again anytime soon then, you can bet your bottom dollar that trump will be ripping up that ceasefire agreement.
That’s if Iran doesn’t rip it up first.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Mayor of Christchurch thinks the site of soon to be retired Apollo Projects Stadium should be sold on when it's returned to the council's ownership.
Phil Mauger told Canterbury Mornings he believes the land is best suited for housing, stressing that any redevelopment should respect the site’s past.
"The common-sense use is for housing. Not massive intensive housing, just normal intensification. It'll need a bit of a green area in the middle, it needs to be done properly."
They also discussed the departure of outgoing CEO Mary Richardson, the New Brighton Mall redevelopment, and if Christchurch roads need more cheaper cycleways.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
After pretty much telling us to calm the farm over the fuel situation, I can’t believe the government is getting all antsy about its fuel tax increase - due to kick-in at the start of next year.
Yesterday, when Finance Minister Nicola Willis gave her regular fuel update, she said it is “very unlikely” that the Government will go ahead with the 12 percent-per-litre increase in January.
Why’s that? Because the Government doesn’t think people can afford it. Due to the increased costs caused by the war in Iran.
But I don’t think the country can afford not to increase the taxes.
Because, as the finance minister said herself yesterday, no increase in the fuel tax is going to mean less money for road maintenance and road construction.
Anyone who thinks this would be a good idea obviously has a very short memory.
Because it was only two months when the automobile association released the findings of its most recent research survey of motorists, which found that more than half of us think our roads are rubbish.
Fifty-four percent of people surveyed by the AA said they were frustrated by the state of our roads.
South Canterbury was one of the areas where people were most unhappy. More than 60 percent of people there said they thought the roads were in cruddy condition.
And, at the time, aa spokesperson Dylan Thomsen said his organisation had been pushing for better maintenance of roads for years.
Two months ago, he said: “We are very pleased that there has been a big increase in funding and focus on maintenance with initiatives like the government’s pothole fund. Hopefully we’ve turned a corner and we'll see aa members happier with their roads in future surveys.”
That’s not going to happen if the government does do what Nicola Willis was talking about yesterday and does press pause on fuel tax increases.
As Chris Bishop has said previously about fuel taxes. He says they “go into the roads, maintenance, public transport, the new projects we want to build, the new public transport projects we want to build, all of those things have to be paid for.”
Adding that the Government “doesn't have an unlimited credit card”.
So the Government, if it’s totally honest, obviously thinks that increasing fuel taxes is a no-brainer. Which it is.
So why is it saying now that it’s probably not going to?
Because it doesn’t think it would be fair and reasonable to make us pay more for fuel when we are already, because of what’s going on in the Middle East.
I get that. But it’s just politics.
Because, if you think beyond the here and now and think about the state of our roads, then you too will, hopefully, see that this move - over time - would be a major step backwards.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I bumped into a mate at the supermarket yesterday and one of the first things he said to me was, “Where’s Christopher Luxon?”.
And I knew straight away what he was getting at.
He was echoing the sentiment of political commentators over the weekend who were asking why the Prime Minister isn’t front and centre of the government’s response to the fuel situation.
Not that Nicola Willis seems to be complaining. She appears to be relishing the opportunity to be the government’s mouthpiece.
Which is rather unusual given what we’ve become used to in recent years. Particularly since Covid - but we saw it before then too.
Jacinda Ardern is the most obvious comparison. But John Key, as well. On the day of the big quake, he called an urgent cabinet meeting, then he was straight on a plane to Christchurch.
Jacinda Ardern was the same after the mosque attacks. She was front and centre when the White Island tragedy happened, and, as we know, she was the face of her government’s Covid response.
These commentators who were talking about Christopher Luxon over the weekend were making the inevitable comparison to Jacinda Ardern.
And it’s something I've been thinking about too.
This fuel situation is Christopher Luxon's opportunity to shine. But, apart from photos on social media of him on the blower to other world leaders talking fuel, that’s about it.
The rest of the time it’s either Nicola Willis on her own or Nicola Willis with the Prime Minister at her side.
And I don’t think it’s doing him any favours at all.
Take Friday, for example. The Prime Minister was in Christchurch for the official opening of the new One New Zealand Stadium - while he let Nicola Willis front the government’s fuel update.
As one commentator put it: “It is difficult to imagine his predecessors - Ardern, Key or Helen Clark - surrendering such a platform at such a time.”
Nicola Willis is doing a very good job in front of the fuel response. But, in my mind, she’s doing a job the Prime Minister should be doing.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I think Chris Hipkins’ time could be up.
He said to me last week that he’d had better weeks, after his ex-wife made those claims about him on social media.
But, if he thought things were on the improve this week, that’s probably all come crashing down again this morning with the Herald reporting that he knew more about the Covid vaccine risks than he has let on.
And I think this could be the end of his push to be the next prime minister.
You‘ll remember when the second covid inquiry report came out recently, one of the more startling things it revealed was that Chris Hipkins and Jacinda Ardern’s Government hadn’t been told about the risks of a second covid vaccine for teenagers.
The report said health officials hadn’t told ministers that 12-to-17-year-olds shouldn't really have been getting two doses of the vaccine. Because of the risk of myocarditis - which is inflammation of the heart muscle.
That was an absolute shocker of a revelation.
And that was the version of the story Chris Hipkins stuck to when he was asked about it. Which deflected attention to the likes of former health boss Sir Ashley Bloomfield and whether he should be taken to task for not sharing that vital information with the Government.
Now, though, we’re finding out in a report by the Herald this morning, that a 2022 cabinet paper in Hipkins’ name does include the advice.
Hipkins has declined requests for interviews but has said in a statement that the then-government “had to make tough decisions under extraordinary pressure and a rapidly changing environment”.
As the Herald reports, Hipkins has declined a request for an interview and, in that statement I mentioned, did not directly address the issue of that advice re: teenagers not being made public.
Instead, as well as going on about the government having to make decisions when it was under the pump, he says: “the royal commission found that the government made numerous efforts to communicate safety issues, including the risk of myocarditis.”
I mean, do me a favour Chris.
If you’ve ever wondered what covering your backside sounds like, that’s it right there.
Correction. If you’ve ever wondered what someone failing miserably at covering their backside sounds like, that’s it right there.
What’s more, tell that Chris to the parents and caregivers of the 30,000 young people who had to have the second dose as part of the vaccine mandates.
Tell that to the young people themselves, Chris.
Now, unless Hipkins can prove otherwise, I think this revelation today blows any chance of voters trusting him again out of the water.
It’s not like he’s Jacinda Ardern or Grant Robertson who have moved on to other things. Chris Hipkins hasn’t moved on and wants to be Prime Minister.
He wants to be Prime Minister and he’s been caught out.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour's Reuben Davidson and National's Stuart Smith joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
The covered the biggest news of the week, including the revelation that Chris Hipkins had been advised on Covid vaccines for teens, the Governments fuel relief package, and the Parliamentary warning around importing liquid natural gas.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The head of the construction company who built the new One New Zealand Stadium is pleased the stadium has been delivered to the city ahead of time and on budget.
Mark Baker, CEO of Australian firm BESIX Watpac, is in Christchurch for the ribbon cutting ceremony at the new stadium and joined John MacDonald for a chat during his short visit in Christchurch.
"it's been a while in the post COVID era where we're able to say that we've delivered ahead of time, and pleasingly we have."
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
MPs are debating whether New Zealand should get involved in securing and opening up the Strait of Hormuz to shipping again.
Labour is arguing that the Government was too quick off the mark signing an international statement which expressed New Zealand's readiness to do its bit.
Labour says New Zealand needs to be weary of getting involved because of the way the U.S. might go about things.
But I think New Zealand has no choice but to get involved in securing and opening up the Strait of Hormuz to shipping again.
For two reasons.
Back in 2024, we sent six defence personnel to help out behind the scenes with U.S. and British airstrikes on bases used by Houthi Militia.
The Government decided to support America and Britain with their strikes on the Houthi Militia - which is supported by Iran- because they’d been attacking ships in the red sea in retaliation for Israel's attacks on Gaza.
Our government said at the time that it wanted to do its bit to ensure maritime security for trade purposes, because the Houthi’s attacks were having an impact on world trade.
10 percent of New Zealand’s exports and about 20 percent of the stuff we import travels through the red sea between here, the UK, Europe and North Africa.
At the time, prime minister Christopher Luxon said: “Houthi attacks against commercial and naval shipping are illegal, unacceptable and profoundly destabilising.
“This deployment, as part of an international coalition, is a continuation of New Zealand’s long history of defending freedom of navigation both in the Middle East and closer to home.”
And foreign affairs minister Winston Peters said: “these efforts support international security and the free flow of trade on which New Zealanders rely.”
At the time, I was weary of New Zealand getting involved in the red sea. For two reasons.
One reason was that we had no idea what we were getting ourselves into and how long we might be involved and what else might be expected of us.
The other reason I was weary ofit;was what sort of precedent it might set.
And now, the chickens are coming home to roost on that part of it - with the precedent bit.
Because, whether we like it or not, there is no wayNewZealandcan‘thelpget theStrait ofHormuzup and running again.
We have to take part. Because, if it was good enough for us to defend trade routes back in 2024, the case is just as strong now.
If anything, the argument for getting involved in defending the oil shipping route is stronger than defending the red sea.
The other reason why I think there’s no way we can’t do our bit, is that we are so dependent on the Strait of Hormuz that it would be lame-as for us to just sit on the sidelines and watch other countries do the heavy lifting
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Mayor of Christchurch isn't too worried about the impact of fuel prices on the council at the moment but is keeping a close eye on things.
Phil Mauger told Canterbury Mornings that costs will be affected by the Middle East conflict, but a lot of the council's infrastructure runs on electricity.
"A lot of our fleet is electric, the boilers in the building are changed over to electric, we've got solar on our galleries"
"It's not critical yet, but we're certainly looking at it and keeping a very good eye on it."
They also discussed the Crusaders Express train taking fans to rugby games to the new stadium from Rangiora and Rolleston, the councils satisfaction survey, and if there are any updates from his 3am idea to fix Cathedral Square.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There are two ways you could look at the Government's fuel relief package. On one hand, you could say it shouldn't have bothered at all. On the other, you could say it should have bothered, but not the way it's doing it. Either way, it's got it wrong in my book.
But, despite what I might think, about 150,000 families with kids on low to middle incomes are going to be getting $50 a week in tax credits to help them deal with increased fuel costs due to the Iran war.
But these 150,000 families are families that the Government has no idea whether they actually need this support or not. It's just assuming they do. For example, what about those families that bike everywhere? What about the families who homeschool the kids? They don't need to drive far in the mornings and afternoons, do they? What about families who can't even afford to run a car? Why should they get another $50 a week to pay for fuel that they don't even buy?
And then we get to those who aren't getting anything. Nothing in the package announced yesterday for beneficiaries, no relief for retired people, nothing for students. And most importantly, there is no help for the sectors and the industries that rely on diesel to supply us with food and other essentials. Which, if the Government was going to do anything, that's where it should be focused on.
The Government should be thinking about the wider consequences of higher fuel prices, however long they continue. And, instead of paying a few bucks to people on the lower pay grades, what it should be doing is providing support or interventions for the likes of food manufacturers, the transport industry, the logistics people, all of those.
Because all of those groups are paying higher fuel prices, paying way more for the diesel, but they don't suck them up like your average motorist does. They pass them on.
And all it's going to mean is your low and middle income families will be compensated for, apparently, spending more on fuel - but they'll be paying more for the bread and the fruit and the veggies.
Which is why I've come to the conclusion that, if this is the best approach the Government can come up with, it shouldn't be bothering at all.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Even though the New Zealand government is making the fuel situation sound a bit more urgent than it had been up until now, sounding slightly a bit more antsy than it was, I bet it still isn't enough to satisfy the head of the International Energy Agency.
Fatih Birol is blasting governments around the world, not just ours, for not being as upfront as they should be about the economic carnage from the Iran war.
The International Energy Agency essentially works with countries around the world in the energy sector and, when there are supply disruptions like we have at the moment, gives advice on solutions. It's also in charge of deciding whether to dip into energy reserves to keep supplies going.
Fatih Birol is saying today that the fuel crisis is worse than the combined impacts of the three biggest energy shocks in modern history. And he says that we would be better prepared if we fully understood the magnitude of the economic impacts.
He doesn't think we are because he says our politicians are sugarcoating the situation and says he's had to come out and say what he's saying today because he doesn't think people fully understand the economic consequences of Iran shutting down the Strait of Hormuz.
And he's laying the blame at the feet of politicians who he says should be making people aware that this isn't going to end when the war ends.
Politicians should be making people aware that there are going to be consequences for some time to come. He says households need to be better informed about the magnitude of the challenge we are facing.
“I think they'd be better prepared if they understood what we are facing and what we are dealing with.”
Tell that to politicians though, eh? Especially politicians like the ones here who want to get elected later on this year.
I get it that the last thing government politicians, especially, want in an election year is to say that things are going to be pear-shaped for some time yet.
Because voters don't want to hear that. But I think in the medium to long term, I reckon the Government would have far more credibility if it did do what the head of the International Energy Agency wants it to do and be as upfront as humanly possible.
Because you think about it, all we're hearing from the Government is how much fuel supplies we've got. We're not hearing anything from the Government about what this is going to mean beyond that.
If our politicians had the guts, they'd be telling us right now.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This fuel situation is starting to feel like herding cats.
You’ve got the government, on one hand, going on about seven weeks supply. Don’t panic, keep calm and carry on.
The government is also talking about this rescue package for low-to-middle income earners.
Then you’ve got the hoarders filling up drums and jerry cans with petrol and diesel. I met one on the weekend.
He was doing the drums and the cans but he was also using the fuel tank in his boat for storage. He was a tradie and said all the farming mates he was out with are doing the same.
And now we’ve got businesses deciding to take their own course of action, and some are either putting their prices up or adding fuel surcharges.
One in Christchurch has just announced that, unless customers go to them, they’re going to have to pay an extra $5 while the fuel prices remain high because of the situation in the middle east.
It’s even offering free finance options for people with a community services card.
Didi, the rideshare outfit similar to Uber which operates in Auckland and Wellington, is also introducing a fuel surcharge from Wednesday. Charging passengers 5 cents per kilometre.
Which raises the question: is this reasonable, given we’re all in this boat together?
My view is that a specific surcharge is much more reasonable than a random increase in prices.
There’s a pie shop in the nelson area that has just announced that the prices of its pies are going up 50 cents.
The owner of the shop says the increase is happening immediately, and she’s doing it because the fuel prices have increased her costs by 20 percent.
She says she has no option.
The thing is, though, how do customers know her costs have gone up 20 percent? How does the bakery owner know that charging 50 cents more for a pie is what’s needed to cover that increase?
And more to the point, when this is all over and the fuel prices are down again, are the pies going to be 50 cents cheaper? I bet they won’t be.
Which is why I think a temporary surcharge is a fairer way of doing it.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I reckon the Government is going about this fuel price rescue package the wrong way. It seems to think it's doing the right thing picking low-to-middle income earners who, it assumes, are struggling to pay the higher fuel prices.
Of course, someone on the minimum wage, for example, is going to be harder hit by $3.30, $3.40, $3.50 a litre than someone earning $100K.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis says the people the Government wants to help are the working New Zealanders who have little option each day but to get in the car and drive to work. It wants to avoid a blanket cut to the fuel tax and it doesn't want to invent a new scheme of income assistance from scratch.
As the Minister puts it, she wants something that doesn't involve any paperwork. Which sounds like tax credits to me. But I think the Government needs to lift its sights and think a little bit more strategically about this.
It should be thinking about the wider consequences of higher fuel prices, however long they continue. And, instead of paying a few bucks to people on the lower pay grades, what it should be doing is providing support or providing interventions for the likes of food growers, food manufacturers, the transport and logistics sectors. Because all of those groups, they're paying higher fuel prices. But they don't just suck them up like your average motorist does. They pass them on, don't they?
Which means the low-to-middle income people being compensated for spending more on diesel and petrol for their vehicles will still be paying more for their bread and their fruit and their veggies. Any savings will just be cancelled-out by costs passed on to them from the food processors or producers, the manufacturers, the transport sector and the farmers at the supermarket checkout.
Maybe the Government's trying to avoid the type of criticism that would inevitably come its way if it did what I think it should be doing. Because there would be no shortage of people saying it was just looking after its people and the fat cat farmers and the corporate food manufacturers.
Can't you hear it? But all the Government would have to say to quieten-down those people is that, if it didn‘t, they’d be paying more anyway.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
New Zealand's economy wasn't doing as well as we thought, even before war broke out in the Middle East.
Latest Stats NZ data shows GDP rose just 0.2% in the December quarter – well under the Reserve Bank forecast of 0.5%.
Inflation hit 3.1% in the quarter, above the central Bank's forecast of 2.7%.
The Herald's Liam Dann told John MacDonald if the Iran conflict continues, we could be at risk of "stagflation" – a combination of high inflation and low growth seen in the 1970s.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
While I don't like the idea of us being dragged into the AUKUS military alliance with Australia, the UK, and the US, I think what the government's doing creating something along the lines of an ANZAC defence force - I think it makes a truckload of sense.
The plan is that by 2035 there'll be an integrated, combat capable Australia New Zealand defence force. Combat capable is the particularly interesting bit.
I don't know about you, but I was a little bit surprised when I heard about this plan. Although it does seem that it's been on the cards for a while now, especially when you consider some of the new kit that the Government's buying for the New Zealand Defence Force and how it matches what Australia's got.
As for AUKUS, Defence Minister Judith Collins was asked whether this will align us with it. And she said it won't. But the proof of course will be in the pudding. And it's probably easy in some ways for Judith to say that given that her political career is finishing up.
Nevertheless, in principle, I think it's a no brainer. As Judith said this morning, we're a very small country in terms of population, but our defence force has got to spread itself very thinly over a very wide area. Here, throughout the Pacific and the Antarctic region.
She says effectively joining forces with Australia is a much more clever way of making the most of our defence resources and making the most of Australia's defence resources.
So no argument from me. But I'm not convinced about us being able to do this without being dragged into the AUKUS alliance in some way, shape, or form. And I'm picking that former Prime Minister Helen Clark will be thinking along the same lines. Because last year, when there was speculation or discussion that the Government might be thinking about signing New Zealand up as some sort of second tier member of AUKUS, she said we shouldn't be touching it with a barge pole.
According to Helen Clark, if you’re an ally, you can get dragged into all sorts of things that you shouldn't be dragged into or don't want to be dragged into.
Although I think we're seeing that allies are learning to say no to each other a bit more often. Which is why Donald Trump's nose is out of joint.
But if we go on what Judith Collins is saying, and I'm prepared to, the New Zealand Defence Force will still think for itself and will still be in charge of its own people. She says, "We'll make our own sovereign decisions. These are our people in our uniforms." And here's what I think is the most reassuring part. Judith Collins says "If the Australians were doing something we weren't happy with, we'll pull our people out," noting that Australia would be free to do the same.
So the way I see it, this is nothing more than a common-sense approach for a tiny country which has let its defence force run on the smell of an oily rag for far too long. We're playing catch up now, sure, but we are dreaming if we think we can do it all on our own.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There’s no doubt the Government has failed us on food prices.
But then, it was always going to. In fact, any politician who says they’re going to bring food prices down is dreaming.
This election year, if you hear any of them saying they’re going to get on top of the costs of living and you’ll be paying less at the supermarket if you vote for them, just block your ears.
Tell them to go and talk to some other mug because you know it’s impossible and they’ll never do it.
And this is not me having a go at any particular political party or any particular political ideology.
Remember last election, we had Labour trying to push the idea of no GSTon fruit and veggies?
Grant Robertson had always been against it but, obviously, realised Labour was pushing it uphill, and he just went along with it because he thought there might be enough clowns who would fall for it.
I didn’t. I saw it for what it was. Because prices for things still go up whether or not there are taxes.
That was Labour‘s big idea last election and we’re yet to see anything meaningful from them this time around. That’s because politicians can do very little when it comes to food prices.
If you’ve been at the supermarket and thought the price of mince is a bit steep, you’d be right.
In the past year, mince has gone up 23.2 percent. The largest increase on record.
Fruit and vegetable prices are up too, by nearly 10 percent.
Now, granted, there have been some decreases month-on-month, but that doesn’t change the fact that, compared to this time last year, we are paying way more for food.
Nicola Willis talked a big game on food prices. She was going to crack down on the supermarkets. She was going to bring prices down.
She hauled the Fonterra boss into her office to talk about the price of butter. It was all grand gestures with very little to show for it.
But that’s not Nicola Willis’ fault. Just like she wouldn’t be able to take the credit if prices went down.
And it’s not Nicola Willis’ fault or the fault of anyone in the current government because, when it comes down to it, politicians don’t and can’t bring food prices down.
If you want to point the finger at anyone, point it at the people who believe politicians when they say they can.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour Leader Chris Hipkins doesn't want people to read too much into him considering his political future as ripples spread from personal allegations made by his ex-wife.
Jade Paul posted claims on a private Facebook page on Sunday that are now deleted, none of which related to unlawful conduct.
Hipkins says it wasn't a long deliberation, saying that he recognises the political spotlight can mean loved ones pay a significant price.
"I still love my job and I am absolutely committed to it."
Speaking about the since-deleted post, the Leader of the Opposition said he denies the allegations and is not commenting further on them at this stage.
"I'm putting my children first, and I'm not going to get into a public debate with my ex-wife about the breakup of our marriage."
He also spoke to John MacDonald about the Governments position on potentially aiding the United States in the Strait of Hormuz, and the rise of fuel and food prices in New Zealand.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Maybe my head is in the sand, but all this excitement about fuel prices isn’t making me any more inclined to buy an electric vehicle.
Tell that to the people who are getting all excited and buying them. In big numbers too, it seems.
So we’ve got the government warning that petrol prices could hit $4 a litre and EV dealers saying they’re being run off their feet because of the ongoing situation in the middle east.
BYD sold 80 on Saturday across the country. Normally they’d sell 25 on an average Saturday. So that’s a major increase.
Here in Christchurch, EV dealerships are reporting a major leap in sales too, with one of them selling out entirely in just two days.
People are coming from as far away as nelson to get their hands on electric vehicles too, apparently.
How things can change. In November, the EV dealers were ripping-in to the government for the changes it was making to the clean car standards for imported vehicles and we were all talking about the EV bubble busting.
Fast-forward four months and throw in a bit of good old fashioned kiwi over-reaction, and the picture is very different.
This war has only been going two-and-a-bit weeks but that’s enough, it seems, for some people to want to go all EV on it.
I drive petrol cars. And, at this point, i have no intention of switching to an EV.
One of my vehicles, especially, is a real gas guzzler. But despite that, I have never had any interest in owning an EV. I can‘t tell you exactly why. It’s not a protest of any sort. It’s not climate change denial. It’s none of that.
I’m just not interested. And I am no more interested now, despite the war and the fuel prices.
And i reckon that, once the oil tankers start sailing again through the strait of Hormuz, most people will still be happy with petrol and diesel vehicles.
The other thing too is, that if i was buying an EV, I'd spend quite a bit of time looking into it.
You wouldn’t get me seeing a few days of petrol price increases and going all knee-jerk on it.
But the ev people are loving it that some people are.
DTR motors in Hornby had six cars on the lot on Friday night. By Sunday, they were all gone.
Alex Wu is the sales manager. He says: “people just showed up, even from nelson, paid and drove off.”
He says the weekend was the most “explosive” sales period in the nearly two years that DTR motors has been operating in Christchurch.
And that’s without any rebate assistance from the government.
Which Finance Minister Nicola Willis said yesterday wouldn’t be making a comeback. Saying: "i simply don't accept the idea that giving subsidies to millionaires in Remuera would help those afflicted by high petrol prices."
Nevertheless, EV’s are in demand again. So how tempted are you?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’ve got a story which has Covid-19 toilet paper mania written all over it.
I was blown away talking to someone in Christchurch at the weekend who said they’d been out and bought a whole lot of extra food because of the fuel situation with everything going on in the Middle East.
This is not something I endorse and it certainly isn’t something I'll be doing. But maybe the fact that they are British has something to do with it.
Because they were saying that they remembered the time when Britain invaded Iraq and the government telling people then to stockpile.
They said they were told they should have a month’s worth of non-perishable food in the cupboards. And that’s what they did.
So, as soon as they started hearing about fuel tanks in New Zealand running dry over the weekend, they shot out to the supermarket and stocked up.
They told me they’d been thinking about the potential consequences if we get to the point where the 50-days' supply the government keeps talking about starts to get a bit low on it.
What if the farmers start getting rationed? What about food production lines that need fuel? Not to mention fuel for the trucks that deliver food supplies around the country.
For a very brief second, I started thinking that they might have a point.
But it was a very brief second.
They also said they thought we should be rationing fuel now, instead of waiting until there’s a problem on the horizon.
That, if a fuel shortage does happen, it’s going to be all the other things that we rely on fuel for that are going to be affected.
But you’re not going to see me at Pak n Save filling the trolley up - just in case.
Because if everyone did that then we really would have shortages on our hands.
Just like there was no need for the rush on toilet paper during covid, there is no reason for us to be stockpiling food now.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Aside from trying to make sure we don’t run out of fuel because of what’s going on in the middle east, the other challenge the Government has on its hands is that we’re not the country we were six years.
Six years ago, when COVID first hit, we were much more compliant. Way more than we are now.
Six years ago - by and large - we all went along with all the restrictions and the initial lockdowns without too much resistance.
These days, it’s a different story. Which is why i think the government would be pushing it uphill with some of the fuel conservation ideas being thrown around.
I think it’s brilliant that the Government is thinking about this now and not waiting until the tanks are starting to go dry. Which is about 50 days away from happening, according to Finance Minister Nicola Willis
She says if new orders started being disrupted, then the Government would have to think about prioritising fuel for the likes of emergency services and the transport industry and other measures, such as car-less days, fuel rationing and working from home.
Let’s start with car-less days. The only way I could see them working was if insurance companies came out and said they wouldn’t cover a vehicle if it was driven on the nominated car-less day.
I don’t think more working from home would make much difference, either. Because people would still use their vehicles.
If anything, fuel rationing would be the only practical way of reducing fuel consumption. Because, if you can’t buy it, you can’t use it.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National's Hamish Campbell and Labour's Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
They covered some of the biggest topics from the week, including the release of the second phase of the Covid Inquiry, if more public money is required for the Christ Church Cathedral, and what is the landmark you think of when you think of Christchurch?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Three hundred and fifty jobs at Heinz Wattie's are on the line and we’ve only got ourselves to blame.
I’m including myself here.
Because all of us have pretty much fallen into the trap of thinking cheapest is best.
And, more often than not, if we think cheapest is best then we end up buying stuff from overseas and turning our backs on local products.
Before now, I've never really signed up to that whole buy New Zealand made thing. There have been various campaigns over recent years, haven’t there? With the little buy New Zealand made tags and things.
But hearing the news about Wattie's and thinking about the cheap fruit being dumped in New Zealand from China and the impact that alone has had on the company, I had a bit of an aha moment.
That we really need to think seriously about the stuff we buy and where it comes from.
I think buying New Zealand made probably matters more now than ever.
The jobs at Heinz Wattie's are set to go because the company has plans to shut down three New Zealand factories.
Frozen vegetables are one of Wattie's products that will disappear if the closures go ahead, with the company saying that it just can’t compete with cheaper products being imported from overseas.
So, it’s the fruit thing all over again.
Which raises the question: does New Zealand-made matter anymore?
If I'm honest, I don’t think it does matter to most people. But i think it should.
Because, as well as the 350 workers affected, there are also around 220 growers in the canterbury region alone who supply the Christchurch site.
So they’ll be very worried too.
And it’s not just Wattie's we’re talking about, either.
As the union that represents the Wattie's workers is saying today, manufacturing closures are becoming more and more common.
Other companies that have wound back their manufacturing here in New Zealand recently include carter Holt Harvey, Sealord in Nelson and Kinleith pulp and paper.
And the people affected by these proposed closures have Wattie's in their blood. The average length of service is around 30 years. So it’s probably fairly safe to assume that there will be generations of families who have worked at Wattie's.
Union delegate Kathy Perrin has worked at Heinz Wattie's for 46 years in different roles and is saying today that the impact on workers will be devastating.
We might say we care about buying products made here but, when it comes down to it, I don’t think we actually do.
But how important is New Zealand made to you?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There is another plan in the works to revive Cathedral Square with the Council asking for the public's ideas later this year
The Christchurch City Council has announced they have a budget of $28.5 million set aside to put a revitalisation plan in action.
Mayor Phil Mauger told Canterbury Mornings that he would like to put some of the money into the Christ Church Cathedral to fix it instead of only funding the redevelopment of Cathedral Square.
"Some of it could go to the Cathedral, they're crying out for it, let's not spend or waste 28 million dollars in the square when some of it could go towards the Cathedral."
They also discussed his idea to fix East Christchurch's wastewater issues, Whether or not he backs the Dux de Lux rebuild to be paid with council rates, and his thoughts on potentially bringing the Santa Parade to central Christchurch.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I don’t think there’ll be too many complaints about the report from phase two of the COVID inquiry.
Because, for $14 million, we’ve all got something out of it. That’s $14 million for this phase. Phase one cost us about $17 million.
If you’re anti-vax or vaccine-weary, you’ve got the bit in the report about officials not telling ministers that 12 to 17-year-olds shouldn't really have been getting two doses of the vaccine. Because of the risk of myocarditis.
That was an absolute shocker that one.
If you think Jacinda was a saint and saved us all, you’re probably having a bit of a “told you so” moment.
Irrespective of how patronising she and her ministers got the longer the pandemic went on, you’ll be having your “told you so” moment because the report says, overall, New Zealand's approach was good.
If you think the Government got it wrong thinking that the team of five million would stick together no matter what, you’ll be happy with the report too.
Because it says some of the mandates went on too long, and the Government failed to communicate well enough with us.
In fact, i can’t think of anyone who won’t feel they’ve got at least something out of it.
Except NZ First Leader Winston peters, perhaps.
He says many people think the inquiry has been one-sided and the damage is done.
The damage he’s talking about there is the damage from the mandates.
He says: “The employment and wage-scarring impacts of the mandates were significant. The Labour Government made no attempt to monitor these impacts and the devastating results that would come to our country.
“These mandates and lockdowns cost thousands of jobs and had a devastating effect on our economy and people’s health and livelihoods - all of which were avoidable.”
And I agree with him that not enough thought was given about the long-term consequences of the mandates. Which, at the time, I supported.
Winston Peters says: “the report brings questions that need to be answered by Hipkins and Verrall and all those other former ministers. They cannot brush this off.”
One of those former ministers, Chris Hipkins, said on Newstalk ZB this morning that he doesn‘t think his involvement in the COVID response and the findings of the inquiry will put people off voting for him.
And I agree with him. Anyone who holds a grudge now will always hold a grudge. And there’s nothing Chris Hipkins can do to change that.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The rubber is hitting the road for us here in New Zealand with fuel prices on the up because of the situation in the Middle East.
The Taxpayers’ Union hasn’t been slow in coming forward, saying the government should be cutting its fuel taxes. Temporarily, anyway.
It says households shouldn’t be forced to shoulder the full cost of global instability.
It’s spokesman Jordan Williams is saying that people are already struggling with the cost of living and the government needs to wear some of the burden rather than lumping it all on motorists.
I get his argument and, more to the point, it’s not just motorists who are impacted. Everyone is impacted because the price of fuel pretty much impacts the price of everything.
Nevertheless, thank goodness the government hasn’t jumped on the kneejerk reaction bandwagon with this one. With finance minister Nicola Willis saying that won’t be happening.
Which makes perfect sense. For several reasons.
The main one being timing.
We’re only a week or so into this war and who knows what’s going to be happening this time next week or two weeks from now.
And that’s the job of a government in times like these. Don’t panic and see where things go.
Especially, when there’s the potential for the G7 countries - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States - to release some of the fuel they keep up their sleeve for times like these.
They decided overnight that that doesn’t need to happen right now. But they’re due to have another think about later this week.
The Automobile Association’s principal policy adviser terry Collins has been warning that petrol prices could get close to $4 a litre.
I think the likelihood of that has diminished and good on the government for holding its nerve.
Tell that to Labour leader Chris Hipkins, though.
He says back in 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine, his government heard about people not being able to afford the petrol they needed to get to work.
At that point, a litre of petrol cost $3.
Chris Hipkins says: “Once fuel inflation reached that point where people couldn’t afford to go to work, because they couldn’t afford to fill up the car, we made the decision at that point that the immediate priority was providing support to New Zealand households.”
And he wants to see the same thing happen again.
I don’t - and I think the government’s made the right move.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christopher Luxon is at risk of sounding a bit like Joe Biden.
You’ll remember the former US president bungled that election debate with Donald Trump and then people started calling for him to go and he said he wasn’t standing down.
Christopher Luxon sounded a bit like that when he was on Newstalk ZB on Friday afternoon and this morning.
He said he was “absolutely not” considering standing down. That the only thing he was thinking about was the future of our kids and grandkids.
I think he’s absolutely right not to be thinking about standing down. Not that I think his colleagues won’t try to roll him. That could happen. And, when I heard him on Friday, I wondered whether his denial of having any thoughts about standing down was a message for us or a message for his caucus.
I’m in no doubt he was talking to his colleagues. Telling them very publicly that he’s not going anywhere.
He said he has no idea where the talk about him considering his future came from. He also said “hand on heart” he will still be Prime Minister and leader of the National Party when this year’s election comes around.
So not considering his future in the slightest. Nor should he.
While I don’t think he’s anywhere near the best prime minister we’ve ever had nor the best leader National has ever had, he’s not the worst of a pretty average bunch.
Over the weekend, a poll came out saying that 51 percent of people want to see a new leader of the National party. But that same poll showed that the likes of Erica Stanford’s star has faded a bit with voters.
The other thing too with her and other names mentioned, such as Mark Mitchell is that, while they have impressed people with their portfolio work, do you reckon they’d be any good at being across everything?
Could you imagine Mark Mitchell or Erica Stanford talking about inflation with any great authority? Chris Bishop would probably be the most credible on that front.
Another reason why I think Luxon should stay, is that this is his moment to show that he can hold a steady course when things hit the fan. It’s his chance to show that he can keep a team together when things are going a bit pear-shaped.
Reason number three: the last thing this country needs right now is more turbulence. There’s enough going on. Changing prime minister is way different than Labour changing leader back in 2017 when it was in Opposition.
If Chrisopher Luxon is the leader he seems to think he is, then he’ll ignore all that noise. Not for his sake. But for the sake of the country.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You know what the Government should do with this recommendation from a parliamentary select committee to ban under-16s from using social media? Ignore it.
With the Government thinking about copying Australia’s ban, a select committee has looked into it and it’s come back with a whole lot of recommendations relating to the online world - including a recommendation that we go ahead with a ban.
The committee says: “Harm to young New Zealanders from online platforms is severe and requires urgent responses.”
The key word there is “harm” and, as the ACT Party is saying today, banning under-16s from social media won’t fix that.
The Greens are opposed to the idea too - with both parties saying it could just lead to kids using what they’re calling “fringe websites”, instead.
So the harm will still be there and the kids will keep finding it, whether-or-not there’s a social media ban.
As to why I’m against this idea. Number One: the horse has already bolted. Number Two: the horse is going to keep on bolting. Because that’s what happens in the online world and the technology world.
If politicians think banning kids under-16 from Tik Tok and Insta and YouTube is the answer, they’re dreaming.
What’s more, if we’re totally honest with ourselves, a social media ban would just let parents off the hook.
Those parents at the supermarket, pushing their kids around in the trolley, and the kids all staring at screens - should the government be coming to their rescue because they either can’t be bothered or are too weak to say no?
Of course not.
Experts from Queensland University think banning under-16s from social media is a pipedream.
They say there is insufficient evidence to show social media is responsible for the increase in youth mental health problems. They say some marginalised young people actually benefit from social media. Example: I remember hearing someone who works with young members of the rainbow community saying that social media can be really valuable for the kids he works with.
These researchers in Australia also say there is a lack of clarity as to what social media actually is.
Nevertheless, a bunch of politicians who are already way behind the 8 ball on this think a social media ban for under-16s is the way to go.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Nationals Vanessa Weenink and Labours Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from the Governments response to the strikes in Iran, a U-16 social media ban being backed by a Parliamentary select committee, and if Christchurch ratepayers should be footing a 10-million-dollar bill to reopen the Dux de Lux building.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Are we still living in the same country that told America what to do with its nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships?
Are we still living in the same country that declared itself a nuclear-free zone? Which had Washington throwing its toys and telling us that it wouldn’t be sharing intelligence with us if its ships weren’t welcome.
But that didn’t put us off and the no nukes policy has been in place ever since.
That was back in 1984. Fast-forward to 2026 and it is a completely different story.
Which is why we’ve got former foreign affairs minister Phil Goff saying today that Christopher Luxon and Winston Peters are scared of US president Donald Trump. He says the Government’s response to US and Israel attacking Iran has been “weak and uncertain”. Which it has.
Not only that. Phil Goff is also saying today that New Zealand no longer has the courage to speak freely on international matters.
He says the Government knows full well that Donald Trump’s claim he was just responding to an imminent threat from Iran is nonsense. Fake news.
Phil Goff says the Government also knows full well that the attacks on Iran are illegal. But it’s too scared to say so because it’s worried about what reaction it might get from, as Goff puts it, a president who is “volatile, unpredictable and vindictive”.
He’s not getting any argument on the volatile and unpredictable bit from former defence minister Wayne Mapp, who says that’s exactly why the Government should be careful what it says.
Because Trump is contrary and you never know what he’s going to do.
Wayne Mapp says: “You do something that really upsets President Trump, you’re likely to be slapped with a 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent tariff.”
And he says the way the Government is handling things protects New Zealand’s interests.
I disagree. Because, if we want to be an independent, confident country, we have to take a stand on things - just like we did back in the 1980s with the nuclear thing.
Christopher Luxon’s background as a CEO is his undoing in situations like this.
Because chief executives are terrified of chaos. They like to have all their ducks lined-up before they make a decision or before they take a position on something.
They are the people who run everything past HR and the legal team because uncertainty is no friend of your chief executive.
So, of course, Christopher Luxon is going to say wishy-washy things like New Zealand “acknowledges” the attacks on Iran. Of course, he’s going to say it’s up to the US and Israel to determine whether the attacks are legal or not, because they’re the ones with all the information in front of them.
Anyone expecting anything different is dreaming. And, because of that, Phil Goff is right.
We are running scared and we have lost the courage to speak freely on international matters. Courage we used to have in spades.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour Leader Chris Hipkins believes that the strikes on Iran from the US and Israel were illegal, and the Government needs to be clearer on its position.
Speaking to John MacDonald, The Leader of the Opposition said he thinks a regime change is required in Iran, but legal avenues should've been considered.
"It needs to be in adherence with international law, which this is not."
If you're talking about a regime change, you need to have a plan to affect that"
On the news that the Governments bootcamps for young offenders are restarting, Hipkins says he does not support them.
"The first one was an abject failure, all of the evidence suggests they don't work."
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Can you believe the Christchurch City Council is even entertaining the idea of pouring partially-treated wastewater into the sea to try and reduce the stench from the burnt-out wastewater treatment plant at Bromley?
Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s shameful that the council has dropped the ball on this one in such a spectacular fashion. And don’t for a minute think that my empathy for the people living with that smell night and day is anything less than what it has been.
But this is a ridiculous idea cooked-up by mayor Phil Mauger.
As Christchurch East MP Reuben Davidson is saying, there’s a fair amount of hope but not a lot of evidence that this plan would work and not cause harm to the environment.
He’s right. The council is in panic mode and Phil Mauger is clutching at straws.
A bit of background. Last week, Environment Canterbury told the city council it hadn’t done enough to sort out the awful smell coming from the plant and said it had to come up with a plan within two weeks.
Hence, this idea of sending partially-treated wastewater out to sea to take the strain off the treatment plant. The council also wants to add chlorine to ensure bacteria levels are what it thinks will be safe before it reaches the ocean.
Since the big fire in November 2021, the ponds at the plant have been overloaded and aren’t in great shape. And, when we had all that rain the other week, things went next level and the smell was probably as bad as it’s ever been.
Phil Mauger is saying today: “We can’t sit back and expect conditions to improve on their own. Anyone who lives nearby knows the odour issues have become more intense, and we’ve been looking at all ways to help alleviate the stench.”
Yeah, but this isn’t how you should be doing it Phil.
E-Can says it’s surprised and concerned. My hope is that it will tell the city council to go back to the drawing board.
Because why would we do something that could add to the water pollution problems we’ve already got?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Former Prime Minister Helen Clark hasn’t been slow in criticising our government’s response to the attacks on Iran.
She’s not just criticising it - she’s slamming it. Saying that it’s “a disgrace” for not condemning Israel and the United States and, instead, criticising Iran’s “indiscriminate” retaliatory attacks.
Helen Clark says the Government knows full well that Israel and the US are breaking international law with these strikes and the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister should be saying so.
She says the Government knows that negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear capability were underway and we should be ripping into Israel and the US for what they started on Saturday.
But here’s where I’m at. When I hear about people in Iran cheering and celebrating the demise of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who am I to criticise what’s happened?
Who am I to tell these people: “Oh no no, stop celebrating, it’s not right what’s happened. Israel and the US aren't playing by the rules.” Who am I to say that to those people?
And who is Helen Clark to say that?
This is the problem you get with people on the left side of the political spectrum, who seem to be incapable of seeing the bigger picture.
Has Helen Clark and the opposition MPs lining up to criticise the Government forgotten about the death sentences handed out to some of the people involved in the recent mass protests?
They want things done to the letter every time. But what if this brings a better life for the people of Iran?
It’s a big if. Because who knows whether this will be the end of the current regime running Iran or not?
Regime change is easy to talk about but very difficult to do. Because it’s not just the regime, it’s who fills the vacuum afterwards.
As we saw in Iraq. Yes, they got rid of Saddam Hussein, but then they got rid of the Iraqi army as well and that’s when it really hit the fan with other extremists and terror groups all wanting a piece of the action.
So, who knows how this is going to end up in the long term? But, when all is said and done, for me this is about the people of Iran.
Which is why you’re not going to hear me piling into our government the way Helen Clark is.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Isn’t it amazing that, after all the time spent wringing our hands over the price of electricity, we still haven’t bitten the bullet and gone full boar with solar energy?
You might have heard Chris Hipkins hinting yesterday that, if Labour forms the next government, solar will be on the agenda.
He isn’t giving too much away but says, yes, ramping up the use of solar power will be one of Labour’s election policies.
There’ll be no details, though, until after the Budget in May. That’s because he wants to get a better idea of how much money he’s got to play with.
But, if last election is anything to go by, it looks like Labour might be resurrecting the policy it had back then of providing $4,000 grants to help people install solar panels.
In my mind, it is ridiculous that we don’t require new houses to be fitted out with solar panels. It would add to the cost of the build but, long-term, I think it would be a game changer.
I’m not the only one who thinks this. Sir Ian Taylor is saying today that electrification is the future and solar is how we get there.
Solar on homes. Solar on farms. Solar on commercial buildings. And I couldn’t agree more.
He says the cheapest electricity is the electricity you don’t have to move.
So his version of full-boar solar includes storage capacity - not just solar panels - at our houses, on our farms and on our commercial buildings.
He says: “Every kilowatt generated where it is used is one that does not need to be transmitted across the country. that reduces losses. it reduces strain on the grid. and it reduces the need for expensive new transmission infrastructure that ultimately pushes power prices higher.”
No argument from me.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor tells me several things, one of which is how much the late Queen really dropped the ball on this one. And that’s putting it politely.
She was the one who protected him when all the stories started to emerge. She was the one who, apparently, helped him out with some of the hush money paid out to one of his accusers.
Which only fueled the impression - rightly or wrongly - that the Royal Family thought it was above everything and everyone else.
Which is why I think this development is a brilliant opportunity for the monarchy.
Because this takes the monarchy down a peg or two, which can only be a good thing in the public’s eyes.
King Charles obviously sees an opportunity. He hasn’t been slow in coming forward, saying “the law must take its course”.
We’ve also got the likes of Major General Alastair Bruce, who is a historian and a royal watcher for Sky News, saying that this is “the most shocking day for the British Crown, to have a former prince of the blood arrested”.
Other commentators are describing the arrest as “extraordinary”, “unprecedented”, “spectacular” and a “body blow”.
Whether it is a body blow remains to be seen. Because these developments overnight show that the monarchy is just as answerable as the rest of us. Which is no bad thing, is it?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Megan Woods joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from the Infrastructure Commissions report, NZ First pushing for English to become an official language, and they reflect on the February 2011 earthquake sixteen years on.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How do you feel about being told you need to spend more money?
That’s what the Reserve Bank’s chief economist wants you to do.
As expected, the bank’s governor announced yesterday that there would be no change in the official cash rate because the bank doesn’t want to do anything that could put the brakes on the economic recovery.
Which some people are feeling the benefits of, while others aren’t. Which the Reserve Bank describes as an uneven recovery. Meaning we’re still in for a bit of a haul before we all feel some sort of benefit.
Tell that, though, to the bank’s chief economist Paul Conway who is giving us all a bit of a hurry along, saying people need to stop being so cautious with their money and get out and spend more.
How realistic is that, do you think?
If you’re not having a “tell him he’s dreaming moment”, then you must be one of the people who are already feeling the benefit of an economic recovery.
But, generally, what planet is Paul Conway on, telling us to spend more?
Because we’re doing that already. Not out of choice. Not because we’re feeling particularly flush. But we’re spending more just to get by.
Two days ago, new numbers came out showing that grocery prices are still going up.
White bread prices up 57.9 percent in the past year.
Chocolate up 20 percent.
Not to mention mince. That’s pink gold these days.
Which is why I think this statement by the Reserve Bank’s chief economist that we need to stop being so tight and start spending more is just ridiculous.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Bic Runga is back with her first new album in fifteen years.
She spoke with John MacDonald about her new album, Red Sunset, and touched on what genres inspired the album.
"I'm always inspired by anything from the 60's and 70's especially."
She also spoke about her biggest hit Sway, and its everlasting popularity thirty years on.
"It found a life of its own, I never thought that would happen."
Runga embarks on an Australasian tour with the new album and will return home to Christchurch to play the Isaac Theatre Royal on Sunday, March 29th.
The new album, Red Sunset is out now all streaming platforms.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
One of the problems with politicians is that they often stake their political survival on big infrastructure projects.
Which is why we’ve got Waimakariri MP Matt Doocey and Waimakariri mayor Dan Gordon jumping up and down saying like hell, there’ll be no Woodend Bypass.
The thing that’s got them excited is the new national infrastructure plan released by the Infrastructure Commission which, in a nutshell, says we should be building more hospitals and less big roads. They’ll be getting no argument from me.
Dan Gordon is rejecting any suggestion the bypass is a lower priority than other projects. But he would say that. He says more than 20,000 vehicles go through Woodend every day, and that’s only going to increase.
He says: “The town is quite literally divided in two by the state highway and the risk this has posed for decades is not acceptable. As the community grows this risk only increases.”
And he’s not having a bar of the Infrastructure Commission’s push for more tolling charges on roads, either.
I think he’s pushing that one uphill. Because, it’s very clear to me that charging tolls to use roads is the way of the future. It has to be. because, as a country, we don’t have the money.
Meanwhile, MP Matt Doocey is saying there’s no way the bypass is going to go down the pecking order.
He says: “If experts think the date for exceeding capacity of the current road in Woodend is still some years away, they clearly weren't stuck in traffic last Friday night after work like I was.”
He’s not anti-tolls, though. Matt Doocey says if paying a toll means roads being built sooner and faster, then that’s how it has to be.
But I think he and Dan Gordon need to show some fortitude and, instead of banging-on about the Woodend Bypass just because they’ve staked their political careers on it, they should admit that we need to make the big calls as to what really is most important.
Because I can’t argue with what the Infrastructure Commission is saying.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Chris Hipkins says we need to take the politics out of the Infrastructure Commissions National Infrastructure Plan.
The Leader of the Opposition told John MacDonald that he thinks the Commission has done a "really good job" on their recent report, and we need to focus on the basics.
"They've pointed out we have an over reliance on shiny new things, and we haven't done the basic maintenance of the things we've already got."
"We need to take the politics out of it and focus on a long-term plan."
On the rise of Winson Peters and NZ First in the polls, he said that Peter's lifetime in politics has given some unique political skills of reinvention.
"At the moment, he's trying to be an opposition MP while also trying to be the third highest ranking minster in the current government."
When asked if he has considered working with Peters to form the next government, Hipkins said that's something they will look at closer to election day.
"We'll set out closer to the election where we've got common ground with other parties."
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
NZ First is on the up, according to the latest 1News Verian poll.
The result out last night had Winston Peters’ party on 10 percent - its highest rating in that particular poll since August 2017.
It comes just a few weeks after a Taxpayers’ Union poll ranked NZ First the third most popular party in Parliament.
Ask NZ Herald chief political reporter Jamie Ensor and he’ll tell you more and more voters are liking the party because of its cautious approach on immigration and climate change policies. That it’s a party that is seen as anti-establishment and has, as he puts it, “a charismatic no-nonsense leader”.
That bit about Winston Peters being anti-establishment is a reference to his flirtatious relationship with the conspiracy theory brigade. Which tends to be the Winston Peters we see here at home. When he’s running around community halls up and down the country barking into microphones.
When he jumps on a plane, though, and heads overseas as the Foreign Affairs Minister, he’s a completely different guy, isn’t he?
Nevertheless, whatever version we get on any given day, more people seem to be liking it.
My theory is that NZ First is only on the rise because all the other options are so bad.
I can’t believe that two-and-a-half years on from the last election, I’m still in the same boat and have no idea who I want to vote for.
That’s how I felt at the last election and that’s how I’m feeling now.
I’ve spoken to plenty of people recently who say they’re looking seriously at NZ First. People of all ages.
What has surprised me most, is the number of young people who seem to like what the party is saying about immigration.
These are people who aren’t just seeing NZ First as an option because they don’t think any of the other parties are offering anything. They’re actually liking what the party is saying.
And that’s what we’re seeing in the polls.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Isn’t David Seymour the guy who got himself into government at the last election and then went and set up a new government department?
But, despite the irony, I agree with him that we need fewer government departments and fewer Cabinet ministers.
Previously, the ACT leader has described the public sector as "a big, complicated bureaucratic beast".
There are the numbers to back that up. We have 82 cabinet portfolios, 28 ministers and 41 separate government departments and agencies.
David Seymour thinks that’s crazy and says ACT will campaign in this year’s election on changing that. And, instead of having 41 government departments and agencies, he wants us to have no more than 30.
As for cabinet ministers - at the moment there are 28, David Seymour thinks we need no more than 20.
I remember Oliver Hartwich from the NZ Initiative think tank saying last year that we could get away with having as few as 15 cabinet ministers, instead of the 28 we have at the moment.
But he thought that 20 was more realistic.
As for government departments, they are monsters. They operate in silos. They compete with each other for funding. They don’t talk to each other. That’s why there’s so much duplication.
For example, do we need a Ministry of Education and an Education Review Office? I don’t think so.
Do we need a Ministry of Justice and a Department of Corrections? Possibly not.
As for cabinet positions, do we need a mental health minister? Could that all be part of the health minister’s job?
And don’t get me started on things like the Minister for the South Island or the Minister for Auckland that Labour brought in.
So, I’m with David Seymour and I think we could do with fewer government departments and agencies.
But it will never happen.
Talking about having less government departments and less cabinet ministers is easy and politicians talk about it because they know it tends to go down well with people.
But it will never happen. Because, whether people admit it or not, they still expect the government and its departments to fix everything.
And, unless that changes, the government isn’t going to get any smaller. And its list of departments isn’t going to get any shorter.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This week on Politics Friday John MacDonald was joined by National MP for Banks Peninsula Vanessa Weenick, and Labour List MP Tracey McLellan.
They covered the latest national and local issues, including NZ First's announcement to campaign on a Māori electorate referendum, whether all events at One NZ Stadium should have a levy, electric e-trail bikes that are speeding around the city, and more.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch City Councillor Yani Johanson thinks we should all pay a special levy when we buy tickets for all events at Christchurch’s new One New Zealand Stadium.
And he won’t be getting any argument from me.
Yani can’t believe the news today that a levy is only going to be charged on tickets for concerts by international artists.
He says it is “inconceivable” the levy won’t be charged for all events, including rugby matches and everything else that happens there, because he reckons it’s only fair that all people who use the stadium help pay for its upkeep.
No international acts have been announced yet but, apparently, there are going to be some announcements in the next few weeks.
And when the tickets go on sale, the council’s events company - Venues Ōtautahi - which is going to be running the stadium, is going to add a $5 levy to the ticket price.
The money from the levy is going to be used to pay for the extra toilets and extra food and drink facilities that are going to be needed when they have these big concerts.
So it sounds as if we might be queuing up for portaloos even though it’s a new flash harry facility.
The point Councillor Yani Johanson is making, is that anyone who wants to go to any event at the stadium should make the same contribution towards the running of the place.
He says: “A lot of these people buy expensive tickets to these events and are subsidised by the ratepayers in Linwood, Bromley and Aranui. I don’t think that is fair.”
But the head of Venues Ōtautahi, Caroline Harvie-Teare, says it wouldn’t be fair or right to charge a levy for all events.
Her thinking is that if you or I are buying tickets to see the likes of Bruce Springsteen or Pink or the Rolling Stones, we’re not going to give two-hoots about a $5 levy on top of the ticket price.
But she says it would be a different story for some of the smaller-scale, community-type events that are also going to be held at the stadium.
She says a levy on those types of events could put some people off and so they would be less viable. But what I would say to that, is that the stadium is not a charity and if events can’t pay their way, then maybe they need to be held somewhere else.
What’s more, do you really think a $5 levy would put people off buying tickets to see the All Blacks or the Crusaders? Of course not. Do you think a $5 levy would put people off buying tickets to see the rugby league world cup double-header in October? Or the Black Ferns when they play here?
So, of course, this levy should be added to the ticket prices for every event. Yani Johanson is spot on.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Do you think there is anyone in New Zealand who believes the Government’s line that it’s a coincidence the findings of its inquiry into the Reserve Bank’s COVID-19 response will be released a few weeks before the election?
As the NZ Herald’s political editor, Thomas Coughlan, puts it: the inquiry will ask the right questions at the wrong time.
Because this has election campaigning written all over it.
The official line is that the review is being done to “identify any lessons New Zealand could learn to improve the response to future major events”.
But how credible is that, given the findings of the inquiry will be released just weeks before this year’s election?
Not very, according to Labour leader Chris Hipkins, who’s saying today: “If this is a genuinely independent review that provides some lessons learned, it could be useful. But doing it right in the middle of an election campaign suggests that’s not Nicola Willis’ primary motivation here.”
And he’s spot on. Because it’s not.
The Government’s primary motivation is to spend half a million dollars of taxpayer money on a report that is going to come out at the pointy end of the election campaign, which will do one of two things.
It will either rip into the Reserve Bank in the way the Government hopes it will. So it can then say to voters, “do you really want the last lot who let the Reserve Bank get away with this trainwreck back in charge of the economy?”
Or, the report will be a bit soft - not quite what the Government wants - but will still give it bragging rights about looking to learn from past mistakes. Unlike Labour, who it will accuse of not having the guts to front up to the COVID-19 Royal Commission of Inquiry.
So it’s going to be a win-win - especially for National.
I think this would have way more credibility if the Government had come out yesterday and said it was launching the inquiry but the findings wouldn’t be released until after the election.
For the benefit of whoever the government of the day is after the election.
If it had done that, I would have had no problem with the timing.
Instead, this inquiry - which, in itself, is fully justified - is at risk of looking like nothing more than taxpayers coughing-up for the National Party’s election campaign.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Is there anything about the Government’s free trade deal with India that anyone likes?
The prime minister and the trade minister love it. Winston Peters doesn’t. And it seems Labour leader Chris Hipkins is coming around to thinking that he doesn’t like it, either.
He’s concerned about the prospect of an unlimited number of Indian students being allowed to come here and work and the impact that could have on the job market.
Which the trade minister is poo-pooing. Because we don’t actually have any limits on the number of students who can come here from anywhere. Not just India.
But I think we should.
I know the trade minister will tell us until he’s blue in the face that this is a trade deal - not an immigration deal. But he’s pushing that one uphill with the likes of Winston Peters, who is picking up on the immigration side of it because there is no shortage of people who love to complain about foreigners “taking over”.
Do you really think NZ First would be making as much of a noise if this was a deal with the UK or the US? I don’t think so.
So they’re just tapping into some good old-fashioned xenophobia.
That said - since the government announced the deal just before Christmas - whenever I’ve been speaking with young people especially about it, I’ve been surprised how strongly some of them feel about students coming here from other countries.
And how many of them think there should be limits. Which I agree with, for several reasons.
First of all, students don’t come here with any skills. They come here to get skilled. I know they spend money and it’s great for the tertiary sector because they pay higher fees being international students. But they don’t come here and fill the workforce skill shortages we’re dealing with.
Secondly, the more students from overseas, the higher the demand for accommodation. Which means student rents going skyward.
What’s more, if we have no limits on the number of students coming here, then that increases the risk of students getting ripped off by employers. It also makes it tougher for domestic students to find the work they need to pay for their studies.
But what do you think?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A lawyer believes the Christchurch couple who found $200,000 in their ceiling space should keep the cash that they found in their property.
However, the High Court has decided that the couple are not owed a cent of the money, even though they handed it in with good faith.
They uncovered the cash sealed in plastic bricks and concealed in insulation in 2021 and reported their discovery to police.
Lawyer and former police officer Matthew Hague told John MacDonald that there's no question that the couple were innocent in their reporting.
"They had zero involvement with anything untoward, they should be allowed to keep it"
When asked if he thinks the couple will end up with the money, he said there is one thing going against them.
"If you pay for something, that can be a factor for something to be returned, but they're not out of pocket."
"In my view, they did nothing wrong"
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has fallen into the trap that I could very easily find myself falling into if I didn’t think a little bit more carefully about this plan by the Government to set-up a new shipping terminal in Taranaki to import liquified natural gas.
This is the gas that’s needed to generate power, alongside the other ways we generate power in this country - hydro, coal and wind.
It’s going to cost somewhere north of $1 billion, and the Government reckons it will be up-and-running in one-to-two years’ time.
I think it’s dreaming on the timeline front. I also think Chris Hipkins is dreaming when he says $1 billion would buy a lot of solar panels.
Because even though Energy Minister Simon Watts banging-on about us paying less for our electricity - or more to the point, not paying a truckload more for electricity - this isn’t actually about you and me.
Unless you run a big manufacturing or processing plant - in particular one of these big plants or factories that have been struggling with power prices. This is about industrial electricity supplies.
This talk about importing gas first surfaced a couple of years ago when factories were actually closing because of high power prices.
The big power companies looked into it, and they wrote a report for the Government which essentially said that it wasn’t as straightforward as it sounded.
They looked into the practicalities of importing gas and they said we could do it, but there are a few things to think about.
The main ones being the price tag and how long it would take to get it happening.
They said last year that it could be done cheaper than $1 billion - for around $200 million - but the gas would be 25 percent more expensive, because the cheaper option would use existing facilities.
However, there wouldn’t be the same amount of storage and so we couldn’t buy as much in one hit and so we’d pay more for it.
They also said it wouldn’t be an overnight fix. It would be about four years before we started to see the benefits.
Another main point in this report was that we could spend the money and wait for it all to come online, but there could be years when we don’t even need the extra gas.
But that’s a bit like pouring money into a fire alarm and sprinkler system and not using it. You know it’s there and it gives you security.
That’s how I see this gas importation business. It’s a back-up. And so, what if it isn’t needed all the time?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’ve done a few things in my time. But one thing I haven’t done is serve on a jury.
For a long time, I put it down to me working in the media. But I was out of the media for a long time, as well. So I don’t know why I haven’t had the call up.
But, apparently - according to defense lawyer John Munro - I might be somewhat unusual in my enthusiasm.
He says people don’t have the same sense of civic duty as they used to and aren’t keen to do jury service.
And, because of that, we need to be offering more carrots for them to make themselves available - starting with paying them more.
I think that might help. But if someone has no sense of civic duty, paying them more to turn up isn’t going to make much difference, is it?
If more money is the only reason they do turn up - then do we really want them on a jury? Would they be there for the right reason?
At the moment, you get $62 a day for jury service. Which is chickenfeed.
As John Munro says, it’s nowhere near enough - especially for people who are self-employed.
At the same time, we’ve got this guy in Auckland saying today that he will never make himself available for jury duty again after his experience.
He’s really brassed-off after he took leave from his job and spent three days waiting around the court building doing nothing. He wasn’t selected for any trials and, after three days, they told him he was done.
Nico van Rooyen was very excited to be called up for jury service. But it’s only left him out of pocket and a harsh critic of the system.
He says: "I won't ever do it again. Believe you me, it's the biggest waste of time I have ever experienced, The selection process is a farce of gigantic proportions."
He says 80 people waited at the district court for several hours and then, without any scrutiny, were reduced to 40.
He was then told to turn-up at court the next morning. He did that and waited all day and was told to come back the following day.
Day three, he turned up and at lunchtime he was told he could leave.
He says the system needs a shake-up.
“Not a single one of my friends or customers had anything good to say about jury service. Some said, ‘just make an excuse for work’. Some had been excused from it between three and seven times. But not me, mate. I wanted to do it.”
Never again, though, he says.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Do you feel better off than you did three years ago?
With it being election year, that’s the question politicians are going to be asking you. It’s the question I’m asking you too in light of the latest unemployment numbers - which are the highest in more than a decade.
That’s the overall number. In Canterbury, things are a little bit better. The unemployment rate here is down and we’ve got 12,000 extra jobs. That was in the three months to December.
Nevertheless, we can’t deny that the better things are everywhere, then the better off we will all be.
Not surprisingly, Finance Minister Nicola Willis is saying that employment growth is up. She says people are feeling more confident about the economy. Which is why the data released yesterday showed that, despite the overall unemployment rate increasing, there are more people out there looking for work because they’re confident that there is actually work out there for them.
My view on that is that, yes, there is work out there - but you have to do a lot more than just email your CV and a cover letter. In some cases, you have to physically knock on doors - just like the old days.
But back to whether or not we actually feel any better off. For me, it’s a mixed bag. But I suspect that’s a stage-of-life thing.
The kids have all grown up - so life is naturally less expensive on that front. No school camps and sports trips to pay for. I’m not buying clothes or shoes for kids who keep outgrowing them.
So life is cheaper for me on that front. Nevertheless, every time I go through the check-out at the supermarket, I’m still blown away by how much it costs.
Not to mention what it’s like if you’ve still got the kids at home and you’re doing the weekly shop to keep them fed and watered. Then, if you’ve got a home loan, there’s the mortgage rates.
They’re still on the up and who knows what further increases might be on the cards with the Reserve Bank still fighting the inflation battle.
As one of our listeners, Paul, points out: “Inflation is up, interest rates are up, unemployment is up and redundancies continue. Store closures continue too.”
I’m guessing Paul’s answer to my question is that he doesn’t feel any better than he did three years ago. But what about you?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I think the Government is making a terrible mistake ditching the second practical test for new drivers.
I like some of the changes it’s making to the driver licensing system. But getting rid of the second practical isn’t one of them. I’ll tell you why. But, first, what bits do I like? And what is missing from the changes?
For starters, I like the idea of a zero-alcohol limit for all new drivers. At the moment, this only applies to new drivers under 20. The Government is going to apply that to all new drivers - whatever their age.
I would have gone further and introduced a zero-alcohol rule for all drivers. But this is a good start.
I also like the increased learner period for new drivers under-25 - which makes total sense because the numbers tell us, don’t they, that any driver under the age of 25 is at greater risk of injury or death.
So the more time they spend as a learner driver - which stops them running around town with passengers - that has to be a good thing.
As to what’s missing - I’ve always thought it’s nuts that we only train and test new drivers within the town or city limits on 50 kph roads and do nothing to prepare them for driving on the open road.
But my real concern is the second practical test getting the flick.
I know Transport Minister Chris Bishop is saying New Zealand is a bit isolated in that regard. But doing something just because it’s the way everyone else does it has never been a great justification for anything.
When someone is starting out as a new driver, surely that’s the time when you want every opportunity to iron out any bad habits. Because, like any bad habit, the sooner you nip it in the bud - the better.
But with new drivers only having a practical test to get their restricted licence - and never being tested again until they’re well past retirement age - that is not going to make our roads safer.
The second practical test is the perfect opportunity for any bad driving habits someone has developed while they’ve been on their learner and restricted licences to be picked up and ironed out.
Because, if they fail, they remember.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How on earth did we get to the point where we’ve got schools saying today that kids are starting school without some of the most basic skills?
And when they say basic, they mean basic. According to the Auckland Primary Principals’ Association, there are five-year-old kids starting school who can’t talk, who can’t feed themselves and who haven’t been toilet trained.
I think I’ve got a partial solution to this problem. Which would mean putting more pressure on parents to make sure their kids are school-ready.
I’ll get to that. But first, here’s the scale of the problem. Nearly 90 per cent of Auckland primary schools say new entrant students are needing more help than ever before to reach a level where they’re ready to learn.
Massey Primary School assistant principal, Anna Watkin, is one of the educators speaking out today.
She says her school is seeing increasing numbers of children entering the classroom who can’t hold a pencil or recognise their name.
She says: “They struggle with empathy, focus, and even basic things like toileting. It takes at least three years to catch them up to expected curriculum standards.”
And this is not just an Auckland problem. I was talking to someone who said there are new entrants turning-up at the Christchurch school their kids are at who can’t eat their lunch on their own.
What’s more, parents at their child’s school have been warned that, if their Year One child wets or soils their pants, the teachers won’t be cleaning it up. They’ll call the parents and get them to come and sort it out.
But that’s putting the onus on the parents' way too late.
The pressure needs to go on parents' way before Day One at school - and here’s how you’d do it.
I think every child about to start school should be tested for the basic skills you would expect them to have at age 5.
So, they’d be tested to check they can do things like feed themselves and go to the toilet.
You might think schools don’t have time to do all that. But my response is that schools also don’t have the time to deal with these kids once they’re in the classroom, either.
At least by testing them before they start, the school and teachers would have a warning that they’re going to be dealing with kids who don’t know the basics.
If we were going to be really hard on it, we’d tell parents or caregivers to keep their kids at home until they can do these basic things. So, they wouldn’t be allowed to start school until they could prove they were toilet-trained and all of that.
I think that would be going too far. But at least if a child was tested for these basics before starting, schools would have a better idea or a warning of what they’re going to be dealing with.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I am liking the sound of a law change being introduced in New South Wales, where they are no longer going to allow good character references to be factored into court sentences.
You know the drill. Someone is found guilty of a crime, they get their mates to write to the judge saying what a great person they are and how they’ve done all these good things.
The judge reads all these glowing references and, when it comes to handing down a sentence, gives them some sort of discount because of their “good character”.
The New South Wales government has decided it’s not having any more of that. And I think we should do the same thing here. Because someone’s so-called good character means zilch to their victim or their victims, doesn’t it?
If we’re going to make noises about the criminal justice system needing to be more victim-focused, then this would be a pretty good start. Because how galling must it be for the victim of a crime to turn up at the sentencing and hear about all these wonderful things that have been said about the person who offended against them?
What’s more, how galling must it be to not only hear how wonderful this person apparently is, but to also then witness the judge discounting their sentence because of these glowing reports.
Even if someone has done amazing things in the past, that doesn’t make their offending any less serious. It doesn’t diminish the impact of their offending on their victim or their victims, does it?
Not that good character references are going to disappear altogether in New South Wales. They’re still going to be allowed during the trial process. But they’re not going to be coming across the desk of judges when they’re about to dish out sentences.
The change follows a report by the New South Wales Sentencing Council which said the references are based on a vague and uncertain concept.
It said just because someone has a good character reference, that doesn’t tell the sentencing judge anything about the likelihood of someone re-offending or the likelihood of them being rehabilitated.
Which makes total sense.
It also says that good character discounts are traumatising for victims.
I couldn’t agree more.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Talk about déjà vu.
The smell from the burnt-out wastewater treatment plant at Bromley has been a shocker this week and people have had a gutsful.
City councillor Yani Johanson says making people wait for another three years is totally unacceptable and the council needs to get it sorted sooner.
I think it’s ridiculous that it has taken over four years for the problem to still exist. I agree that it should be fixed sooner. But I don’t have any hope of that happening.
Because the council has cocked this up from the outset and seems incapable of doing it any faster. Which tells me that it has learnt next to nothing.
Remember it did the big mea culpa and admitted that, at the very least, it could have communicated better with people living in the area? And how it was going to do a better job blah blah blah.
Right from the start, the council had this “we know best” attitude and was very dismissive of people’s concerns. And it’s still at it. It’s doing a very good job of explaining why it’s so bad this week - that the recent heavy rain seems to be behind it.
Which is all very well. But, as I’ve said many times, people don’t care what you know - until they know that you care.
And I don’t see the council showing too much care. Did you see the council guy on the news last night go all sheep-ish when he was asked about compo or support for people living with the stench?
But it’s not just Bromley that’s affected.
I was in Mairehau yesterday and the smell was really bad.
But I’m not living with it all the time. Unlike Gaylene Ratima. She lives in Bromley and she woke up at 4 o’clock the other morning thinking the dog had done something on the carpet.
She soon realised that the rotten egg smell had nothing to do with the dog and that it was coming from outside the house.
It was the stench from the wastewater treatment plant seeping-in through the windows and doors - which were all closed.
Imagine what that must be like.
In fact, she reckons the smell this week is worse than it was after the treatment plant fire back in November 2021.
Which is why councillor Yani Johanson is saying today that making people wait for another three years for the smell problem to be fixed is totally unacceptable and the council needs to get it sorted sooner.
As he points out - the way things are going, it’s going to take longer than it took to build the new One New Zealand stadium.
The fire was in November 2021 - over four years ago - and the council’s going to take another three years to fix it.
Totally unacceptable.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Before the weekend, questions were already being asked as to why the campground at Mt Maunganui wasn’t evacuated before last week’s devastating landslide.
That will be one of the things looked into as part of this independent investigation the local council is initiating. There will be all sorts of questions and, hopefully, a lot of answers.
But there is one thing we know for sure already. We don’t need an investigation to tell us that what happened on Thursday is a wake-up call for all of us.
As tragic as it is, it is a wake-up call. But will we learn from it?
I'd like to think so. But, based on history, I’m not so sure. Because I was very surprised to find out over the weekend that, historically in New Zealand, landslides have been more deadly than earthquakes.
Tom Robinson is a senior lecturer in disaster risk and resilience at the University of Canterbury, and he was saying at the weekend that landslides have claimed more lives than all of our earthquake disasters.
That landslides are our most deadly hazard. I had no idea.
Which tells me how little we have learned from previous landslides. And, even though we’re all gutted by what’s happened at Mt Maunganui, chances are we’ll all move on.
We’ll keep doing things like removing trees from hillsides - something that people in the Mt Maunganui area are already making noises about.
We’ll have this council review and we’ll hear that, yes, perhaps the early warnings raised by locals on Thursday morning should have been acted on sooner. But that will be about it.
I remember growing up in Dunedin when the Abbotsford landslide happened.
It was 8 August 1979. That was major. More than 60 houses lost. 600 people evacuated. Thankfully, no fatalities or major injuries.
The Abbotsford landslide happened after people in the area had been saying for years that there were signs of land movement. Cracks on people’s properties - inside and out. And then, on the night of 8 August, away it went.
That was 46 years ago. So, if we didn’t learn anything from that experience, what hope that we’ll learn anything from this?
Or more to the point, what hope that - whatever we learn - leads to the kind of change and accountability needed to, at the very least, limit the chances of it happening again?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I reckon we should have signs up at our international airports saying: “Welcome to the people’s republic of pushovers”.
Because of our crazy ACC system which, a lot of the time, makes those of us living here fight tooth and nail but tells anyone coming here for a visit that they can tie themselves to bungy ropes, jump on skis, do whatever they want - and we’ll pay for their treatment.
It seems even crazier when we’ve got ACC announcing today that it’s got a plan to become more financially sustainable, after that big loss last year and a projected $26 billion deficit in four years’ time.
ACC says it’s going to focus on getting people back to work quicker after an injury. But I think it also needs to think about who it covers, starting with people from overseas. Because we are too much of a pushover.
Not that it’s ACC in isolation that’s the problem. The reason we provide ACC to visitors from other countries is that we don’t have the right to sue here in New Zealand. That’s why visitors are covered.
So, let’s say someone comes here and goes skiing and has an accident and ends up getting helicoptered to hospital. They can’t sue the ski field operator or the clown who was gunning it down the mountain and lost control and ploughed into them. So ACC covers the cost of their treatment and care.
But I think this needs to stop.
Some people will probably argue that, if we make tourists pay for their own treatment if they injure themselves, then they won’t come here. But that’s nonsense.
There are two approaches we could take. We could either charge non-residents at the door when they need treatment. Or we make it mandatory for anyone visiting New Zealand to have travel insurance. Because it isn’t at the moment.
It needs to be. Because it’s time to turn-off the ACC tap for people visiting from other countries
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you bump into Chris Hipkins today, can you tell him he’s dreaming?
Because, now that we know this year’s election is happening on 7 November, Chris Hipkins is saying that Labour can get more than 40 percent of the party vote and form the next government.
He also wants Labour to win back Auckland.
He’s dreaming. Because I don’t think voters, generally, are ready yet to give Labour another chance. And I don’t think voters in Auckland, especially, are ready to trust Labour again.
Hipkins is doing what leaders do - especially in election year. They rally the troops. But it’s going to be a big task keeping the troops rallied for 10 months.
And I know Labour will be disappointed that the election isn’t happening sooner. An earlier election would have meant less time for the economy to recover. Plus, Labour has nowhere near the same campaign resources that the likes of the National Party has.
So it’s going to be a tough winter for the party.
The thing is: what would we need to see from Labour or hear from Labour to buy into this talk from Chris Hipkins that it’s a different party from last time around? Rather than banging-on about changing and being different, we need to hear what it is the party has accepted about itself that has driven this so-called change. It’s very easy to say “oh, we’ve changed. we’re different now, you’re gonna love the new us”. That’s just telling people what you think people want to hear.
To even think about giving Labour another chance so soon, people need to see the difference.
Let me give you an example: you’re running a cafe but customers are leaving in droves because they don’t like the way you and your staff treat them when they come in for lunch or a coffee. You’re a bunch of grumps. Terrible vibe. So people give you the flick. You realise what’s happening and you go onto your Facebook page and you say “hey guys, I’m hearing that some of you haven’t been that impressed with our service. Hey, I’ve had a word to the team and we’re different now, we’ve changed our ways, so come on back.”
Would you buy into that? I’m picking voters will be exactly the same with Labour.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Phil Goff agrees with the Christchurch City Council's response to a Government proposal of capping rates to no more than 2 to 4 percent per year.
Goff says the Government is not performing in lowering the cost of living, but a rates cap is not the right answer.
The former Mayor of Auckland told John MacDonald the Government sees local councils as an "easy target".
Christchurch City Council has responded to the Government's proposal, saying that while they support a prudent approach to managing rates, the cap as currently designed is “unrealistic and unworkable”.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Hats off to the Christchurch City Council.
Which is telling the Government today that its idea of forcing a cap on council rates increases is “unrealistic and unworkable”.
Which is a polite way of saying “rates caps are a daft idea, so just drop it right now”.
And that’s what I think too. I’ve always thought it’s a daft idea to force local councils around the country to increase rates by no more than 2 to 4 percent each year. It sounds brilliant, but it’s never going to work.
The Christchurch council says even at the upper range of a 4 percent cap, it would be forced to cut costs by up to $120 million a year.
Which confirms to me that the Government either has no idea or no interest in the financial realities local councils are dealing with.
Christchurch city council says rates caps would force cuts to essential services, lead to a decay in assets, delay investment in critical infrastructure, and reduce the council’s ability to repay debt.
Not only that. It says they would drive up fees and charges. Which the Government isn’t being totally upfront about.
Because, just before Christmas, a Cabinet paper was quietly published which shows we’re only being told part of the story.
In the paper, the local government minister says the rates caps are intended to “incentivise greater use of user charges, which have declined in recent years”.
Which is what the Christchurch city council is warning us about today.If councils are forced to limit annual rates increases to somewhere between 2 and 4 percent, we’ll just end up paying more in other ways. How do you feel about higher parking fees? Higher dump fees. Paying more to use your council pool. Higher consent charges. Life won’t be cheaper, it will be more expensive.
I’ve always known that this idea isn’t actually going to deliver us any benefits.
This cabinet paper and the people who actually know a thing or two about how councils work - Christchurch city council staff and councillors - are proof.
No matter how much you might think your local council needs to rein-in the spending, this idea of rates caps won’t make one bit of difference.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In his state of the nation speech yesterday, Christopher Luxon continued the great New Zealand tradition of kicking the retirement age can down the road.
He said raising the retirement age was “inevitable”. But that was it. And, when I say kicking the can, it was more like nudging the can with his foot really. Because what the Prime Minister and every other politician should be doing, is showing some fortitude and accepting that tweaking with the retirement age is never going to be enough.
What I think we should be doing, is telling people who are 35 and younger right now, that they’ll have to provide for themselves completely when they retire because there won’t be a NZ Super pension.
That’s what needs to happen. Instead of increasing the age of entitlement by one year or two years, we should ditch the scheme completely. But over a sustained period of time.
Because the problem we’re trying to solve is the fact that it is completely unsustainable.
By the end of the decade, we’re going to be spending $30 billion a year on NZ Super and, as economist Brad Olsen said recently, every other thing in the government’s budget will be “rats and mice”.
So, if we are serious about leaving a legacy for future New Zealanders - which is something the Prime Minister talked about a lot in his speech yesterday - we need to make sure that legacy doesn’t include lumbering future generations with an unsustainable state pension scheme.
But, the way we’re going, nothing’s going to change. Because politicians seem to be terrified of doing anything meaningful. Whereas, what I’m talking about would be meaningful.
It would have no immediate impact, given it would only apply to people 35-and-younger now. But you can’t underestimate the long-term benefits.
I know doing away with NZ Super would be huge. But we can’t afford to be all sentimental about it.
We have to face the reality that the way we do things now - and the way we’ve been doing things - can’t continue forever.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The personal responsibility brigade will be going ape over Pharmac looking into funding weight loss drugs.
This wouldn’t be for anyone wanting to lose a few kilos here and there. This would be for people who are obese and at risk of serious health complications. Around 200 potentially serious health complications, actually. Such as Type 2 Diabetes.
I think it’s a no-brainer. Because we have the third-highest adult obesity rate in the OECD, which is a problem for all of us.
Even those of us with the metabolism of a racehorse. Because, with the health complications that come with obesity, we all end up paying.
Whether it be in a financial sense as taxpayers or as users of the health system seeing waiting times blow out because of the demand for treatment. Because of the impact of obesity on the health system.
The fact that Pharmac is even considering giving these weight loss drugs the time of day is brilliant. It now needs to ignore the naysayers and get on with it.
And there will be naysayers. The people in the personal responsibility brigade who look at every overweight person and think they’ve got no control.
You know: “They’re all just a bunch of lardies who eat KFC every day. And why the hell should us taxpayers pay for that lot to get a magic potion because they can’t say no. Because they’ve got no self-control. Haven’t they heard of personal responsibility?” Blah blah blah.
The funny thing is, you don’t hear this lot ripping-into people with high blood pressure. Or people with heart disease. Or even people with cancer.
You don’t hear the personal responsibility crew saying those people shouldn’t be on Pharmac’s funding list. Because, if you apply the logic they apply to obese people, the exact same thing could be said.
That someone who smokes, for example, shouldn’t get their blood pressure pills funded by the taxpayer or someone who smokes and gets cancer shouldn’t get medications that might save or extend their life.
Obesity is a disease just like any other disease. A disease people have because of genetics or hormonal issues or psychological issues. It’s way more complicated than just how much food someone eats.
Which is why we need to accept that, if these drugs are a genuine option for people who have no way of losing significant amounts of weight and no other way of avoiding serious conditions like Type 2 Diabetes, then why wouldn’t we fund weight loss drugs for them?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
After yesterday’s half-year fiscal update from the Government, the canary in the mine is gasping for air and the elephant in the room is walking all over everything.
And economist Cameron Bagrie is saying that we can’t ignore either of them - particularly in relation to the long-term outlook and what it means for superannuation and retirement planning.
He says, with Government debt forecast to blow-out long-term, we need to accept the fact that the universal pension scheme is unsustainable.
Government debt is forecast to increase to 180 percent of GDP in 30 to 40 years because of the ageing population and Cameron Bagrie says if we think tinkering around the edges with KiwiSaver is the solution, then we’re dreaming.
And I couldn’t agree more.
He says a conversation about the sustainability of superannuation can’t be avoided forever. I would disagree with him slightly on that one. I think that conversation about the sustainability of our NZ Super scheme needs to happen now.
My view on NZ Super is that it’s crazy people who work beyond 65 get the pension. Even though it’s taxed at a higher rate - I get that. But I still think it’s wrong.
I've also been a fan of some form of means testing.
But, if I’m honest, do I really think the scale of the problem we’ve got - especially long-term - would be sorted out by not paying the pension to people who continue to work beyond 65 and means testing people before they get the pension?
Probably not.
So, if we’re really going to think long-term, I reckon we need to make the call that people of a certain age are told that the NZ Super pension won’t be available to them by the time they reach retirement age.
This would have to be long-term. So, for arguments sake, let’s say we told people who are 35 and younger that they will have to provide for themselves completely when they retire.
That would give them at least 30 years to get themselves sorted. In fact, I would say that people in this age group probably assume now anyway that they won’t be getting a government pension by the time they reach retirement age.
So what I’m talking about is a very gradual phase-out of the government pension.
I’m in no doubt that something like this is needed. Because we are dreaming if we think we can keep doing what we’re doing.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You would think that, having had a major terror attack here, we’d be the last people that needed to be told after what happened in Bondi on Sunday night that we’re too complacent.
But that’s what security experts are saying. That New Zealand remains complacent and naive, despite 51 people being killed in the mosque attacks in Christchurch in March 2019.
And I think we are getting to the point where we need to have armed police at all major events in this country.
These security experts are saying that what happened at Bondi should be something of a wake-up call for us. With one of them putting it this way in the NZ Herald: “We’re only a small millimetre away from that occurring in our own backyard again.”
That’s a quote from Chris Kumeroa, who is a director of Global Risk Consulting and principal security adviser to the Government’s Crowded Places Security Advisory Group.
He says, even though there are significant differences between New Zealand and Australia in terms of international relationships and migrant communities, there is still growing political, religious and social polarisation here. And he says we could be doing more to deal with the risk of another mass casualty event happening.
But what more could we do? How could we be more vigilant?
Armed police at major events would be one way.
Anyone who went to the public gatherings after the 2019 mosque attacks will remember the police being heavily armed.
And I know that what I’m suggesting would definitely be confronting, but I think it would be comforting, as well.
Because the clincher for me is this: in Bondi on Sunday night, one of the alleged attackers was a licensed firearms owner. The father, who was still allowed to keep his weapons despite his son apparently having an interest or a connection to ISIS.
Nevertheless, the guns weren’t illegal. Which shows how gun laws aren’t enough on their own.
So what I’m talking about is armed police at big sporting events, big concerts and gatherings of particular communities that might be considered at-risk.
As former SIS agent and now Massey University senior lecturer Rhys Ball is saying today: “We still don’t have conversations within New Zealand society that is thinking about security and safety in any way other than this kneejerk response. Security is usually down the pecking order of issues.”
Armed police at major gatherings and events would be a definite way of putting it up the pecking order, don’t you think?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m glad I’m not a volunteer firefighter. Because, if I was, I would be brassed-off that an attempt to get volunteer firefighters the same ACC cover as full-time firefighters has gone nowhere.
A petition calling for the change has been rejected by a parliamentary select committee because it doesn’t want to set a precedent. The committee is trotting out all the usual platitudes but the fact remains that volunteer firefighters have just had another kick in the guts.
A bit of background: Katherine Lamont from the Queenstown volunteer brigade started the petition after another volunteer developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, but couldn't get any help because he’s a volunteer.
That’s because volunteer firefighters don’t get the same ACC cover and benefits as full-time firefighters. Which means if they suffer from any mental health issues because of their firefighting work, or if they get some kind of gradual injury from their firefighting work, or develop cancer because of their firefighting work, they can forget about any ACC entitlements.
Whereas, full-time firefighters get all of that covered.
Which is so wrong. Especially when you consider that volunteers make up 86 percent of the front-line Fire and Emergency New Zealand workforce and are often first responders in emergencies.
In 2023, volunteer firefighters responded to callouts for 70 percent of all motor vehicle crashes, 71 percent of all medical emergencies and 81 percent of vegetation fires.
That’s according to Katherine Lamont from the Queenstown brigade who saw how much of a rort this is and started the petition to try and get a better deal for the volunteers.
But Parliament’s education and workforce committee has said no. Because it doesn’t want to set a precedent - because it doesn’t think it’s practical for all volunteers to get ACC workplace coverage.
The committee says: "While we are sympathetic to the petitioner's arguments, we are concerned about the precedent that extending ACC cover to volunteer firefighters might set.”
I don’t buy that for a minute. Because is the committee saying that, if volunteer firefighters got full ACC cover, then we’d have people doing meals on wheels demanding the same?
So that’s what the committee says about its reason for rejecting the petition. Then the weasel words start: “We would like to take the opportunity to express our heartfelt gratitude to all those who volunteer for this important and challenging work."
Do me a favour!
Heartfelt gratitude would be recognising these people properly. Telling them that, if their “important and challenging work” means one day they find themselves suffering from PTSD, or some other serious injury or cancer because of that "important and challenging work”, then they will be looked after.
That would be “heartfelt gratitude”.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Australia pressed go yesterday on the social media ban for kids under-16 and a Parliamentary select committee here thinks we should do the same.
I don’t. Nor does retired district court judge David Harvey, who is saying today that a ban would be a cop-out for parents. He says it would be another example of outsourcing parental authority to the state.
He might have a point, but I think a lot of parents are to blame for the problem people seem to be expecting Parliament to fix. Because a lot of parents have been pushovers when it comes to social media. You go anywhere today, and you’ll see the next generation of pushover parents letting their kids on devices anytime, anywhere.
I’m anti a ban because I just don’t think it’s practical. I don’t see it working.
I know the counterargument to that is that people get around all sorts of laws, so does that mean we shouldn’t have any? Underage kids get their hands on alcohol even though it’s illegal. People on learner licences drive with passengers, even though it’s illegal.
I get that, but it’s still not a very good argument for a law that sounds great, but which I don’t see being great in reality.
The other reason I’m against a social media ban is that the under-16s who would be impacted have already grown up with social media.
It’s ingrained in their lives. It’s a genuine communication tool – schools use it, sports clubs use it.
Tell that though to the MPs on Parliament’s Education and Workforce select committee, which has been looking into the idea of a social media ban for under-16s here in New Zealand.
The committee’s interim report, its final report will be out early in the new year, its interim view is that we need something like that here. The committee also thinks we would need to have a social media regulator to make sure people and the social media companies follow the rules.
Back to retired judge David Harvey, who thinks banning under-16s from social media would be a cop-out for parents.
He says: “Supporters of the ban increasingly frame it as a tool for parents – an additional “lever” to help them say “no” to persistent children. That rationale reflects a growing trend: shifting parental responsibility onto the state.”
He says: “Telling children ‘the law says no’ is not parenting. It is outsourcing authority.”
And I agree.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Chris Hipkins is hitting out at the Taxpayers' Union as it prepares to launch a campaign against Finance Minister Nicola Willis.
The lobby group is questioning Willis's track record on the economy.
Willis has responded, challenging chair and former finance minister Ruth Richardson to a debate.
The Labour Leader told John MacDonald the Taxpayers' Union has a view of "entrenched privilege".
He claims the organisation is funded by a group of rich people who want to keep all of their money.
Hipkins is also unimpressed by Willis’ decision to agree to the debate, which he says shows deep divisions among the National Party.
He calls it petty and says Willis should be focused on things like creating jobs.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There’s a lot to take in with these planning law changes. But what it comes down to is the Government wants people to be able to do more with their own property with less red tape.
If you want to do something that has no impact on anyone else, you’ll be able to do it. Your house, your castle.
That’s where there could be a few sticking points, because who determines what impacts others and what doesn’t? But overall, I like what the Government is doing.
And I know it will have looked for some of the most extreme examples of the current planning laws to sell the changes it’s making. Which is to ditch the Resource Management Act and replace it with a planning act and a natural environment act.
But you can’t argue with the minister responsible, Chris Bishop, when he says we need to see the end of developers being told one thing by one council planner and something different by another – such as one planner saying front doors have to face the street and another saying they can’t.
What the Government is saying is that the days of council planners playing god are over. And amen to that.
So the sorts of things it’s going to let us do without needing consents are things like adding a balcony or a deck or building a garage.
Chris Bishop says he knows of a guy who wanted to replace a garage on his property but spent nine months arguing with the council, because the council didn’t like the look of the garage.
It seems a lot of people are saying the devil will be in the detail. And one of the sticking points or potential bones of contention I see is where do you draw the line at what impacts others and what doesn’t.
For example: the Government wants me to be able to build a deck at my place without a consent, providing it has no impact on others. But what if building that deck means I can see over the fence more easily?
Overall, though, I’m in favour of letting people do more with their own property with less red tape.
But how do you feel about it?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
These researchers calling today for a ban on alcohol marketing and sponsorship sound to me like they’re living in the past.
Maybe it’s the circles I mix in. But I reckon things have come ahead leaps and bounds when it comes to our drinking culture in New Zealand.
And before you start yelling “what about things like crate day mate?” - I’m not saying we’ve got it perfect. But I think we’ve moved on from any decade before the current one - when what these experts are saying today might have carried more weight.
So health promotion advisor Lizzie Barratt and researcher Dr Debbie Hager are saying that, with people drinking more at this time of the year, there is a spike in violence - especially by men against women and kids.
I’m not going to argue with them on that one. But is advertising to blame for that? I don’t think so.
But it’s not just an end-of-year thing. They say there needs to be a permanent ban on alcohol marketing and sponsorship to protect women and children from violence.
They say a ban would eliminate alcohol’s role in reinforcing a masculine drinking culture and eliminate its link with sporting activities. And, if we do nothing, things will only get worse.
But the alcohol adverts I see these days are way different to the ones we used to see. For starters, they are way less “blokey”. They also seem to be promoting restraint, as much as anything.
I really started noticing this a couple of years ago. Maybe further back than that. When the beer companies seemed to be putting as much effort into advertising their zero-alcohol products, as their other products.
So doesn’t that diminish the argument for a marketing ban and sponsorship ban?
What’s more, whatever I personally choose to drink has nothing to do with what I see on a billboard or whatever beer logo I might see on a rugby jersey.
I’m not saying that the alcohol companies should be allowed to run ads encouraging us to get tanked.
I‘m just saying that I don’t think banning alcohol ads and banning alcohol sponsorships would stop the mongrels who do get pissed and go home and beat up their partners and kids.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The eagle has landed. One of the police Eagle helicopters from Auckland is in Christchurch for the next two months as part of a crackdown on these criminal kids doing-over dairies and committing other crimes.
I think it’s brilliant that it’s here and I think we need one here permanently.
For several reasons: Christchurch is New Zealand’s second-largest city; we have a level of criminal activity here to justify it; and it’s not as if a police helicopter hasn’t been put to good use here before.
In 2020, it was in Christchurch for a five-week trial, and it was also used a few times earlier than that after the mosque attacks and when Prince William visited.
During the trial in 2020, the helicopter was sent to 346 incidents ranging from a water rescue, a robbery attempt, and helping a man thought to be having a heart attack in a park.
There was a bit of chat at the time about people being woken up at night by the sounds of it flying around. But an informal survey of residents found that only 24% of people thought the sound or noise from the helicopter was annoying. 60% said it didn’t bother them and 16% said they hadn’t noticed it.
The police themselves gave it a very positive review. One officer wrote to the Police News magazine saying every officer who had worked with the helicopter had found it beneficial in helping to prevent crime, catch offenders, and increase safety.
But despite Canterbury police themselves giving positive feedback on the trial, the powers-that-be decided it wouldn’t be made permanent. Which some people would have been happy about, because there were some who hated the helicopter being here and weren’t excited about the idea of us getting on here permanently.
National MP Gerry Brownlee was dead against it. I remember him saying that plenty of people had told him that they hated the noise. They also found it traumatising hearing it, because it took them back to the days after the earthquakes.
I get that. Nevertheless, I’ve always been in no doubt that we would benefit from having a permanent helicopter here. Which National kind-of talked about prior to the last election.
The party’s Christchurch central candidate was at a street corner meeting, and someone asked him what National was going to do about youth crime and whether it had plans for a police helicopter in Christchurch.
According to someone who was there, he said that Christopher Luxon had given it the nod but there wouldn’t be any announcement before the election.
That was it. Nothing more since.
But we know the cops love it. Most residents seem to like it. And my pick would be that support for us having a dedicated police helicopter would be much higher now than when the trial happened in 2020.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A couple of advisors at the Christchurch City Council have ripped into the Government’s plan for regional councils and have said to councillors that they reckon there’s a better way.
Or more correctly, two better potential ways. Instead of having local mayors run regional councils for two years and, during that time, work out how they’re going to get by without a regional council. At a briefing meeting yesterday, two principal policy advisors put two options on the table for councillors to think about.
Option 1: Amalgamate the Christchurch, Selwyn, and Waimakariri councils to create a new super city. Which I've been a fan of for quite some time now.
And Option 2: Keep all three councils and have the city council take over ECAN’s regional council functions.
The reason these two council advisors have put these two options up for discussion is that they think having local mayors run ECAN for two years and work out a new structure for local government is a “weak” idea, which wouldn’t do any favours for Christchurch ratepayers.
And I get what they’re saying, because as soon as you get three mayors around the table, they’re just going to be interested in what’s in it for them, aren’t they? Which is the same approach these policy advisors are taking. They’re on the city council pay roll and so they have to think about what’s best for Christchurch city.
And I like their idea of a supercity.
But every time a supercity is mentioned, some people are quick to point to Auckland as an argument against it. The Auckland supercity brought together seven city and district councils and the regional council back in 2010. But a supercity in the greater Christchurch area would be nowhere near the same scale. We’re talking here about just three councils: Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri.
We’ve done amalgamation before on a much smaller scale. Back in 2006, Banks Peninsula Council amalgamated with Christchurch city.
The issue then was that Banks Peninsula didn’t have a big enough population to get the rates it needed to operate properly. Selwyn and Waimakariri don’t have that problem – they’ve grown massively since the earthquakes. Selwyn, especially.
But half of the people living in Selwyn come into Christchurch every day for work and school, and they contribute nothing towards the cost of the running of the city. They’re using the city’s roads and so many of the other facilities that they pay nothing for.
Add to that the relatively small distance between Selwyn, Christchurch and Waimakariri, and amalgamation is a no-brainer.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You might recall a poll result that came out back in September which proved that 75 percent of us are idiots.
It’s these idiots that the Government is pandering to with the council rates cap it announced yesterday. And the 75 percent of people who said in that poll that they support the Government forcing rates caps on councils will be very happy today.
Because, from mid-2029, annual increases won’t be allowed to be any higher than 4 percent. Unless a council manages to get a special dispensation.
As a ratepayer, a rates cap sounds like a great idea. But it’s not.
One description I’ve seen of the Government’s move is that it’s lazy politics. Which it is.
Because of the 75 percent of people who support it, as the poll a few months back would suggest.
I suspect the only complaint the pro-rates cap people will have is that it isn’t planned to start for another three-and-a-half years. In mid-2029.
By which time there could very well be a different government in power and, if Labour (for example) is true to its word, then the whole thing could be history.
Labour’s local government spokesperson Tangi Utikere is saying today that they’ll vote against the rates cap law when it goes through Parliament.
He says: “We've made it very clear that we won't expect local government to continue to work and take on additional responsibilities without the funding. So we don't support this rates cap.”
Nelson mayor Nick Smith has been very careful not to bag his old National Party mates. But he does admit that it’s not going to be easy.
Rates caps have been brought-in in Australia and it’s created severe financial difficulties for some councils over there.
What’s more, Christchurch city councillor Sam MacDonald is already talking about the council selling assets to make up for the money it won’t be getting because of the limit on rates increases.
All this is, is another placebo policy. Something that might make us feel better for a little while. But it won’t last long.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Is it time to have a re-think about what’s done with the residential red zone on the east side of Christchurch?
I think it’s fair to say that mayor Phil Mauger thinks so. And so do I.
Phil’s saying today that he wants to see red zone land used for housing as soon as possible. With the first cab off the rank being land on the edge of the area already zoned for it.
This includes land the city council is going to lease to a housing trust so it can provide affordable housing on the east side of town. Ten hectares is already zoned for housing and another 24 hectares is earmarked for trial housing areas.
But, with a total area of about 600-hectares all up, why stop there?
I reckon that, rather than nibble around the edges, we should have a proper technical investigation to find out whether much more of the red zone land could be used.
At a time when we have more and more housing developments chewing up more and more land, shouldn’t we be opening our minds to the possibility that some - if not all - of that red zone land could be a better option?
I think so. But it would require a serious commitment and some serious expenditure. Because it would involve some pretty intense investigative work.
But when you think about when that area was declared a red zone, that was at a time when the land was still moving with all the aftershocks and when it probably just seemed easier to move everyone out and to think about what to do with it afterwards.
The thinking was done and, at that point, it was determined that the last thing to do with that area was to put more houses on it.
Which I think most of us were willing to accept at the time.
But it does seem strange that we are supposed to be behoven forever to decisions made more than a dozen years ago.
When not only time has moved on, but so too has our technical capabilities.
I’m no expert in any of the areas that would need to be factored-in to any decision to have more housing in the red zone, so I’m not demanding that houses be built there tomorrow. But Phil Mauger’s comments have got me thinking.
If we did go ahead with what I’m talking about, there’d be no guarantee that the outcome would be any different to what it was after the quakes. But what’s wrong with opening our minds to the possibility?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It’s taken 46 years and we’ve still managed to stuff up the decision as to where to have a memorial for the 257 people who died in the Mt Erebus air disaster.
It was 46 years ago today when the Air NZ DC-10, flight TE901, ploughed into the side of Mt Erebus.
And, yes, nice job making the memorial announcement in time for the anniversary, but Cracroft Reserve in Christchurch is not where it should be. In fact, it shouldn’t be in Christchurch full-stop. It should be in Auckland.
I’m not the only one who thinks so. I’ll get to that.
But I will never forget the night of the Erebus crash – if you were around at the time, you probably won’t either. I was 11-and-a-half, and I remember being allowed to stay up late and listen to the 10 o’clock news on the radio.
I went off to bed afterwards knowing it wasn’t good. And it seemed that everyone knew someone who was either on that plane or knew someone who lost someone close to them on that plane. A mate of dad’s lost his wife.
Simone Bennett was one of those people affected directly. She lost her father. He was one of the 257 people on board who died – 237 passengers and 20 crew.
She is furious that the memorial is going to be built in Christchurch. She says she’s furious and disgusted because she lives in Auckland and she can’t believe the memorial is going to be so far away.
I get that and good on her for calling out the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, because it feels to me like they have just given up on Auckland and gone for the next best location.
You’ll probably remember the stoush when they wanted to build the memorial at Dove Meyer Robinson Park in Parnell, in Auckland. But there was major push-back on that one.
The anti-brigade claimed that it would “change the tone of the gardens”. They eventually got their way when the cyclone went through Auckland and made the site at the gardens in Parnell unsafe to build on.
After that, 50 different sites in the greater Auckland area were looked at but none were considered suitable. Hence, it ending up in Christchurch.
Not everyone is unhappy with the decision though. Andrew McKeen is president of the Airline Pilots' Association. He’s not only thrilled it’s finally going to happen, he also thinks Christchurch is a good spot for it.
He’s saying: “Christchurch serves as New Zealand's gateway to Antarctica and was the intended stopover point for TE901's return to Auckland."
Which it was. I remember someone telling me once about all the airport staff waiting for the plane to land in Christchurch 46 years ago tonight. I get the connection to Antarctica with the Antarctic programme being based in Christchurch.
But the Air New Zealand headquarters is in Auckland and that’s where the memorial should be. The majority of family members live there too.
And I’m conscious that there could be someone reading this right now who was affected by Erebus in the most direct way and who may very well think Christchurch is a good choice.
But I don’t. Simone Bennett, who I mentioned earlier, doesn’t either. But what about you?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How interested are you in the quality of your drinking water?
For example, would you like to be able to look up your address and get credible, reliable information from an official source about the nitrate levels in the water coming through your taps?
I would. Because I just don’t know whether to believe some of the alarming stuff that’s been coming out of Greenpeace this week about the nitrate situation or not.
Let’s bring in Associate Professor Tim Chambers from the University of Canterbury - who is saying today that it is a government responsibility to provide up-to-date information on nitrates in the water.
He’s been involved in a large study looking into the link between nitrates and premature births, which has compared birth records with nitrate levels in drinking water supplies where these kids have been born.
He can’t say too much about the findings because they’re still being peer-reviewed. But he is saying that we deserve to know more.
He says: “We have advocated for this for a long time. Lots of other countries do this. You can type in your address and it takes you to the supply you’re on and the latest readings.”
I think this would be a brilliant thing to do here. In fact, I think it’s an essential thing to do here with all the noise - and, potentially, exaggeration - that’s coming from Greenpeace.
Or is it an exaggeration? If it is exaggerated, then we deserve better access to information.
Here’s one example of what Greenpeace has been saying this week. It says it’s tested 110 water samples and has found that the Darfield water supply is above the levels that are considered safe for pregnant women.
“Absolutely unacceptable,” is what one of its campaigners is saying about that.
If it’s true, I’d agree. But I heard about someone who had their water tested by an independent lab and it was fine. But their neighbour had Greenpeace test theirs and the levels were through the roof, apparently.
This is why I think the Government and councils are obliged to give us free and open access to data. Because we are at risk of being unnecessarily spooked by scaremongering by the likes of Greenpeace. At the same time, we’re also at risk of being misled by councils telling us that everything’s fine and there’s nothing to see here.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You know how at work you can get people leaving and, instead of hiring new people, they just dish out the work to other people?
Then it gets to the point where the other people look up and realise they’re overworked, overloaded, and burnt out.
I wonder if that’s how mayors around the country are feeling about the prospect of them not only running their own councils but taking over their local regional council, as well.
That’s what the Government is proposing, with the ultimate aim of pretty much getting rid of regional councils as we know them.
Which I think is the wrong way of going about it. I think the Government should instead be focussing on all the other councils we’ve got. We have 67 local authorities in New Zealand. So work on having less city and district councils because that’s where the genuine overlap and duplication happens.
But the Government sees this as an easier sell. I know that from hearing Local Government Minister Chris Bishop say that people have got no idea what regional councils do, so let’s get rid of them.
I think it would be very easy for me to fall into the trap of cheering the Government on on this front because —trust me— I’m in no doubt that we have too many local councils. But I’m not cheering on this proposal because, in the long run, I don’t think it’s going to mean much.
If it was me telling the Government what should happen, I’d be saying unitary authorities are the way to go, which are basically councils that are regional councils and city or district councils all rolled into one.
Because why does somewhere the size of Timaru, for example, have two councils? The district council and the regional council. It shouldn’t.
That’s why I think the Government is all a bit backside-about-face on this one and should be focussing on us having less of the smaller councils and keeping the regional councils.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch City Council's been selected to act as a one-stop consenting authority for large-scale supermarket developments.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis says it's the latest step in the Government plan to make New Zealand attractive for new operators.
She says developers previously had to navigate up to 66 different councils, processes and responses.
Willis says the aim is to boost competition in a sector dominated by Foodstuffs and Woolworths by letting new entrants deal with just one authority.
Business Canterbury CEO Leeann Watson told John MacDonald that the intention of having a one-stop shop regardless of the number of sites you’re operating on is sound.
She says that they’ve heard from businesses who operate across multiple sites that there’s a real inconsistency across the local authorities, which can be incredibly painful to deal with.
But, Watson says, whether or not this plan creates the right incentives is still yet to be seen.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour Leader Chris Hipkins says he's not clear what the Government's aiming for in its plans to change local government.
It's proposing replacing the country's 11 regional councils with boards made up of local mayors.
Hipkins agrees there's an obvious need for change.
But he told John MacDonald he thinks this looks like an attempt to make councils amalgamate.
Hipkins says if that's what they wanted, they should have told councils to go away and amalgamate.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This move by the Government to change who is ultimately liable for repairs to defective building work on new houses up to three-storeys high and renovation jobs worth more than $100,000 makes me very nervous.
At the moment, all parties involved in a project are jointly liable for any defects and repairs.
Which means, sometimes, if one of them can’t pay or if they’ve all gone under since the work was done, the local council that consented the work ends up carrying the cost to fix things up.
The Government doesn’t want that falling on ratepayers anymore, so it’s making changes. But I think it runs the risk of homeowners being thrown to the wolves when things go wrong.
So what’s happening is that if you’re building a new house or getting a decent-sized reno done, you’re going to have to buy a warranty which must include a one-year defect repair period and a 10-year structural warranty.
Which all sounds great. But as Carl Taylor, who is chief executive of the Combined Building Supplies Co-op says, there aren’t enough warranty providers in New Zealand. There are two connected to the trades and one independent.
And he’s not so sure about our chance of more options becoming available in New Zealand.
In theory, the benefit of these changes is that it will mean people responsible for the problems will be the ones who carry the can instead of everyone who worked on the project. And instead of ratepayers if things really go pear-shaped.
But here’s where I see there being big problems. Let’s say there’s an issue with water tightness and that falls on the builder who did the cladding and the flashings – what if that builder isn’t around anymore?
If the builder isn’t around anymore, none of the other parties involved in the new build or the reno are going to be liable under these changes, and with the local council no longer the backstop, where does that leave the homeowner?
It leaves them in the lurch.
I remember a few months back talking with someone about the experience they had getting a house built and what happened when the builder went under.
Someone else has been in touch with us today saying that they had a certified builders guarantee for a new build after the quakes, but the scheme went bust and now they have no cover for any of the problems that have emerged.
How can you make homeowners buy warranties which may not even be worth the paper they’re written on. and, at the same time, limit the backstop options available to them?
There is no way councils should be completely out of the picture because, even though it costs ratepayers, it’s way better than nothing.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m with the KiwiSaver providers who are saying we need to go further than just increasing contributions and we need to make them compulsory.
This is after the announcement by the National Party yesterday that one of its election policies next year will be increasing contributions to 12 percent (6 percent from employers and 6 percent from employees) by 2032, to bring us into line with Australia.
KiwiSaver providers are saying today that they’re liking the policy - but the calls are already coming for it to be made compulsory.
Across the Tasman, it’s compulsory for employers to contribute - but not for workers.
National says it’s not in favour of making any contributions compulsory. NZ First is, though.
So does Sam Stubbs, who is managing director of Simplicity.
He’s saying that it has to be compulsory because we have to make sure everybody is saving for their retirement while they're working. And the only way to do that is to make it compulsory. Who can argue with that?
He says: "Those people who aren't saving into KiwiSaver are going to be much worse off later on in life. So if we want to remove inequality in New Zealand, and we don't like inequality in New Zealand, we have to make sure that everybody is saving for their retirement while they're earning.”
Compulsory KiwiSaver contributions are also going to be essential with any changes to the contribution rates, as National is proposing. Because some people who are paying three percent now won‘t want to pay six percent and so they’ll pull out.
And the only way to stop that, is to make it compulsory.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour says the Government shouldn't be celebrating record high prisoner numbers.
Earlier this week Prime Minister Christopher Luxon declared it was a good thing the prison population was nearing 11 thousand people.
The Government is also celebrating a reduction by 38 thousand in the number of victims of violent crime since it came into power.
Labour's Duncan Webb told John MacDonald that while locking people up may provide short term relief, it doesn't last.
He says they eventually get out and will cause more harm unless they've been rehabilitated.
National’s Matt Doocey told MacDonald that he disagrees with Webb framing the situation as locking them up, but not fixing anything.
He says you can actually do both, and there is a duty to ensure there are rehabilitation programmes for incarcerated individuals.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
For me, one of the best things to come out of yesterday’s announcement about the Cook Strait ferries has nothing to do with the ferries themselves.
There’s still a bit of smoke and mirrors about the numbers and what it’s going to end up costing.
Because what it still comes down to is that the Government poured $671 million down the drain when the Finance Minister pulled the plug on funding for the old ferry project. Which some —Nicola Willis included— thought was too Flash Harry with too many bells and whistles.
They were, generally, the bells and whistles for the portside infrastructure. That’s where the concerns about the cost blow-outs came from. And that’s the side of it that could still blow out. Nevertheless, Rail Minister Winston Peters says it’s still a better deal. Even though it’s going to mean we get smaller ships, lower spec portside facilities, years later than planned.
Nevertheless, I really like what he’s saying about the Government getting the experts in to provide advice and guidance from the get-go. And I want to see a lot more of this from the current government and future governments.
Because one thing that’s always got me about politicians is how they can end up in government and find themselves in Cabinet and be put in charge of things they have absolutely no clue about.
And politicians being politicians, full of ego and bluster, they plod along faking it and hoping they make it – without asking people who actually know stuff for help.
We saw this with the last government when Jacinda Ardern invited senior business leaders to give their input into the COVID response planning, but they were left feeling ignored. I remember people like former Air NZ boss Rob Fyfe talking about it and how frustrating it was.
But if this ferry project is back on track because the Government has actually asked people who know what they’re on about for advice and guidance and has actually listened, then that has to be a good thing.
And I think politicians need to get out of the way more often and let experts have more of a say on big infrastructure projects, if it means things being done more efficiently and without the kind of cost blowouts that now seem to be par for the course.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch's Mayor is suggesting the city's temporary sports stadium could be redeveloped for housing.
Addington's Apollo Projects Stadium opened in 2012 when the quake-damaged Lancaster Park closed permanently.
The City Council's confirmed structures including the grandstand will be removed when Te Kaha opens in April, but the future of the Addington site remains unclear.
Mayor Phil Mauger told John MacDonald it should be intensified and turned into housing, so people can jump onto a bus and head into town easily.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I hope people are sitting-up and paying attention to what BusinessNZ is saying today.
Especially the people who have their heads in the sand about our ability as a country to keep paying for things like healthcare and pensions.
Because, as BusinessNZ puts it, we don’t have enough people to keep on doing that and we need a lot more people.
As one headline today says, New Zealand needs 10 million people to stay afloat.
BusinessNZ says we need twice as many people just to keep the lights on. For several reasons.
For starters, in 20 years’ time we’ll have a labour shortage of 250,000 people. And unless we bring a truckload more people into the country, we won’t have enough workers to do the work. But also, we won’t have enough workers paying tax to pay for the likes of healthcare and the pension.
That’s why I hope people are paying attention. Because, if we think we can keep on keeping on, providing the same services and doing things like dishing out the pension to anyone and everyone just because they turn 65, then we have to either stop doing that or somehow find a way to keep doing it.
If BusinessNZ was a political party, it wouldn’t last five minutes, because the stuff it’s saying today is the stuff that doesn’t win elections. But it’s the stuff we have to listen to and accept.
Example: raising the retirement age. If we are going to be five million people short of being financially viable as a country, we’re all going to have to keep on working longer. Most politicians are too scared to say that, but it’s true.
Or if we still want to retire at 65, we’re going to have to pay for it ourselves. Again, most politicians are too scared to say that, but it’s true.
Now I’m not talking about this happening next week or next year. I’m saying that it’s inevitable that, at some point, we are going to have to accept that everyone retiring at 65 and everyone getting the state-funded pension is a thing of the past. Because we can’t afford it.
Which is why BusinessNZ is also saying today that we’re going to have to start putting more into our KiwiSaver.
That’s another no-brainer. Because, if we’re in a position where we need to double the population just to keep the place running, then we need to change how we do things.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
New Zealand is about to become a dumping ground for dirty vehicles.
That’s what the electric vehicle people are saying today about the Government’s urgent changes to the clean car standards for imported vehicles.
Of course they’re unhappy. Because I reckon they are seeing and we are seeing the EV bubble about to burst.
I’ll tell you why. I’ll also tell you why you’re not going to hear me ripping into the Government for doing what it’s doing.
Reason 1: imported petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles are going to be cheaper, and we would all be complaining if the Government wasn’t doing anything about it.
Reason 2: penalising car importers for importing the types of vehicles that people actually want to buy makes no sense to me. And what I’m getting at there is I reckon most people still want to buy petrol or diesel vehicles or hybrids. In fact, with imported petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles likely to be cheaper because of this move by the Government, why would you even bother with an EV?
That’s why the EV people are so antsy.
And reason 3: I’d be a complete hypocrite if I said otherwise, because I drive petrol cars. One of them is a Toyota Prado that’s been around the block a few times and is a real gas guzzler, and probably isn’t that great for the environment. Not to mention the Vespa 2-stroke nightmare.
I have never had any interest in having an EV. I can’t tell you exactly why, it’s not a protest of any sort. It’s not climate change denial. It’s none of that. And I think most of us are the same. If we can get our hands on a decent petrol, diesel or hybrid vehicle for a decent price, then we’ll do it.
So, as of the end of this week, the penalties car importers get stung with for bringing high-emitting vehicles into the country are going to be slashed by nearly 80%. Which will be music to the ears of the 86% of car importers that Transport Minister Chris Bishop says are facing penalties already.
How the scheme works, is car importers have to meet annual emissions targets.
And when they balance things up at the end of each year, if they’ve brought more dirty cars than clean cars into the country, then they get hit with a penalty, or a charge. Which, of course, gets passed on to customers.
At the other end of things, if they bring-in more clean cars and less dirty cars, they earn credits.
Which sounds great in theory. But, as it stands, most of the importers haven’t been meeting their targets and so they’re facing charges. So the Government is slashing the dirty vehicle charges by 80% to stop that happening.
But the electric vehicle people aren’t happy.
Kirsten Corson is the chair of Drive Electric —which is an advocacy group that wants more of us driving EVs— and she’s saying today that this move by the Government is “embarrassing”.
She says: "If you look at us compared to Australia, in Australia you're paying $100 as a penalty and now we've just slashed that to $15 in New Zealand. So we are going to become a dumping ground for high emission vehicles."
She says: "We keep our vehicles on our road for two decades. The average car is 15-years-old in New Zealand, so the decisions made today are going to impact our transport emissions for the next three decades."
But what do you make of this move by the Government?
Do you think the EV bubble is about to burst?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The city is back mingling with the country at New Zealand's Royal A&P Show in Canterbury.
Thousands are set to descend on the Agricultural Park over the next three days.
This year’s event has re-gained its royal status for the first time since 2010.
Canterbury A&P Association chair Sir David Carter told John MacDonald that the Royal Agricultural Society approached them after they saw them put on last year’s show, and asked if they were prepared to run under the Royal Show status.
They agreed, he says, because it gives prestige to the show, and means livestock people are prepared to enter more animals and travel further to attend.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Whatever you thought of Andrew Coster as Police Commissioner, you probably felt you could trust him to do the right thing. To be upfront, honest, and certainly not hide stuff.
And if you thought the attitude within the Police towards women had changed from what it used to be – well you might be having a bit of a re-think on both of those. Because I certainly am after this damning report by the Independent Police Conduct Authority on the way Police handled accusations of sexual offending by former Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming.
It’s become a bit of a cliche in recent times to describe reports as “damning”, but there’s no doubt how damning this one is.
It is so damning that we had the Police Minister and the current Police Commissioner doing a live media conference at six o’clock last night as soon as the report came out. And no wonder. Because, in my mind, this could prove to be one of New Zealand’s biggest public sector scandals.
And it tells me that despite all the talk from the Police after the experience of Louise Nicholas back in the 1980s with cops involved in sexual misconduct, it seems the memo about a culture change hasn’t yet reached some of the top brass either still working there or who worked there until very recently. Including Andrew Coster.
Let me quote a comment in the IPCA report from one of the country's most senior adult sexual assault investigators. Named in the report as “Officer D”, they said: “You know what's the worst thing – if you make a mistake, the only worse thing that you can do is then cover it up. You can paint all sorts of nice words but to an outsider looking in, and I mean even me, this looks like a cover-up."
So what happened is Jevon McSkimming got into a relationship with a woman in her early 20s. He was in his early 40s. After that, she started writing dozens of emails to the police, accusing Deputy Commissioner McSkimming of being a sexual predator.
But instead of investigating the allegations, the emails were used by police as evidence to prosecute her under the Harmful Digital Communications Act last year.
All of that overseen by Andrew Coster.
His successor, Richard Chambers, is livid.
He says there were about five or six senior leaders in the Police —including Coster— who were responsible for what looks to me like a cover up. Some are still with the Police, others aren’t.
The Commissioner says these people were too quick to believe that the complainant was a spurned woman out for revenge.
As for Andrew Coster, how ironic is this comment he made when he was commissioner? He said: “We rely on the support of most of the community to be successful and that depends on the way we operate and on the extent to which people feel that they can trust us and that what we’re doing is appropriate.”
Oh really?
Coster, these days, is chief executive of the Government’s Social Investment Agency. He’s on leave at the moment. But now that we know what we know, should he be allowed to stay on the government payroll?
I’m in no doubt that he shouldn't. Because he presided over what I think could prove to be one of New Zealand’s biggest public sector scandals. And, for that reason and that reason alone, he should be toast.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Labour Leader is “absolutely disgusted” by the handling of complaints against Jevon McSkimming by former Police Commissioner Andrew Coster.
The Police Complaints Authority has released a report finding some of our highest-ranking Police didn't deal properly with a woman's anonymous complaints against the former Deputy Police Commissioner.
Hipkins is deeply disappointed in Coster, and believes the Police have a right to feel very disappointed in him as well.
“Clearly he had standards that he needed to uphold as a Commissioner of Police, and he did not do that.”
He says the frontline police, who go to work every day with high levels of integrity to serve the public and keep them safe have been badly, badly let down by the leadership.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Be careful what you wish for.
That’s how I’m feeling about the Government giving Christchurch an exemption from the new housing intensification rules, which would have enabled three, three-storey properties to be built on single sections anywhere in the city.
Instead, that level of intensification is going to be limited to certain parts of town, including the city centre, Church Corner, Riccarton, Hornby, Linwood, Shirley, Merivale, Edgeware, and Papanui.
But I think the Government is just letting Christchurch shoot itself in the foot. Because we will, eventually, come to regret it.
Mayor Phil Mauger is delighted though, because the city council pushed back and claimed we were doing enough already on the intensification front.
A few months back, the council agreed to extend the areas where it would be happy to have medium density zoning with three, three storey buildings per section. Then wrote to the Government saying it thought it had gone far enough and requested an exemption from more intensification in other parts of the city.
The council has got what it asked for, and I think we will live to regret it. Because it’s only going to mean one thing: the city expanding beyond where it is now.
Which is why I’ve always said that we need to get over ourselves and accept that greater housing density is the only way forward, especially when we consider the population growth happening here.
And, with the city growing, the options are either growing outwards or upwards.
Whether we want to keep chewing up land and building more to the south, more to the north, and more to the west; or whether we do more with the space we’re occupying at the moment.
Unfortunately, the lack of foresight at our city council —and the government buying-into that lack of foresight— means we’re going to continue expanding. Chewing up good land.
All because we have this old-hat idea that everybody needs and wants the quarter-acre section.
But we’ve got a housing affordability problem in this country and, if you want your kids to be able to afford to buy their own place, it’s not going to be somewhere with a big backyard. So we need more apartments and townhouses – the places you get with greater housing density.
What’s more, putting limits on housing intensification in Christchurch is going to mean more and more houses being built in places like Rolleston and Prebbleton. Which are not in Christchurch, they’re in the Selwyn district, and that will mean more and more people travelling into the city every day, using Christchurch’s roading infrastructure and not paying a bean towards it.
Another reason why this limit on housing intensification in Christchurch is a bad move.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Just as punters hoped, showers have cleared in Christchurch in time to fling open the gates at Addington Raceway before the 122nd running of the New Zealand Trotting Cup.
The grey start's made way for some blue skies and enough sun to fry off rain that fell this morning.
Race caller Matt Cross told John MacDonald the track's in good order.
He says the afternoon forecast is pretty good, so by the time the Cup comes around this evening, we should be in pretty fine form in terms of the weather.
The Trotting Cup is the richest harness race in the Southern Hemisphere, with a million dollars on offer, and Cross says that while he might be a bit biased, he thinks it’s the greatest harness race in the Southern Hemisphere too.
It’s the history that makes it special, he told MacDonald, and every year this is the race people talk about.
“It’s the pinnacle. It’s the race that not only defines horses, but it defines people as well in terms of where they sit in the pecking order within the industry.”
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
At least they’re doing something. But I don’t rate the chances of it working.
That’s how I’m feeling about the Government’s declaration of war on methamphetamine, with this new plan that will see spy agencies working with customs and the defence force to target ships carrying drugs in the Pacific.
It's also going to work with ports and the shipping industry.
The feature of the plan that I like most is this $30 million increase in funding for addiction services. Because, as the Drug Foundation is saying, we can’t arrest our way out of the meth problem.
Sarah Helm is executive director and she says help for people caught up in meth addiction has been significantly under-funded for many years.
She says: “It’s clear to everyone that we can’t arrest our way out of this issue. Spending on treatment and harm reduction is also a better investment of taxpayer money than criminalising people, because it results in savings downstream in health, justice and social costs.”
And we know about the cost - $19.4 million a week. That’s what the National Drug Intelligence Bureau estimates is the value of the harm caused by methamphetamine use every week in New Zealand.
That’s the cost of things like people ending up in hospital, dying - all the social harm. Just under $20 million a week.
The Government’s plan also includes a four-year advertising campaign to educate people about the dangers of meth use.
Which I’m not convinced will be effective. Because everyone knows how bad meth is already - and still we’re using more of it than we ever have.
It's been about 25 years since methamphetamine - as we know it - really took off in New Zealand. And it’s turned out to be a great market for the suppliers.
Some numbers I’ve seen the police refer to is how someone can bring-in 600 kilos of the stuff for a couple of million dollars, sell it and make a profit of around $120 million.
So who is going to turn their back on that kind of opportunity?
But, even though I don’t see it changing things greatly, good on the Government for trying something.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Slightly ironic, don’t you think, that on the day people up and down the country are turning up at work and school wearing their gumboots for Gumboot Friday, we’ve got Lifeline saying it can’t keep running on the smell of an oily rag and has to cut back on services.
Which means no one answering the phone or replying to text messages between midnight and 7am.
Call them then and you’ll get a message saying you’ve reached them out of hours and to call back later.
Which is not how Lifeline has done things for the past 60-odd years. It’s become known, hasn’t it, as a 24/7 option for people needing help on the mental health front night and day.
And you’ve got to say that if a service has lasted more than 60 years and gets the number of calls for help that it gets and genuinely helps the number of people that it helps, then they know what they’re doing and what they’re doing is valuable and needed.
Needed not just 17 hours a day, but needed 24 hours a day. And the numbers show it.
In the year to June, Lifeline responded to more than 40,000 calls, 182,000 text messages, and created 4736 safety plans for people in need.
Break that down and that’s about 110 phone calls every day, 365 days a year. About 500 text messages every day, 365 days a year. And, on average, that’s 12 safety plans written for people every day of the year.
It’s the 12 safety plans every day that shows why Lifeline is such gold. Because, when someone is at the point of needing a safety plan, they are really desperate aren’t they?
Shaun Greaves is chief executive of Presbyterian Support Northern, which runs Lifeline. He’s saying today: “Lifeline saves lives every week and remains a critical frontline service New Zealand's suicide prevention network.
“Without immediate government support, Lifeline’s ability to deliver the critical service New Zealand desperately needs is a serious concern.”
So, let’s say the Government did come to Lifeline’s rescue – how much would the taxpayer be up for?
Two million dollars a year. That’s the funding gap that is forcing Lifeline to cut back on services and ditch its overnight operation.
This is at the same time as the Government, through Tourism NZ, is spending $6 million getting the Michelin Star people to come over here to eat at our fancy restaurants and see if they're worthy of being ranked up there with the best restaurants in the world.
The Government spending $6 million on restaurant reviewers and not spending $2 million on Lifeline is nothing short of moral bankruptcy.
Part of the problem is NZ First and its non-negotiables, because it said before the last election that it would fund Mike King’s Gumboot Friday. That’s why Winston Peters was crowing after last year’s Budget when Gumboot Friday was given $24 million in funding.
Which really must stick in Lifeline’s craw when you consider the difference $2 million would make to its service, let alone the difference it would make to the people who need Lifeline.
Especially the people who need it between midnight and 7am, but whose calls and messages won’t be responded to.
“You’ve reached us out of hours” is the last thing Lifeline wants to be saying to people. And it’s the last thing desperate people need to hear.
But, unless the Government does something, that’s what’s going to happen.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A reminder mental health crises don't follow timetables.
Long-time support service Lifeline will now go unanswered between midnight and 7am.
It's asking the Government for help after reducing hours because it has a $2 million annual shortfall.
Labour's Reuben Davidson told John MacDonald help's needed at all hours and mental health crises don't work office hours.
Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey says support is available elsewhere, with other helplines.
He told MacDonald that they set an extra $9 million aside for telehealth lines in the 2025 Budget, but it’s up to Health NZ to make the decisions on who to fund.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There are two types of people in this world.
There are the ones who have no qualms calling in sick, when they’re not. The ones who feel no guilt at all pulling a sickie. And it seems there is no shortage of them, with this report out today saying that New Zealand workers are taking more sick leave, costing the economy $4 billion.
Then you’ve got the other type, who only use their sick leave if they really, really have to. And I’m in that camp.
If I ever have to have a sick day, I hate it. I know “hate” is a strong word, but I don’t like it.
I was crook a few weeks back and needed a couple of days off and hated it. Same when I was unwell at one point last year. Hated it. Not because I was unwell, but because I was off.
And I’ve always felt that way. I don’t know if it’s because I feel like I’m letting people down or feeling bad for being a no-show. Or fear of missing out. Or good old Catholic guilt.
I don’t know what it is, but that’s just me.
So don’t go blaming me for these new numbers out today, showing that we are taking way more sick leave than we used to. Because I’m not one of your “pull a sickie” types.
And maybe that’s why, at various points during my working life, I’ve looked a bit sideways at some people who seem to take sickies at the drop of a hat.
The Southern Cross Workplace Wellness report out today is blaming the increased number of sick days on the Labour government for increasing sick leave entitlements from five days to 10 days.
Health experts aren’t so sure about that. They say Covid has made it unacceptable to go to work unwell and there are a lot more viruses around.
But I think it’s inevitable that if more sick leave is available there’ll be people who will take the mickey.
The report is based on 2024 data and says the number of sick days taken last year —if you add them all together— was 13 million. Up from a combined total of 10 million in 2022.
The average number of sick days for manual workers was 7-and-a-half days and for non-manual workers it was just under six days. That's probably no surprise, given the chance of someone doing a manual job getting physically injured and needing time off work.
The report also says workers in the public sector are having more sick days than people in the private sector. That’s probably not surprising either. Because, from my own personal experience, the public sector seems to be a lot more forgiving or encouraging of people to take sick days.
Either way, people are calling-in sick more than they used to. Does that mean we are sicker or slacker?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
On Saturday night I was in Lyttelton for a gig and saw a guy sleeping on the bench outside the local supermarket, which took me a little bit by surprise.
Maybe I need to get across to Lyttelton more often.
But that’s the kind of thing we will see way more of if the Government goes ahead with this idea of banning homeless people from congregating and sleeping rough in central business districts.
Because instead of being an answer, it just raises another question: where would they go?
We know where they’d go. The suburbs. They wouldn’t go away. And even though I can’t stand being asked for money all the time when I walk through town, some sort of CBD ban isn’t the solution.
It would start in Auckland apparently and eventually be implemented elsewhere around the country.
This hasn’t come from the Government itself, which is being all mealy-mouthed about it. It’s come from Newstalk ZB's senior political correspondent, Barry Soper. He says the Associate Housing Minister, Tama Potaka, has been talking to community housing providers and has suggested to them that such a law is on its way.
Now I’m a realist and I know that we are never going to get rid of homelessness. That’s because there are so many things that lead to someone not having a roof over their head.
And I reckon most of us are only two or three steps away from being homeless ourselves.
It wouldn’t take that many setbacks in our life before we looked up one day and realised we were sleeping under a blanket on Hereford Street or Queen Street.
But banning rough sleepers from downtown areas is not the answer because what happens when the rough sleepers start moving into the suburbs?
I know the Government will say “aww, we’re not just kicking them out, we’re providing the old wraparound services.”
But this isn’t a solution, it’s just moving the problem elsewhere. And, if I had to choose where in town the rough sleepers should be, give me the CBD any day.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mike Hosking’s interview this morning with reinstated Silver Ferns coach Dame Noeline Taurua could only have gone one of two ways.
She could have spilled the beans. Or she could have danced around the legalities of a gagging order.
She could have spilled the beans and made Netball NZ look like a bunch of incompetents. Or she could have played it safe.
Funny thing is, she didn’t spill the beans - but still managed to make Netball NZ look like a bunch of incompetents, when she said she was never informed why she was stood down and that there was no investigation into the claims made about her.
That was the point where the interview was getting really curious and then, bang, she was being ushered away to a TV interview and had to end the call - promising to call back later.
It was probably the point too where text messages full of exclamation marks started flying between the honchos at Netball NZ.
Prior to that, Dame Noeline had said to Mike that she felt somewhat vindicated being reinstated.
She said she was elated to be back but described the last few months as being “very horriffic”.
Dame Noeline also confired to Mike that she was constrained in terms of what she could say. She said she could have taken legal action to get her job back - because she believes most of the players support her - but she didn’t want Netball NZ money and taxpayer money being blown on lawyers.
If I was a suspicious person, I would say that Dame Noeline and her PR minder realised she might have crossed the line talking about the lack of an explanation and the lack of an investigation, and that’s why she ended the call.
But I did check the TV and she was on-screen a short time after she spoke with Mike.
Either way, I think Netball NZ is looking worse today than it has during this whole saga.
To stand down its head coach without telling her why and without conducting any sort of investigation screams “Mickey Mouse” to me.
And shows why chief executive Jennie Wyllie couldn’t explain last week why Dame Noeline was back.
This has turned out to be more of a cluster than we thought.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Buckingham Palace has announced that King Charles will remove all of his brother, Prince Andrew's, titles.
The statement from Buckingham Palace related the announcement to the allegations of sexual abuse by the late Virginia Giuffre.
Andrew Mountbatten Windsor's title will not be immediately stripped as UK Correspondent Gavin Grey said the process of removing his titles "will take some time".
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Ever since the 1930s, when American soldiers were based all around the world, people in many countries have been antsy about foreigners getting what appears to them to be special treatment or privileges.
The phrase people used back in the day about the US soldiers was something along the lines of them being overdressed, overpaid, oversexed and over here.
And the Government seems to be tapping into the same kind of sentiment with this crackdown on employers not following the rules when they want to hire workers from overseas.
That some employers are going straight to taking-on migrant workers without even trying to find locals to do the work first. Which they’re supposed to do or required to do.
Immigration Minister Erica Stanford is saying today that, if employers don’t follow the rules and don’t prioritise hiring New Zealanders, then they can forget about being allowed to hire anyone from overseas ever again.
She says, since we started giving out accredited work visas to migrant workers three years ago, there are 20,000 more unemployed New Zealanders.
“We have New Zealanders who are desperate for jobs and they need to be given the first opportunity for those."
Which I think will go down like a cup of the old proverbial with some employers, who will say they should be allowed to employ whoever they want from wherever they want.
And that’s a view I agree with.
It’s something they’ve been pushing back against for years. But where the Government’s current concern stems from, is the number of employers who aren’t telling Work & Income that they’re on the lookout for staff. When they should be.
That’s because they’re not even interested in hiring locals and just want migrant workers.
Erica Stanford says more than one-in-six employers just want to employ migrants without considering local workers.
From the perspective of someone who is unemployed and needing work, I can see how that would be frustrating.
But does that mean that we should be forcing employers to give locals work over people from overseas?
It’s a bit rich of the Government to say that we need to turn the education system on its head so young New Zealanders can grow up and be ready to work anywhere in the world; but then, when it comes to people from other countries coming to work here, we go all protectionist on it.
Employers themselves certainly think they should be free to hire whoever they want. They’ve been saying that since 2016, when the-then National government announced changes to “put kiwis first in line for jobs”.
Anne Tolley was the social development minister at the time and she said: “The Government is committed to getting more New Zealanders into work by ensuring they are first in line for jobs.”
Which is the exact same thing Erica Stanford is saying today.
But I bet it won’t sound any better to employers today than it did nearly 10 years ago.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Do we need more MPs? The NZ Initiative thinks we do - saying today that, instead of 120, we should have 170.
It says the number of MPs in New Zealand is low compared to other countries with similar populations and we need 50 more to keep them accessible to voters.
Another thing it’s calling for is a four-year parliamentary term. That’s a no-brainer, as far as I’m concerned. But 50 more MPs? No thanks.
However, I do think some change is needed because of the size of some of our electorates.
Which is essentially why the NZ Initiative is advocating for more MPs.
But I think a much better option would be to have less list MPs and more electorate MPs.
Because, you think about the size of some electorates - the West Coast is a prime example - I’ve always thought it’s crazy that one electorate MP has to represent and cover such a huge area.
The Te Tai Tonga Maori seat is another one. One MP has to cover the whole South Island - as well as Stewart Island, the Chatham Islands, Wellington City and the Hutt Valley.
The reason the NZ Initiative is making this call today, is because it’s reviewed the last 30 years under the MMP voting system. And its two key points are the parliamentary term and the number of MPs.
Senior Fellow Nick Clark says the three-year term is too short for effective long-term policymaking. He says: "By the time a government finds its feet and starts implementing policy, it is already thinking about the next election. A four-year term would give governments time to develop coherent long-term policies."
No argument from me there.
He also says our parliament - with 120 MPs - is about 30 percent smaller than international benchmarks say it should be.
So he says get 50 more. He also thinks we need less cabinet ministers and reckons 15 would be enough.
But I reckon he’s going to be pushing it uphill to sell his idea of more politicians.
I’m not sold. Far from it.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour had their Capital Gains Tax policy leaked earlier this week.
The tax would only apply to residential and commercial property sales, not any other taxable areas. A decision which has led some to question if this is really a Capital Gains Tax.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins had previously said that there would be no Capital Gains Tax under his leadership. However, he told John MacDonald that, 'after the election when we lost, I said, well, everything goes back on the table.'
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
So another ham-fisted announcement from the Labour Party.
In fact, it wasn’t even an announcement. Because of a leak, it was forced this morning to confirm its plan to include a capital gains tax in its policies for next year’s election.
Which looks to me like a very watered-down, scaredy-cat version of a capital gains tax that won’t impress many.
Because, if they were serious, they’d apply it to everything. None of these exclusions. Which I’ll get to.
Another fly in the ointment - aside from all the exclusions and the leak - is what the money from the tax would be used on. Three free doctor’s visits a year for all of us.
Which I think would create more problems than it would be worth.
So, if Labour forms the next government, it will introduce a capital gains tax that, if it’s to be believed, would only apply to what seems like a very short list of things.
There’d be no capital gains on the sale of the family home and there’d be no capital gains on the sale of farms. But there would be a capital gains tax on the sale of rental properties and commercial properties.
So the farmers would be happy and the landlords - residential and commercial - would be brassed-off.
There would also be no capital gains tax on KiwiSaver, shares, business assets, inheritances, and personal items. Which, Labour says, would mean 90 percent of us not paying any tax on any property we own and all of us getting three free doctor’s visits a year.
That’s because the revenue from this new tax would be funnelled straight into the health system
But has Labour really thought it through? Because, as soon as you start telling people they can go to the doctor for free three times a year, what chance do you think they’ll actually be able to get an appointment with everyone doing the same?
What’s more, Labour says “one in six New Zealanders cannot afford to visit their doctor when they are sick.” So why aren’t they targetting those people?
Why would you give free doctor’s visits to the five-out-of-six who can afford to go to the doctor?
That’s why this tax proposal is Labour’s second-worst policy idea in the last few years, coming a very close second to the non-sensical, last-minute GST-off-fruit-and-vegetables idea it cooked up before the last election.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, National MP and former doctor Vanessa Weenink, and Labour's Tracey Lee McLellan join John MacDonald to delve into the biggest topics of the week.
They discuss the Government response to yesterday's wind storm, the mega-strike, the end of home economics and outdoor education in schools, political involvement in the Netball NZ debacle, and Labour's future funding policy.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What happened to the emergency mobile alert system ahead of and during yesterday’s wind storm?
One explanation for the absence of text alerts from one government MP is that, with the power out in places, the cell towers weren’t working.
But the power wasn’t out in Christchurch city and there were still no alerts on my phone. What’s more, the power only went out once the wind hit - well after the Emergency Management Minister pre-emptively declared a state of emergency on Wednesday afternoon.
So, there are questions to be answered.
I also think that, from the outset, the state of emergency shouldn’t have been limited to Canterbury.
If you look around the South Island, there are areas that have been hit just as hard - if not worse - than some areas in Canterbury.
The Emergency Management Minister declared an emergency in Southland this morning. But it should have happened sooner.
Then there are the people who question the need for such a response.
I’m not sure if it was just the state of emergency that made things so quiet in town yesterday or whether it was the state of the emergency plus the mega-strike.
Odds on, it was the state of emergency. Which one Christchurch business owner isn’t happy about. They think it was overkill including Christchurch because the city wasn’t as badly-affected as other parts of the region and their takings were down 50 percent because of it.
It was like a tale of two Canterburys yesterday. We had trees coming down and that fire at Hanmer Springs. Whereas, in Christchurch, I think a lot of us were wondering when it was going to hit.
The wind picked up at times. But, overall, Christchurch got off pretty lightly.
Nevertheless, I disagree that the city shouldn’t have been included in the state of emergency.
Because who knew the wind was going to behave the way it did? With that wall of wind that was heading towards the city yesterday morning splitting into two and skirting around the city.
That’s why I’ll always support the “better safe than sorry” approach.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Canterbury Civil Defence Controller James Thompson joined John MacDonald on Canterbury Mornings with the latest information we need to know ahead of today's expected damaging wind storm.
The region is under a red wind warning locally, along with parts of the Southern North Island.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Waimakariri Mayor Dan Gordon joined John MacDonald to get the latest from their district on storm preparation and damage.
There are also reports that people set off fireworks in the area last night.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Minister for the South Island is ducking for cover. I probably would be too, if I was him.
Because he knows it’s going to be very difficult to defend the pitiful share the South Island is getting from the Government’s latest $1.2billion funding round for new roads and roading upgrades.
The south island has been virtually shut out, with just 6 percent of the money going to projects here.
The Hope Bypass, near Nelson, is the only one south of Cook Strait. With no mention of making State Highway 1 north and south of Christchurch four lanes, which regional leaders say is needed.
Leann Watson from Business Canterbury is saying that, considering the South Island’s contribution to New Zealand’s economy, it doesn’t sound fair. And she’s spot on.
In fact, I think she’s being generous. It’s a rip-off.
Tell that to Transport Minister Chris Bishop, though, who says the Government can’t do everything at once and needs to prioritise roading projects.
But there’s at least one road in the South Island that needs to be given much higher priority - which everyone seems to have been banging-on about for ages. State Highway 1 between Christchurch and Ashburton is an absolute shocker.
It’s a stretch that South Island Minister James Meagher will know only too well.
How many times do you reckon he’s driven on that road since becoming an MP and since becoming the minister who's supposed to be in Wellington advocating for us?
The guy who seems to have gone to ground and who hasn’t been available to respond to media inquiries about this South Island road funding debacle.
No wonder he hasn’t been available. Because it is indefensible.
At least the transport minister is fronting. Not only saying that the Government can’t do everything at once but also saying that the roads that have got funding - 94 percent of them in the North Island - are getting the green light because they are what he calls “top priority corridors”.
He says they're top priority because they will boost freight movement, increase safety and lead to economic growth.
But let’s just test that.
Would a 4-lane highway between Christchurch and Ashburton already boost freight movement? Of course, it would.
What about safety? Would a 4-lane highway be safer, compared to the 2-lane goat track we’ve got at the moment? That’s a no-brainer.
And what about economic growth? Would a 4-lane highway between Christchurch and Ashburton do good things for the economy? Do I even need to answer that one?
The Government’s argument for 94 percent of this new road funding going to the North Island doesn’t stack up.
LISTEN ABOVE
Note: Minister Meager did issue a statement - however it was not initially reported. See below the Minister's full statement:
“I’m very pleased with yesterday’s confirmation of a near $1.2 billion for the next stage of our Roads of National Significance (RoNS) programme.
“The Hope Bypass project is significant for the South Island. SH6 is a vital connection for our people and goods to get around, and this bypass will help boost economic growth in Nelson Tasman. It will also bring wider economic benefits for the region; through the jobs the project will create.
“It’s important to note yesterday’s update is just one part of the Government’s ongoing infrastructure work programme.
“Developments continue on the Belfast to Pegasus and Woodend Bypass (a RoNS), with a FTAA application being worked through currently.
“The South Island is also well-represented with six projects in the Roads of Regional Significance (RoRS) work programme, with the Queenstown upgrade package and five Canterbury RoRs:
- SH76 Brougham Street Upgrades
- S75 Halswell Road Improvements
- SH1 Rolleston Access Improvements
- The second Ashburton Bridge
“We’ve also committed to important South Island roading infrastructure outside of the RoNs and RoRs programmes, like a replacement bridge for Christchurch’s Pages Road, which I announced $38.5 million of Government funding for in August.”
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Some days you hear about something which absolutely beggars belief. Today is one of those days.
You hear about something that makes you wonder what the hell has happened to society. Sometimes it can be overseas. Or it can be something here in New Zealand. Today is one of those days.
Because I am blown away by this coroner’s report which has just come out, into the death of a four-year-old girl in a public fountain in Tauranga in May 2023.
Coroners are quite measured in the words they use and coroner Matthew Bates is no different, saying today that he’s “troubled” by a particular aspect of this tragedy.
I’m reading that as code for “appalled”. Because, even though four people could see four-year-old Nia Lohchab lying face down in the water, not one of them did anything to get her out.
The coroner knows that because CCTV footage shows there were four people near the fountain, but not one of them did anything.
One of them got on their phone - presumably calling emergency services - but then left her in the water.
The coroner says it’s unlikely that the outcome would have been any different if they had got her out. But what does it say about our society? What does it say about us?
To put it bluntly, it tells me that we’ve become a bunch of lamos. What other conclusion can you come to?
So Nia was at Memorial Park, in Tauranga, with her grandfather and her younger sister just over two years ago. It was three days before her fifth birthday.
She ran towards the fountain and her little sister ran in a different direction. So the grandfather went after the younger child first, as most people would.
That was just after 20-to-10 in the morning. At 9:49AM, a member of the public called emergency services saying there was a child face down in the water. But neither that person, nor three others in the area, did anything to get her out.
Four minutes later, police arrived, found her motionless, got her out, started giving CPR, but they couldn’t save her.
In his report, coroner Matthew Bates says - of the four people near the fountain at the time - at least three of them were clearly aware that NIa was there and that she was lying face down in the water. And they left her there. What the hell have we come to?
He says he is “troubled by the fact that none of the members of the public who observed nia face down and motionless in the water removed her from the fountain immediately”.
Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised. Because here’s another example of how lame people have got when it comes to helping out.
A chap was driving near The Palms shopping mall, in Christchurch, the other week and was T-boned by another driver. After the crash, not one person came to check he was ok.
Some people in the gym came outside to have a look. Then went back inside. No one came to help or, at the very least, check if he needed any help.
So maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that people who saw this little girl lying face down in the fountain did nothing to get her out.
But it is appalling and it shows how we have become a society that doesn’t care as much as it used to.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Government is really spooked by this week’s mega strike. With about 100,000 people expected to walk off the job on Thursday.
If it wasn’t spooked, we wouldn't have Public Service Minister Judith Collins writing this open letter to patients, students and families affected by the doctors, nurses, teachers, prison staff and other healthcare workers going on strike.
It’s a letter which, I think, ups the ante on the serve Health Minister Simeon Brown gave doctors last week over their involvement. Because what Judith Collins says in the letter, aside from how much the Government regrets the impact the strike is going to have on people - which it is, she’s encouraging parents to do, what I would describe as, harassment of teachers.
She’s saying to parents - especially those with younger kids who are going to have to make alternative arrangements for the day because they can’t leave the young ones at home on their own - that they should quiz teachers about the timing of their action.
Why they’re striking in a week when many schools already have teacher-only days and on a day so close to the Labour Day holiday on Monday.
And I think this is so wrong.
Because, if you’ve ever had kids at school, you will know that quite a few parents don’t need any encouragement to have a go at the teachers.
You always hear stories about parents hounding teachers about this and that. And, every now and then, you hear stories about people quitting teaching altogether because of the relentless hassle they get from parents.
And the Government, with this open letter, is just encouraging more of that.
It’s calling the mega strike “politically-motivated”. But the Government stands accused of the exact same thing with this open letter. As well as the outburst last week from the Health Minister.
One of the reasons the Government thinks it’s politically-motivated is the secondary teachers union wanting to discuss Palestine when it met with the Education Minister.
That was just dumb and didn’t do their cause any good.
But the Government just needs to accept that the mega strike is happening and it needs to stop this attack on people who are doing nothing illegal. They’re fully within their rights to strike and this harassment has to stop.
If you heard me last week criticising the firefighters for striking, because I thought it put us at unnecessary risk, then you might think it’s a bit rich of me to be having a go at the Government today.
The difference is, I’m not a government minister. More importantly, though, I wasn’t encouraging anyone to confront the firefighters. Far from it.
But that’s what the Public Service Minister is doing.
The teachers shouldn’t have to defend themselves to nagging parents and the Government shouldn’t be egging them on.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Opposition Leader's again expressing concern about Te Pati Maori, but not yet ruling out working with them.
Toxic culture claims by Eru Kapa-Kingi were followed by the party releasing documents accusing him of threatening Parliamentary staffers.
They also show his mother, recently demoted Whip MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, was warned about risking budget overspend.
Chris Hipkins says it’s clear Te Pati Māori has some internal issues to work through before they’d be in a position to form a government.
Chris Hipkins told John MacDonald any decisions about whether or not they’d form a coalition with Te Pati Māori will come closer to the election, as an awful lot can happen between now and then.
However, he says, if there was an election today, he’d say they’re not in a position at the moment to play a constructive role in future government.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Isn’t it weird that, in the past 25 years, we have spent millions and millions and millions of dollars on road safety campaigns, but there have, generally, been no changes in that time to the penalties handed out for bad and dangerous driving?
I tried to find out exactly how much has been spent, but I realised that was quite ambitious.
Nevertheless, I can safely say that it’s hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, ChatGPT reckons it’s somewhere between $2.5 billion and $3.5 billion. It’s probably way more than that.
Either way, we’ve spent billions over the past 25 years trying to make people aware of the consequences of bad and dangerous driving, but many of the fines and penalties for drivers breaking the law haven’t changed. And the AA wants that rectified.
I’m not saying don’t do it, but I’m not convinced that that would make much difference when it comes to what actually happens on the roads and how drivers behave.
Aside from the money spent on road safety campaigns, let’s also not forget the gazillions spent on cleaning up the mess after road crashes.
ACC, hospital costs, ongoing care for people – it’s estimated that that comes to about $10 billion a year.
So, in the past 25 years, billions have been spent trying to educate drivers and dealing with the consequences of road crashes. But in that time, not much has changed when it comes to penalties.
Which is why the AA’s road safety spokesperson Dylan Thomsen is saying today that, at the very least, fines should be doubled across the board to make up for inflation, and fines automatically adjusted for inflation on an ongoing basis.
He says: "We need to bring these penalties back up so they work to make drivers think twice about taking risks on the road or breaking the rules because right now they're not doing that."
I agree that they’re not working, but I don’t agree that harsher penalties would make a difference. Because when people are muppets out on the road, they don’t even think twice about the penalties, let alone the consequences.
The AA thinks differently, and reckons the changes need to focus on the types of offences that cause the most carnage on the roads.
Which are: people driving drunk or stoned, people not wearing seatbelts, people driving too fast, and people being distracted by things like mobile phones.
Dylan Thomsen is saying that the AA, generally, wants fines to double but thinks the penalties for these particular offences might have to be increased more than that to really make a difference.
The fine for using your phone while driving would certainly need to be more than doubled if we were to get anywhere close to the fines dished out in parts of Australia.
In New South Wales, if you’re caught using your phone while driving, you’re fined $350 - or $470 if it’s in a school zone. In Western Australia, it’s a $1,000 fine.
Here, it’s $150 and 20 demerit points.
Dylan Thomsen points to a recent survey of AA members which found that most of them don’t think our fines are effective. Less than 50% said they thought the fines dished out for things like speeding and using a cellphone driving were tough enough to change behaviour.
But do you really think harsher fines would change these behaviours? I don’t.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m right behind the call being made today for helmets to be made mandatory at recreational ice skating and roller skating rinks.
For it to be a legal requirement that if you want to go and have a skate with your mates, you have to wear a helmet.
Because if it’s good enough for helmets to be compulsory on bikes, then why isn’t it good enough for helmets to be mandatory when someone’s on a set of skates?
When you think about it, you are far more likely to ride a bike than go to an ice skating rink or a roller skating rink. Which, surely, means that skating is way more risky. So helmets have to be non-negotiable.
In fact, I’d go beyond just ice skating rinks and roller skating rinks, I think we should be doing the same at the likes of ski fields and skate parks.
But back to the tragic death of 13-year-old Kymani Hiley-Hetaraka during a school visit to the Alpine Ice Skating Rink in Christchurch 15 months ago.
Her sister was also on the trip and the two of them were skating together when Kymani —who wasn’t wearing a helmet— fell and hit her head.
She was, initially, able to speak and she asked her sister to get her some Panadol. But she then started having a seizure, was taken to hospital, and died two days later after being taken off life support.
Since the tragedy the rink has voluntarily made helmets mandatory. But there is no law requiring it and Kymani's parents —Curtis Gwatkin and Maraea Hetaraka— think that needs to change.
They’re saying today that they want the Government to make helmets mandatory at all recreational ice skating and roller skating rinks. And I couldn’t agree more.
They’re speaking out because, initially, they wanted to wait for WorkSafe to do its investigation, thinking that someone would be prosecuted. But that didn’t happen.
WorkSafe found that there were no health and safety breaches by the ice-skating rink. No breaches by Kymani’s school. And no breaches by the external organisation contracted by the school to run the trip.
But that’s not good enough as far as Curtis and Maraea are concerned.
They say it’s left them feeling frustrated and angry, and who can blame them?
They’re determined to keep fighting on this one and plan to start a petition to try and force the Government to make helmets mandatory at all ice skating and roller skating rinks.
It’s a no-brainer as far as I’m concerned.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you voted in this year’s local body elections, congratulations. You can consider yourself a member of a very exclusive club.
Because, this year, voter turnout around the country was the lowest it’s been in 36 years. Which is pitiful.
So pitiful that I don’t even think my idea of having just one main voting day - like we have for central government elections - would make much of a difference.
In fact, I think there’s only one way to fix it. Something which has already been tried somewhere else with immediate results.
Because something needs to be done. Because local councils matter.
They have far more influence on our daily lives than central government ever will.
Our councils are responsible for the roads we drive on everyday. They’re responsible for getting the rubbish collected and getting water services to our houses and making sure the sewers work properly. They run our libraries. All sorts of things that we use and rely on every day.
Our councils are the majority owners of key infrastructure services. Christchurch City Council, for example, has the airport, the Port at Lyttelton, the Orion electricity lines company and others.
Not worth taking an interest in who is leading these outfits? Or having an influence in who is leading these outfits? Sixty-eight percent of us don’t think so.
Talk about apathy.
Andrew Geddis - who is a political scientist at the University of Otago - reckons that one of the main reasons for the low turnout is that the voting period is just way too long.
And people just forget about the voting papers sitting on the kitchen bench. He also points out the benefit of having one main voting day - like we do in the central government elections.
I used to think the same.
But I see only one solution. Which is something people talk about in relation to central government elections. But I think we need it for local government too.
Compulsory voting.
Because, after this pitiful turnout in this year’s elections, we need a kick up the jacksy - and making it compulsory to vote is the only way to achieve that.
In Australia, compulsory voting in federal elections was introduced in 1924 and, since then, voter turnout has never fallen below 90 percent.
More relevant, though, is what they’ve done in Tasmania. Three years ago, Tasmania made voting in local government elections compulsory, as well. And just like compulsory voting in federal elections sorted out the low participation problem, the same thing happened in Tasmania with their local body elections.
In just one election, voter turnout increased by 44.6 percent.
Councils in Tasmania have four-year terms - so the 2022 turnout is the most recent example.
But it shows you, doesn‘t it, how compulsory voting in local body elections works. And how it could work just as well here.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Shihad frontman Jon Toogood joined John MacDonald ahead of the Christchurch Full Metal Orchestra concert. He talked about performing with Phil Rudd of ACDC, his passion for heavy music and the joy it brings the crowds, and how his health has become a priority in his later years.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Phil Mauger has been re-elected as Mayor of Christchurch. He joined us on the show following his win, and discussed the key issues he wants to focus on. Where will cut debt? Who will be his deputy? And does he think Wayne Brown is correct that Auckland is our only international city?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch's incumbent mayor believes debt is the Council's biggest challenge.
Phil Mauger says if re-elected he's committed to tackling the Garden's City's growing debt by selling off assets like the Lichfield Street carpark.
Mauger told John MacDonald the current debt level is $2.5 billion, and he wants it under control.
He says 25 cents of every rate dollar goes into debt servicing, and he wants that money spent on more things to benefit the city.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I support the NZ Drug Foundation’s push to decriminalise drug use and drug possession.
The key point here is “use” and “possession”. It’s not saying let the dealers and manufacturers away with it, it’s saying we need to take a much more compassionate approach and treat drug users as people in need of help, instead of treating them as criminals.
I’m picking your response will probably be determined by your exposure to drugs or experience with drugs.
By that I mean whether your life has been affected in any way.
I reckon that if someone close to me got hooked on meth, for example, then I’d definitely be wanting the law to take a more compassionate view.
Because I know that I wouldn’t see them as criminals, I’d see them as someone needing help.
Whereas if my life was impacted negatively in any way by a meth head —for example, if someone high on meth had attacked me in the street or broken into my home— then I might not be quite so compassionate.
But if I listen to what the Drug Foundation has to say, then maybe a more compassionate approach would mean less drug addicts attacking people in the street and less drug addicts committing crimes to get money for their drugs.
Because here’s what it says about that in its report:
It says we should decriminalise personal possession and use of drugs —including drug utensils— because evidence from overseas shows that a system where people get help —and aren’t treated as criminals— even when they continue using their drug of choice... it says there is evidence that it works.
In Switzerland for example, where it has what’s called “heroin-assisted treatments”, less people have died from overdoses and there is less drug-related crime.
Another example the foundation gives in its report is Canada, where there are signs that its “safer supply programmes” are reducing the number of drug overdoses and helping drug users lead more stable lives.
So why wouldn’t you give it a go?
But it wants it done in parallel with a whole lot of money being poured into health and harm reduction services.
Which, no matter what your views on our drug laws are, is a no-brainer.
You’ll remember how, late last year, it was revealed that cocaine use in New Zealand is at an all-time high and methamphetamine consumption has doubled. And with people using more cocaine and meth, they’re at much greater risk of things like psychosis and heart issues.
So, either way, there’s going to be some sort of financial burden on the health system at some point, isn’t there?
So why not turn things on their head?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Is it good enough that the victim of a nasty assault in Christchurch has had to hound the police for four weeks to find out what’s going on with their investigation?
This is someone who lost several teeth in the assault which happened in broad daylight inside The Palms shopping mall.
Is it good enough?
He and his family don’t think so, saying today that it’s left them feeling like they’re the bad guys, when all they’ve wanted is to know what’s going on.
I’ll come back to his story. And another one.
But is it good enough? I don’t think it is.
But even though Canterbury Police have ditched their restructuring plans which would have had less cops based in areas like Amberley and Culverden and more cops based in growth areas like Rangiora and Rolleston, I don’t see things changing anytime soon.
The police obviously didn’t bank on Federated Farmers getting fired up and organising public meetings, which led to 1,000 submissions against the proposals, which have now been ditched.
But while Federated Farmers and people in places like Amberley and Culverden will be happy, it doesn’t solve the problem for everyone else in Canterbury.
The problem being: there’s not enough cops.
Which brings me back to the guy who was punched in the chops in broad daylight by a woman at The Palms four weeks ago.
Matt Sherwood is his name. He’s a baker —he runs his own business— and he was at the mall selling his products when a woman he didn’t know put her groceries down on his table.
He said “g’day” to her and she muttered something. But then went and opened a can of drink that started to fizz everywhere. All over Matt’s stall. And, within seconds, she was yelling “f*** you man” and she hit him in the face.
He lost six teeth and has been to the dentist multiple times, which has cost him thousands of dollars.
But the bit that has left him really frustrated is the way he’s had to hound the police for information.
He’s saying today: “Every single sort of point we get to, it’s just like it’s forced. I feel like I’ve done something wrong all the time. I would have liked some sort of timeline, and just to keep up with stuff and (have them) contact me and tell me the time frame.”
The exact same story for someone else we’ve heard about. This person was assaulted in a public place, called the police the next day, and had to chase them for two weeks to get an initial phone conversation.
After that, they had no further contact and after following up repeatedly, was eventually told by a police officer that they were “needy and desperate”.
They felt that, as the victim, the onus was on them to chase the police, instead of the police coming to them. Which has left them feeling that their experience was minimised and that they weren’t a priority.
This is nowhere near good enough, in my book.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has had a gutsful. And I don’t blame him.
I’d be the same if I had protesters outside my place and especially if I had a window smashed, which is what happened at his Auckland home last night.
And I reckon the time has well and truly come for us to decide where it is appropriate for people to protest, and where it isn’t.
Outside people’s homes is a no-no for me, because families don’t deserve to be targeted by protesters.
But what about other locations?
Remember during Covid how livid we were with all the anti-vaxxers protesting outside schools?
So does that mean schools should be no-go zones for protest action? I would say yes. Because protest action outside schools impacts the kids and they don’t deserve that. The same way protesting outside people’s homes impacts their families, and they don’t deserve that.
These protesters at Winston’s place have been turning up after he announced that the Government isn’t ready to recognise a Palestinian state.
The window was smashed just after 5:30 last night, with a guy handing himself in to police a few hours later.
There’s no formal confirmation that he was connected to the pro-Palestine crew, but as Winston said to a reporter last night: “Either 1 and 1 make 4 or 1 and 1 make 2. It’s up to you.”
But we know it’s connected.
Which is why I support the Government’s plan to ban protesting outside people’s houses, but I also want it to go further than that.
Tell that to law expert Graeme Edgeler though, who thinks the draft law —in its current form— would be difficult for the police to enforce in places like Queen Street, in Auckland, where people do live, but it’s also, for all intents and purposes, a public space.
And Graeme Edgeler says if this ban on protesting outside people’s homes happens, there are going to be times when the police won’t actually know what to do.
But here's the bottom line for me: however strong you might feel about something, it’s not on targeting people in a way that also affects their families.
And what often happens when you get a groundswell of protest action is you get the people who are genuine and not out to cause any real trouble, but they can very easily lose control and get all sorts of muppets joining in. Just for fun.
Which is why I think people’s homes and schools should be out of bounds for protest action.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch mayoralty hopeful Sara Templeton says her Green values wouldn't define her leadership of the city.
The three-term city councillor and former Green Party member has been challenged on her alignment and the fact Green mayors like Tory Whanau and Aaron Hawkins have been in office just one term.
Templeton told John MacDonald the focus should be on Christchurch, which needs someone with strong environmental credentials, governance skills, and passion for community.
She says they tend to be framed as “Green values”, but she has a strong track record in those areas, and people will be voting based on that track record and her vision for the future.
Templeton is putting everything on the line in her bid.
The third-term councillor is running against incumbent Phil Mauger and isn't seeking re-election in Heathcote as back-up.
Templeton told MacDonald it's been a privilege to serve in Heathcote but she believes she can serve the city better as Mayor.
She says standing for both roles would signal a lack of confidence in winning the mayoralty, so it’s all or nothing.
The former Green Party member says she has no interest in national politics and will find another way to serve the city if she misses out.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Much has happened this week, so National’s Hamish Campbell and Labour’s Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald to delve into the biggest issues.
They discussed whether the Government should underwrite power prices to reduce bills, the viability of Treasury’s solutions to the financial crunch, and the results of the Herald’s annual Mood of the Boardroom survey.
Plus, the ever-hot topic that is the state of Christchurch Hospital’s overwhelmed emergency department.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I got an email from the power company this week, telling me about my weekly electricity use and how much of that is used during my eight hours of free power on Saturdays and Sundays.
Despite doing all the washing and drying during the 16 free hours of power each week, it was only 20%.
No wonder the bills are so expensive. And that’s without teenagers chewing through the power like it used to be not that long ago.
So we probably shouldn’t be surprised by a new survey which says over 60% of people would be in favour of the Government underwriting the cost of new electricity generation, if it meant cheaper power bills.
This is a survey that was done by Curia for Octopus Energy and the Auckland Business Chamber. The results have been released as we are, apparently, just days away from some sort of significant government announcement about the energy sector.
But here’s the question: Is it the Government’s job to make energy prices cheaper?
I think we lost any right to expect the Government to deliver cheaper power prices when the market was reformed by Max Bradford all those years ago. When we got the set-up we’ve got now, which we were promised would mean cheaper power prices.
Because unless the Government buys back all the shares in all the power companies, then I don’t think it is the Government’s job to make energy prices cheaper.
What’s more, the idea of the Government underwriting new generation projects is a bit of a slippery slope. Because why should these companies get the Government being a backstop for them if things go pear-shaped? What about other sectors that have to go it alone without the taxpayer to fall back on?
Energy Minister Simon Watts isn’t saying much, but he’s describing it as something that will be “significant but surgical”.
My view is that the only way the Government could deliver cheaper electricity prices is by buying back all the shares in the big power companies. Resurrecting the old NZ Electricity Department (NZED).
But that’s never going to happen. Shane Jones has talked about it, but I think it’s very unlikely.
And that’s why I think we need to forget about this idea of the Government coming to our rescue.
We don’t expect the Government to make air fares cheaper. We’ve abandoned the idea of the Government making groceries cheaper.
So why should we expect it to make power prices cheaper?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What’s your message to the new Reserve Bank Governor?
Dr Anna Breman is moving from Sweden to take up the job and will begin her five-year term at the start of December.
I thought it was interesting to hear her say yesterday that one of the first things she plans to do is to travel around the country to meet and listen to people.
She says she wants to meet people in regular households and students, to hear what they’ve got to say.
What would you tell her? What do you think she needs to know?
Back in March, when Adrian Orr quit, my advice to whoever eventually took over was to be the complete opposite of him.
To make sure they stayed in their lane and kept themselves in check. Because when you’re the Reserve Bank governor, your job is to be part of creating a rock star economy – you’re not the rock star yourself.
What I heard yesterday gives me confidence that Dr Breman is going to do exactly that. Keep the ego under control, but more importantly, actually listen to what’s going on.
The fact that one of the first things she plans to do is go around the country and talk to people like you and me, I think that’s brilliant.
But it can’t just be a one-off. She needs to be in Christchurch and Auckland pretty much all the time, as well as Wellington and other parts of the country. Because Auckland and Christchurch are the two powerhouses of New Zealand’s economy.
If I had half an hour with Dr Breman, I’d tell her that she needs to get out of Wellington and talk to real people on a regular basis. To see what people are paying at the supermarket check-outs, to see what people are paying for power, and not just read about it in reports written by officials who can still afford to buy their coffees and lunches and nights out at the weekend.
I suppose what I’m saying is that Dr Breman needs to be a Reserve Bank Governor of the people. That might be a tall order but that’s what I’d say.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You know how the Prime Minister does a very good job of batting away poll results and saying that his focus is fixing up the joint after the last lot and that he’ll wait until election day to be judged?
I don’t think he will find it quite as easy to do that with these results out today from the NZ Herald’s annual Mood of the Boardroom survey. The annual survey of about 150 business leaders – 125 of them being CEOs of major New Zealand companies.
People like Port of Auckland boss Roger Gray, the head of Tower Insurance Paul Johnston and Forsyth Barr boss Neil Paviour-Smith.
One of the things that comes out in the survey results is a ranking of the performances of our Cabinet ministers. How these business leaders think of each minister is doing.
Top of the list is Erica Stanford – she’s the highest ranking. Winston Peters is in second place and Chris Bishop is third.
The Prime Minister is ranked 15th. In last year’s survey, he was sixth. Even Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk, who sits outside cabinet, ranks higher than the PM in 10th place.
The other big name outside the top 10 is Finance and Economic Growth Minister Nicola Willis – the bosses at our biggest companies have ranked her in 13th place.
Which is not good news for the Government. Because what’s coming through loud and clear is that the business community has no faith that there is a plan to get the country “back on track”.
We’re way more than halfway through the Government’s current term and our most senior business leaders are asking: “What is your plan Prime Minister?"
I think this result out today is way worse for the Government than any political poll result so far. When you’ve got business leaders ranking the Finance Minister 13th and the Prime Minister 15th, this is a government in strife, isn’t it?
The reason I think this will hurt Christopher Luxon more than any of the other poll results he’s managed to bat away or put a brave face on for, is that these are his people.
Before he entered politics, he was one of them. He probably even took part in these surveys when he was chief executive at Air New Zealand.
He’s the people he’s talking to when he goes on about signs of green shoots in the economy. These are the people he’s talking to when he talks about getting runs on the board.
The people who have said he’s the 15th-best performing cabinet minister. The people he’s talking to with his quarterly action plans, deliverables, KPIs, decision gates, and value chains.
But his people still don’t know what he’s trying to do. They still don’t know what his plan is. Which is why I think he will really be feeling this today.
Because even his people don’t get him.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Is it good enough?
When you hear a doctor at Christchurch Hospital say that patients are dying in the waiting room and car park because the place is so overloaded, is it good enough?
I’ve been talking to someone who was there at the weekend and saw first-hand how overloaded it actually is, which I’ll tell you about shortly.
But is it good enough that we have Dr Dominic Fleischer saying that patients are dying in the waiting room and car park because the place is so overloaded?
It’s not good enough in my book. But what’s the solution? I honestly think the only genuine solution would be a second general hospital in the greater Christchurch area.
What chance of that happening, do you reckon?
I was talking this morning with someone who wasn’t shocked to hear what Dr Fleischer is saying. Because this person was at Christchurch Hospital at the weekend and saw first-hand what it’s like.
They went to the emergency department with a family member on Sunday afternoon. So it wasn’t Friday night or Saturday night, when the ED is, typically, its busiest.
The person they were supporting was “fast tracked”, but still had to wait six hours to be seen. There were other patients being told that the wait for them was going to be eight-to-nine hours.
It was standing room only in the waiting area. Support people had to stand and there were people squeezed-in together. Some vomiting. There were people bleeding, with blood running to the floor.
A guy arrived with his wife after he’d been lying on the floor at Bunnings for five hours waiting for an ambulance that never came. He had some sort of back injury.
Then, when the person I spoke to and the family member they were supporting eventually got through to the ED ward, every cubicle was occupied and the corridors were lined with people in seats, wheelchairs, stretchers and beds
The family member they were with had to have a consultation in a resuscitation room, where they were told not to put their bags down - in case they had to leave in a hurry.
Another so-called “private” consultation had to be done in the nurses tea room - because there was no other space available.
There was even a doctor wearing a backpack the whole time because he was being moved from ward-to-ward and didn’t know where he was going to be working next. So he kept his backpack on and his personal belongings with him the whole time
People having invasive tests - like blood cultures taken - in the corridor. They struggled to even find a wheelchair with a hook to carry IV medication.
This person who spoke to me about their experience said they couldn’t fault the doctors, nurses and security. Everyone was doing their best.
But it did occur to them, what if there was some sort of mass casualty event? Would the hospital be able to cope?
And this person said, based on what they went through, they couldn’t see how it could cope.
Which brings me back to the question I asked right at the start: Is this good enough?
Is it good enough that some patients are waiting 24 hours to be seen? Is it good enough that patients have died in the waiting room and carpark?
Is it good enough? And what would you do to fix it?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Would you be happy to pay $110-a-year for a residential parking permit, so you could get a park outside your place whenever you wanted?
Some Christchurch City Council candidates think you would. Especially, if you live in the central city or in a suburb close to town where on-street parking can be a real problem.
The council is already looking into it. That’s how we have an idea how much it would cost. Around $110-a-year.
These candidates are saying today that it’s time to give residents priority parking in their own streets.
But I’m with developer Matthew Horncastle, from Williams Corporation, who is dead against the idea.
He says anyone who pays rates has the right to use an on-street car park, whether they live in the area or not. And he’s right.
He says a lot of people can’t afford to buy an apartment or a townhouse with off-street parking - so they have to park on the street.
I know how infuriating it can be for people who can’t get a park outside their place because every other Tom, Dick and Harry is parking there.
And I know that it’s a particular problem in the centre of town. Although, it’s a problem too in the suburbs a bit further out from the city.
Earlier this year, two-hour parking limits were introduced on Bishop Street in St Albans because people were struggling to get a park.
Which I’m fine with. I’ve got no problem with that. Because that keeps the parks available for everyone.
Resident parking permits are a different story, though.
I think they’re one of those things that sound good or look good on paper but, in reality, aren’t.
For example, policing them would be more work and cost for the council. Plus - just because you have a permit, it doesn’t guarantee you a park.
You could pay your $110 and end up parking around the corner. Or further away.
I hear the argument that people living on a street should have priority over others when it comes to parking. But I think we just have to accept that we have more and more properties in Christchurch without off-street parking and residential parking permits aren’t going to solve the problem.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
My confidence is shot and my patience is wearing thin.
That’s my answer to the question I’ve got for you. Which is: How would you rate your level of confidence in and patience with the Government?
After yesterday’s GDP result, the knives are well-and-truly out. We’ve got former Finance Minister Sir Roger Douglas saying Nicola Willis isn’t up to the job and should resign. Add to that a new poll result which says that 55% of us think the country is on the wrong track and 45% of us think the current government is worse than the previous Labour government.
Sir John Key isn’t having a bar of resignation talk about Nicola Willis, though.
He says out of anyone in the current government, she is far and away the best person to be Finance Minister and Economic Growth Minister. He thinks she has the goods to deliver better economic days – but what else was a former National prime minister going to say?
Two people I was talking to last night who voted for National at the last election weren’t as generous as Sir John. And they, like I do, think Sir Roger is right – Nicola Willis isn’t up to the job. Which is why my confidence has gone.
As for my patience wearing thin, what I’m saying there is that I’m prepared to give the Government a little bit more time to show that it’s listening. Proof of that would be moving Nicola Willis on and giving Chris Bishop the job.
He’s the only person in this Government who I think would be better than Nicola Willis. But just because the pickings are slim, it doesn’t mean changes shouldn’t be made.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I wonder if the person who called me a tofu-eating, sandal-wearing, treehugger yesterday will have a bit of a re-think when they see what I’ve got to say about Environment Canterbury declaring a nitrate emergency.
I’m with Federated Farmers, which is saying it’s nothing more than a political stunt. But it’s not just that, it’s a very naive political stunt. Because show me one of these so-called “emergency” declarations that have done any good.
What about the Christchurch City Council’s climate emergency? Is that still a thing? Or have they quietly pulled the plug on that one?
The other thing that makes ECan’s stunt particularly naive is that it’s the outfit still dishing out consents for more dairy farming in Canterbury. There are about 950,000 dairy cows in Canterbury and ECan is currently considering applications for another 10,000.
I’ll come back to Federated Farmers because they’re not the only ones who aren’t happy about this emergency declaration – some ECan councillors themselves are brassed off, as well.
So what happened yesterday is one of ECan’s outgoing councillors put forward the motion to declare the emergency and for ECan to “take a leadership role to urgently address the issue of groundwater pollution impacting drinking water sources and supplies”.
Vicky Southworth is the councillor who put forward the motion at what was her very last ECan meeting. It was her last meeting, and it was the council’s last meeting before next month’s elections.
The vote was close —9 in favour, 7 against— and some of the councillors who voted against it were pretty angry at yesterday’s meeting.
Nick Ward is one of them. He said it was “grandstanding”. Another councillor, John Sunckell, said he’s spent 15 years trying to reduce nitrates, and “I just feel really pissed off with this little political stunt”.
They both said nitrates levels are expected to decline over time and that rural communities had worked hard and collaboratively over decades to lower nitrates, and that “emergency” was the wrong word to use.
Federated Farmers agrees. It’s slamming the move, with its vice-president Colin Hurst describing it as a “shameless political stunt that won’t help anyone”.
If Councillor Southworth was so concerned about the nitrates, she wouldn’t be leaving. She’d be putting herself forward for re-election, just like outgoing chairperson Craig Pauling. He voted in favour of the nitrate emergency, but he’s moving on as well. Again, if he’s so worried about it, then he’d be trying to get elected again too.
Instead, they can walk away feeling all virtuous, thinking they’ve done something positive and have made a difference. Do me a favour.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Another warning from Labour for its potential coalition partner Te Pāti Māori.
MP Takuta Ferris has twice attacked ethnic Labour party volunteers who sign-waved in the Tamaki Makaurau by-election, claiming they were taking a Māori seat away from Māori.
Party president John Tamihere echoed Ferris' comments yesterday, despite the party previously apologising.
Chris Hipkins told John MacDonald the party needs to respond – the ball's in their court, and how they respond matters.
He’s also criticising Rawiri Waititi for only answering journalists' questions in te reo Māori yesterday.
It was the first time the party has fronted since Ferris doubled down on his comments, and Waititi refused to answer media questions in English, but later spoke English in the House.
The Labour Leader told MacDonald any minister in a government he leads would be expected to answer questions so all New Zealanders could understand.
He says if Waititi wants to communicate with Kiwis —including Māori who don't speak te reo— using both languages would be a better way of doing that.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Get a grip. That’s my advice today to the people complaining about the music festival planned for the area near Bottle Lake Forest, in Christchurch, over the new year period.
Because I think the organisers are treating you very well and going above and beyond.
The Rolling Meadows festival is normally held at Waipara, north of the city, but the organisers hope to have it in Christchurch for the first time this year.
And because it’s near people’s homes, there have been complaints and there’s even a petition doing the rounds, with people worried about the noise and disruption. The organisers have listened and they’ve done a couple of things. Which I’ll get to.
When I was thinking about where I stood on this, I almost settled on the side of the residents, because of the numbers. The number of people expected to attend and the number of vehicles that are expected in the area over the three-day period.
They’re not insignificant. Up to 10,000 people are expected to attend, with 5,000 expected to camp on site, and 4,000 vehicles a day are expected on the only public access to the festival car park.
So there’s going to be a lot of people converging on that area over those three days from December 29 to 31.
But what I came back to is it’s just for three days. Three days when quite a few of the locals are likely to be away on holiday, anyway. Three days when the organisers are going to be bending over backwards to try and keep these people happy.
First of all, they’ve offered to pay for alternative accommodation for residents. They’re also going to hire people to patrol the streets, deal with rubbish and keep homes safe.
What’s more, it’s understood they’ve gone even further and have also offered to finish the performances earlier each night and reduce the noise levels.
That’s still not good enough, it seems. Which might be making the organisers a little bit nervous because they’re yet to get consent from the city council. They say that if that doesn’t happen, they’ll just go back to having it in Waipara.
Sure, the music blasting late into the night might be a pain in the backside if you’re not into it, but it’s just three nights.
Good on the Rolling Meadows organisers for going the extra mile. Some people though, will never be satisfied.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If the amount of money spent on ACC claims over the past five years for e-scooter injuries doesn’t convince you that tighter laws are needed, I don’t know what will.
And if the amount of money spent on ACC claims over the past five years for e-scooter injuries doesn’t convince you that NZTA made a big mistake deciding not to make e-scooters subject to the road rules - again, I don’t know what will.
The figure relates to injuries all over New Zealand. But it appears that us lot in Canterbury have copped it the worst. Or maybe we’re the most reckless.
The flatness of the place probably has something to do with it. Because, Christchurch especially, is brilliant for riding anything.
Which is maybe why new data out today shows that, in the past five years, there have been more e-scooter injury claims in Canterbury than anywhere else in the country.
Here, there have been 1,761 ACC claims lodged by Health NZ. Compared to 1,378 in Auckland, which has way more people - they’ve had claims.
The $55.6 million in claims between September 2020 and now has the AA saying - again - that there aren’t enough rules around e-scooters.
Saying it’s crazy, for example, that it isn’t illegal to ride an e-scooter drunk. And it wants alcohol restrictions for e-scooter riders.
No argument from me on that one. It is crazy.
The AA also thinks it’s crazy that there’s no age limit and no mandatory helmets.
No argument from me on both of those, either.
But it’s going to be very tricky to do anything about any of those things as long as e-scooters aren’t considered or treated as vehicles.
Which is the big mistake NZTA made, when it gave e-scooters this dispensation. Just so the private e-scooter operators could get their way and operate without any consideration for the road rules.
No licence required; no obligation to follow the same rules as other road users; no previous experience required; no helmet required. There’s not even a speed limit enforced. Plus, you can ride anywhere and everywhere.
The other thing about this $55.6 million in ACC claims, is that e-scooter owners and e-scooter companies don’t pay ACC levies.
People bang on all the time about people coming here from overseas and getting free ACC cover - the reason being that you can’t sue in this country and so we have to provide cover for people from overseas.
The exact same thing is happening with e-scooter users.
Private owners and people who use the hire scooters get free ACC cover. which, over the past five years, has cost us $55.6 million in claims.
The AA says time’s up and tougher rules are needed.
I’m saying that isn’t going to happen until we classify e-scooters vehicles.
That’s the nub of the problem and that’s what needs to change.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by Labour’s Reuben Davidson and National’s Matt Doocey to delve into the biggest topics of the week.
On today’s agenda: the manhunt for Tom Phillips and his children has come to an end, but the coverage has only just begun. There’s a fresh plan to restore the Christ Church Cathedral, and the Government has announced some new offences for shoplifting.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m no apologist for shoplifters. I think it is appalling that retail crime costs retailers $2.6 billion a year. And that more than half of them not only have to deal with shoplifters coming in and helping themselves to stuff, close to 60% of retailers also have to put up with threatening behaviour from these thugs.
But I’m not sold on this plan by the Government to turn “innocent until proven guilty” on its head for people accused of shoplifting and, instead, assume they’re guilty from the start until they themselves can prove they’re innocent.
I’m coming at it from two perspectives: the practicality of it, and the risk of it becoming a bit of a slippery slope.
Yes, as Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith was saying on Newstalk ZB today, it would be similar to a speeding ticket, where you get the ticket and it’s on you to prove that you weren’t in the wrong.
Except speeding tickets are issued by the police, and I don’t hear the Government saying that they’re going to have police writing out tickets for shoplifters. Already, if you go to Westfield Mall and get a parking ticket, you can get out of that because they don’t have authority to issue them. The same thing will happen with shoplifters.
The other reason I don’t like this idea is that I see it as a slippery slope. If we start saying shoplifters are guilty until they can prove that they’re innocent, then what or who next?
If it’s okay to tell someone accused of shoplifting that they’re guilty until they can prove otherwise —instead of forcing those making the accusations to prove their guilt— then why not do it with other crimes?
When it comes to the law and the justice system, whether we like it or not, everyone needs to be treated equally.
Whether we like it or not, that includes people allegedly involved in criminal activity. Which is why I think it would be wrong to start telling people accused of shoplifting that, unless or until they can prove their innocence, they’re guilty.
I’m no shoplifting sympathiser, but this mucking around with one of the basic foundations of the justice system is the wrong approach.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’ve really surprised myself. Because, even though I think it’s totally shameful that people have been helping Tom Phillips keep his kids in hiding for nearly four years, I’m torn when it comes to how important it is that these people face consequences for their actions.
To the point where I’ve realised that it’s not as important to me as I thought it would be to me.
Locals in the area are already poo-pooing the chances of the police tracking them down. Especially if they’re going to rely on people dobbing them in or people giving themselves in.
Local farmer and former Waitomo mayor Mark Ammon is one of them. He says it’s unlikely.
He says: "If it was me, I'd be just keeping quiet and hoping whatever leads the police get, didn't lead to me.”
He reckons the vast majority of locals back the police, but he doesn’t think anyone will pipe-up because everyone knows everyone and, even though they support the police, they won’t want to narc.
He does say though that it may also depend on the three children’s willingness to share information.
Which brings me to psychologist Kirsty Ross, who is saying some really interesting things which I think are relevant to the likelihood of them spilling all the beans. In the short-to-medium term, anyway.
She’s saying today that they will have been told a story that justified their father’s decisions and actions, saying “they’ve been in an echo chamber for four years”.
“They will have been a really tight unit. This was such an impressionable age when they were taken and four years is such a long period of time to have one person as their sole protector, provider, teacher. That influence cannot be underestimated.”
It can’t be underestimated. And what I would add to that is, can it be undone? Can that influence over four years be eroded to the point where the kids are happy to give away details of who has been helping their father? And who’s to say they even know?
Which is why the likes of Children’s Commissioner Dr Claire Achmad are saying today that these kids are going to have to be treated with the proverbial kid gloves. Which is not going to involve much drilling for information, is it?
But back to how I’m feeling about the police setting out to find the people who have supported their father while they've been in hiding. And why I’m torn about it, even though I think these people are despicable for what they’ve done.
Here are the reasons in my head as to why the police should go after them. If they provided the firearm used to shoot the officer the other morning, then they have blood on their hands. And by enabling Phillips to keep his kids hidden for so long, this person or these people have been complicit in denying the kids of all the things kids shouldn’t be denied – time with both their parents, an education, freedom. I could go on.
But here are the things I’m thinking about that make me wonder whether it’s worth the police even trying.
First and foremost, the kids are back safe. That’s been the number one priority, and it’s been achieved.
Secondly, from what we’re hearing, the locals are very unlikely to narc on their neighbours and the people who have been involved are very unlikely to come forward.
And, finally, I think because of what that psychologist is saying about them being in an echo chamber for nearly four years, it’s unlikely that the kids will spill too many beans.
It’s for those reasons, that finding these supporters is not as important to me as I thought it would be.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I was wrong and the police were right.
After yesterday’s events, I’ll admit that I was wrong when I said over the last few years that the police were pussy-footing around with Tom Phillips.
That instead of waiting for him to come out of hiding with his three kids, they should've been more gung-ho on it and gone after him.
Yesterday changed all that and proved to me that the police did do the right thing. Even though it dragged out for years, they did the right thing waiting.
If they hadn’t, there could very well have been more than one person dead at the end of it.
Something my thinking hasn’t changed on though, is the shameful way people have obviously been helping Phillips to stay in hiding for nearly four years.
The police have pretty much said that this has been happening, and, if you talk to anyone familiar with the community there, they’ll tell you the same thing.
And that person or those people —however many there are— should be ashamed of themselves.
What has amazed me while this whole thing has been dragging on is the number of people prepared to defend Tom Phillips. In some people’s eyes, he’s been a father who just wanted to do the best for his kids.
A father driven to the brink by the system.
I’m not blind to the complexities of situations like this and I know there will be a lot to it that we don’t know about – a lot we don’t need to know about.
But how anyone could think it was a good idea to support this guy, I’ll never know.
Because without their “help”, those kids could have been back safe long before now.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What does kicking overstayers out of the country actually achieve?
With just under 21,000 overstayers in New Zealand, the Government is planning a crackdown. But the Green Party wants an amnesty. Reason being that most people living here without visas are what the Greens describe as being “active in their communities”. Plus, they’ve got families here.
Or, to put it another way, if someone overstays their welcome, they’re committing what people sometimes refer to as a “victimless crime”. And I think we need to ask ourselves what kicking overstayers out of the country actually achieves.
If all it does is give us an excuse to bang our chest and say to the world “don’t mess with us”, then is it really worth it? I’m starting to think that it isn’t and maybe this amnesty idea isn’t so bad after all.
It’s not new and it’s not just the Greens that have been pushing it. Just before the last election, Labour leader Chris Hipkins talked about bringing-in an amnesty for overstayers who had been living in New Zealand for more than 10 years.
But not everyone in Labour was keen on that. Andrew Little was Immigration Minister at the time, and he said: “We have to think about the signal that we’re giving to people if they think ‘oh gee, this is a government that just routinely gives amnesties. If we stick around long enough, we’ll be ok’.”
At the time I said that if we went ahead with this amnesty, we’d be telling the world that we are the people’s republic of pushovers.
I said that, nowhere else in the world would you find a country willing to turn such a blind eye to illegal immigrants.
But that was then and, two years on, my thinking is changing.
Because I think it’s very easy to be all anti-overstayer and anti-amnesty without asking the question: what’s in it for me if an overstayer is kicked out of the country?
When you think about it, the answer to that is “absolutely nothing”.
We might feel good because we’re putting these illegal aliens in their place. In their place and out of our place. But how does it make New Zealand a better country? Answer: it doesn’t.
As the Greens’ immigration spokesperson Ricardo Menendez March is saying today: "People without a visa need support. Most are active participants in our communities, have family here, and are also more vulnerable to exploitation."
He says overstayers should be treated with dignity and respect and be allowed to become residents instead of being put on the next plane out of here.
Different story, of course, if someone is here without a visa and commits a serious crime.
As for every other overstayer, why wouldn’t we let them live here legitimately? Because what’s in it for us if we kick them out?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by Megan Woods and Matt Doocey to delve into the biggest stories of the week.
They discussed the tougher immigration policies the Government is introducing to tackle overstayers, the struggling and overworked justice system, and housing intensification in Christchurch.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Sir Ron Young, who used to be a high court judge and used to be chair of the Parole Board, thinks shorter sentences could take the strain off the justice system.
He says shorter sentences make people less likely to re-offend because they don’t spend as much time with other offenders and that would mean less people going through the courts.
There are two ways we could respond to that. We could think about it with a long-term, logical view and let our head guide our thinking, or we could let our heart guide our response.
Sir Ron is saying this today after the release of Chief Justice Dame Helen Winkelmann’s annual report, which says the justice system is under considerable pressure because of under-funding, security issues, delays, and heavy workloads.
Which probably won’t be much of a surprise to anyone who has had dealings with our courts.
But what do we do about it? Sir Ron thinks shorter sentences are the answer. He’s saying today that offenders who get shorter sentences and go through rehabilitation are less likely to join gangs and re-offend.
And, with longer sentences becoming more common, they’re making the crime problem worse because they mean people are more likely to continue committing crimes, and that’s putting more and more pressure on the justice system.
I can see both sides of the argument.
My head tells me that there is something in what Sir Ron is saying. But my heart tells me that it’s a terrible idea, because it doesn’t actually address the problem, which is a justice system pretty much on the edge.
A justice system struggling because, as our top judge says, it doesn’t have enough resources: there aren’t enough lawyers wanting to do legal aid work, there’s been an increase in the number of murder and manslaughter trials, and they’re all taking longer.
But is dishing out lighter sentences to, apparently, reduce the pipeline of criminal offending, the answer?
I say it isn’t. Because reducing sentences just to take the pressure off the justice system doesn’t help the victims of crime in the here and now. If there’s anything our struggling justice system doesn’t need, that’s a further erosion of public confidence.
Which is what would happen if we saw criminals getting off lightly, just because we’re not prepared to resource the system in a way that delivers what the system is there to deliver: justice.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
We would be mad to pull out of the Paris Climate Change Agreement.
ACT leader David Seymour thinks differently though, saying its emissions targets are "disconnected from science and blind to New Zealand's realities".
He says net zero targets have been set with no regard for the real cost to firms, farms, and families, and he wants out.
Out of 197 countries, 193 are signed up to the accord. David Seymour wants us to join what would be a very exclusive club of five.
I can kind-of understand the thinking of the people who would like us to end our involvement, because New Zealand is a tiny cog in the climate change machine and really, what difference can we actually make?
The other reason people are anti-the Paris agreement is their impression that the big countries —the big polluters— aren’t really doing their bit. So if they’re not, why should we?
I get that. The thing is though, when it comes to climate change you have to take a long-term view, and you have to think about the bigger picture. And it’s not just about the climate itself.
The main reason I want us to stay involved is the same reason David Seymour wants us out: the economy.
He says the targets we’ve signed up to are forcing farmers off the land (which you have to question), forcing people out of the regions, and making food and electricity more expensive.
But whether we like it or not, our free trade agreement with the European Union has specific references to climate change and the Paris agreement. If we did pull out, there could be serious trade and economic consequences for us.
So we have to stick with it. Whether we like it or not.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour and National appear to be aligned on the Paris Climate Agreement.
Yesterday ACT called for New Zealand to leave unless the terms of the deal change, but the Prime Minister said no.
Labour's Chris Hipkins echoed Christopher Luxon, telling John MacDonald leaving the deal would cause more harm than good.
He says it would be a disaster for us – walking away from those commitments would mean people overseas would stop buying our products.
Hipkins says our largest export industries rely on New Zealand’s clean, green reputation.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
At one point after the earthquakes, I had the insurance company telling me that it wanted to replace the driveway before the sewer line that ran under it had been repaired.
When I explained to them that, maybe, that wasn’t the most practical way of doing things —that it might make more sense to wait until the underground work had been done before putting the nice new driveway down— they agreed.
If only the Christchurch City Council had someone giving the same advice. Because it very obviously needs it, with news that it’s digging up a road it spent just under $1 million re-sealing 10 months ago, to replace a water main.
Last October the council spent $936,000 re-sealing Glandovey Road, in Fendalton. It's now digging up the road to replace a water main and that work is going to cost ratepayers $1.9 million.
Mayor Phil Mauger says it’s an “embarrassment” for a council trying to build public trust and confidence. Is it ever.
He’s saying: “It’s an absolute embarrassment to me and the council. It really is not good. The shit is going to hit the fan.”
But it’s a bit more than an “embarrassment”. It’s yet another example of why all those council candidates around the place are wasting their breath, and wasting their advertising, and wasting their signage costs telling us to vote for them to keep the rates down.
They can bang-on about that as much as they like but, when their council does stupid stuff like this, they can forget about keeping the rates down.
The council’s infrastructure general manager, Brent Smith, says the upcoming water main and sub pipe renewals were "unforeseen" and that, where possible and practical, the council tries to do capital and maintenance work at the same time. But when Glandovey Road was resealed, there was no water main work scheduled.
Not needed, scheduled, there’s a difference there. Because wouldn’t you think that if you were going to spend close to $1 million re-surfacing a road, you’d check a few things to make sure there wasn’t anything else that could be done at the same time?
Roger Cumming, who lives on Glandovey Road, thinks so. He reckons the council must have known about the state of the water main before it did the re-sealing work back in October, because pipes were bursting there quite often.
Roger says sometimes there were two blow-outs in one day. This was happening before the council re-sealed the road and afterwards.
He says it’s a waste. Mayor Phil Mauger says it’s an embarrassment. But I’d say it’s incompetence.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You know a Government is in trouble when you see a major news organisation running an online poll asking people whether they think the Prime Minister has had a good week or not. Which I saw the other week.
And you know a coalition is in trouble when you get one of its senior members telling a public meeting that the Prime Minister is hiding. Which is what NZ First’s Shane Jones did yesterday.
Things come in threes, of course, so let’s add the findings of the latest Ipsos Issues Monitor Survey, which has found that voters see Labour being most capable of doing something about the cost of living.
And that people have more confidence in Labour, the Greens and Te Pati Māori collectively to do something about 17 of the top 20 issues facing New Zealand, with National owning just three: the economy, crime and defence. But even on those issues it’s losing ground.
So what conclusion can we take from all that?
There’s only one. People are losing confidence in the Government.
To see how bad it’s got for the Government, you just need to think about that stat about the left block being seen as having much more of a handle on the cost of living and the 16 other issues they beat the Government on.
Because, hand on heart, are you telling me that - if there was an election right now - and you couldn’t bring yourself to vote for National, ACT or NZ First, that you could bring yourself to vote for the likes of Labour? Or the Greens? Or Te Pati Maori?
If I had to vote today, I’d have no idea who to vote for.
The Ipsos monitor is a quarterly survey that asks New Zealanders what they consider to be the most important issues facing the country, and the political parties they have faith in to sort them.
Its latest survey shows the cost of living is still the number one issue concerning voters, with 60 percent of people saying it’s an issue. And most people think Labour is the party to deal with it.
The second most-concerning thing for people is the hospital and wider health system. Most people think Labour is the party to sort that out too.
The third most concerning issue is the economy. National still holds public confidence on that one.
Housing supply and the cost of housing is the fourth most concerning issue for voters. And more people have confidence in Labour on that one, too.
Rounding-out the top five is crime and law and order. National still beats Labour on that front and the Government will have been very relieved with the latest crime stats which show crime is down.
But, whichever way you look at it, people are losing confidence.
And it’s not just in the data. It’s also in the reactions we’ve seen to recent Government anouncements.
The supermarket stuff last week. The debacle with the paywave surcharges and the Government thinking it had a brilliant solution which, we all worked out pretty quickly, won’t save us any money.
They’re just a couple of examples.
And I know that some people will say that people are always down on the Government during winter. But I don’t think the first day of spring is going to bring any relief for the Government.
I’m not surprised the Government is getting such harsh treatment criticism. But I am surprised that so many people think the parties on the left could do a better job on so many of the big issues facing the country.
I don’t have much faith or confidence in any political party. What about you?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Associate Health Minister Nicole McKee is talking nonsense when she says most of us who drink alcohol do it responsibly.
If she really believes that, then she needs to get out more often.
But I don’t think there’s much we can do about it because when it comes to alcohol, the horse has already bolted.
She made the comment when she announced changes that will stop people opposing liquor licence applications if they don’t live in the area, allow hairdressers to serve alcohol without a licence, and let pubs and clubs operate outside trading hours during major televised events.
Changes that have the alcohol lobby delighted and health campaigners despairing.
The one change they aren’t making —which was on the cards— is a limit on the hours alcohol can be sold at supermarkets and bottle stores. They looked into stopping sales after 9 o’clock at night, but decided not to.
Not that that will change things in Christchurch and Auckland where the councils have already decided to do what the Government has decided not to do.
Either way, the reason the Government is giving for not cracking down on alcohol sales at supermarkets and bottle stores is that most of us who drink can control ourselves and “drink responsibly”.
If that was the case, then why are alcohol-related cancers on the rise? Because we drink responsibly? No.
If Nicole McKee is correct, why is it that alcohol is estimated to cost the country $9.1 billion in harm every year? Because those of us who drink, drink responsibly? No.
I think the Minister is just saying it for the sake of saying it.
Alcohol Healthwatch executive director Andrew Galloway is one of the people not happy with the Government.
He says there is clear evidence that reducing access to alcohol reduces harm.
He says: “More than likely, if anyone's going shopping for booze after 9pm at night, it's to top up.” Pointing to the most recent New Zealand health survey which showed that one-in-six adults —or 720,000 people— have what it called “hazardous drinking patterns”.
Alcohol is also estimated to cost the country $9.1 billion in harm every year and is responsible for 129,000 ACC claims.
You’re not going to hear me arguing against those numbers because they are reality. You’re also not going to hear me arguing that the Government isn’t doing enough to deal with the alcohol problem.
Because I don’t think it can. Because, when it comes to alcohol, the horse has already bolted.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It’s just over four years since the Commerce Commission released its first report on the supermarket sector in New Zealand and, yesterday, the Government announced what it’s going to do.
Which, in my view, will achieve nothing.
To be fair, Nicola Willis wasn’t in Government four years ago and it was Labour that received that first report and went about hiring the Grocery Commissioner.
Who, I think we can all agree, has done next-to-nothing. My supermarket bills certainly haven’t got any cheaper since he’s been at his desk.
So the Government is going to make a change to the fast track legislation specifically targeted at making it quicker for an overseas operator to move in to New Zealand and start building supermarkets here.
The law change is going to be done by Christmas and then the likes of Aldi and Lidl will be falling over themselves rushing to set-up shop here. As if.
Because it’s been my view all along that, if these overseas outfits wanted to be here, they would.
A country the size of ours means nothing to the other big operators. No matter how much red tape the Government wants to get rid of.
Bearing in mind too, that no supermarket chain is a charity.
Let’s take German operator Aldi - which is often touted as an international operator that could come here and create more competition.
It’s kind-of here already. Because it’s been registered with the New Zealand Companies Office since 2000. But it hasn’t bothered doing anything more than that - focusing on Australia, instead.
But, despite Aldi operating across the Tasman, Australians are still paying through the nose.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission put-out a report earlier this year saying that Aldi is among the most profitable supermarket chains in the world.
Prices in Australia have risen sharply over the past five years, with the supermarkets increasing profit margins during that time. Aldi being one of them.
As for Nicola Willis claiming that Costco might want to set up a few more stores, that wouldn’t make supermarket prices cheaper for people everywhere.
The Minister has acknowledged that she doesn’t see this as any sort of overnight fix. She says the lack of competition in the supermarket sector has developed over the past 20-or-30 years and told Newstalk ZB today that she’ll know this policy has worked when we have another competitor operating in all the main urban centres.
Don’t hold your breath, minister.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If this doesn’t convince you that the insurance system in this country is broken, nothing will.
Consumer NZ has revealed that in the past 25 years, the cost of insurance has increased by 900%. The largest increase of anything in the Consumer Price Index.
If you’ve bought insurance of any type in the past, maybe that won’t surprise you. Because insurance is a necessary evil and with necessary evils, we tend to shrug our shoulders and fork out the money.
But here’s what makes this news all the more outrageous – and this is the bit that you really need to get your head around.
Insurance is 900% more expensive than it was, while cigarettes and tobacco are 600% more expensive – even with the huge taxes that have been put on them to try and get people to quit smoking.
Despite all those taxes, insurance costs are still increasing at a much faster rate than tobacco. Which is the absurdity and shows how the insurance market is out of control.
Rebecca Styles from Consumer NZ is saying today that they want a review done of house and contents insurance prices to make sure they’re fair. I think I can tell her straight away that they’re not.
Consumer NZ also wants the Government to develop a switching platform to make it easier for us to change insurance companies, like we can do already with electricity companies.
It says people have limited ability to change their insurers.
But changing insurance companies is one thing, whether you can afford the premiums is another. Rebecca Styles says some people are just dropping it altogether.
"The anecdotal feedback we've received is people are making what seem like extreme pragmatic decisions - 'oh my mortgage is paid off, well I'll drop my insurance as soon as that's done'.”
She says: “I ask them, 'what will you do if there's a natural hazard or something, you're not covering for that … they're like 'oh well I'll live in a caravan'. Taking big risks with their financial future, really."
Are they ever? Reducing insurance cover or getting rid of it altogether would be the absolute last thing I would do.
But that doesn’t mean I’m happy paying exorbitant prices and that doesn’t mean I think the insurance system is in great shape.
Because it clearly isn’t.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I think it would be very easy to push-back on Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson’s call for changes to the KiwiSaver scheme to make it easier for self-employed people to save for their retirement.
But I’m not going to.
She wants to see changes because people who work for themselves are contributing nowhere near as much as employees —partly because they don’t get the benefit of an employer making contributions— and she says that could mean they end up living in poverty when they retire.
A tax expert agrees, saying a retirement savings scheme must work for all New Zealanders, regardless of how they earn their income.
According to a new survey, between April last year and March this year, only 44% of self-employed New Zealanders actively contributed to KiwiSaver compared to 78% of employees.
And of those self-employed people who did contribute, 41% of them didn’t get the government contribution because of irregular income or low earnings.
I say it would be easy to push back on what the Retirement Commissioner is calling for, because people who work for themselves are sometimes seen as having it made.
That’s, generally, the view of people who have never owned a business or have never been a sole trader. I've been a sole trader before and it's not easy. And I think we should be doing more to help these people get ready for retirement.
The question we need to ask ourselves is whether someone who goes out on their own in business —knowing full well that it’s a risky thing to do— should have some sort of backstop in the background for their retirement, or more government support for their retirement.
If you were to look at it in a very black and white fashion, you could say they shouldn't be supported. You could say to a business owner or a sole trader that, if they want the freedom and benefits of working for themselves, then it’s on them to save for their retirement.
But I don't see it that way.
Because even though there can be big opportunities and positives working for yourself, quite a lot of people still get burnt financially. And, as the Retirement Commissioner says, what happens to these people?
People who have next to nothing saved because they’ve just been focused on keeping their business afloat.
So wouldn’t it be better to help them out sooner rather than later?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
We'll be chewing through the power in the south this week with the frosty weather.
Which is the "ideal time" for Transpower to reveal that the budget for a major upgrade of electricity transmission lines in the South Island has increased again and that South Islanders will be paying for it.
Which raises the question: Is this taking user-pays too far? And I think it is.
What’s happened, is Transpower is upgrading its lines north of Twizel. Because, the way things are going, they won’t be able to cope with increased demand for power in the next few years.
But it’s going to mean higher power prices for those of us in the south. Because Transpower says we’re the ones who are going to benefit the most.
This is at the same time as new data from Statistics NZ shows power prices have gone up 6.2 percent in the past year and Consumer NZ says one-in-five people have had difficulty paying their power bill in the last 12 months.
Transpower’s original budget for the upgrade project was $77 million; earlier this year it increased to $164 million; and today we’re finding out that it’s sitting at $193 million.
The project is being driven by growing electricity demand because of population growth, electrification of industry and transport, and new developments in Christchurch and Selwyn.
If nothing’s done, the grid won’t cope and we could see the system overloading within the next five-or-so years.
But I’m with the likes of Westpower's Mark Blandford, who supports the project but isn’t happy at how costs are being allocated to South Islanders, which he says penalises the regions.
John Harbord, from the Major Electricity Users Group, supports the need to invest in the country’s electricity grid but is worried about the impact on power bills.
He says some businesses are finding electricity price rises so expensive that they’re struggling to operate.
Which backs up the case for everyone around the country to be carrying the cost of these upgrades.
Tell that to Transpower, though.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How do you feel about people being allowed to hide their convictions?
There are two ways of doing it. 1) Just don’t tell people about it. Or use the clean slate legislation, which wipes your record clean if you’ve had no convictions for seven years.
If you’ve been to prison for your offences though, you don’t qualify.
Concerns about the legislation are being raised after an Auckland man with historical indecency convictions was able to pass multiple police checks, become registered as a teacher, and abuse nine girls.
Which has law expert Bill Hodge saying that the law needs an overhaul.
But I think we would be better off getting rid of it. Because the bigger picture here is whether we think someone should be able to hide their convictions after a certain period of time so they can get on with their life without it hanging over them.
I think there should be complete transparency, and here’s why:
If you’re an employer, under our health and safety laws, you are responsible for the safety of anyone and everyone working for you. To do that, you need to be confident that you are bringing people into your business or your organisation who are of, what they call, “good character”.
How can you do that if there are things about someone you don’t know? Things like past criminal convictions?
Remembering too that the convictions we’re talking about here aren’t things like murder. But let’s say, for example, someone was a menace on the roads when they were younger and had numerous convictions because of that.
Seven years down the track, would you want to know about that if you were looking at giving them a job? I would.
What about someone who had convictions for violence that weren’t quite serious enough for them to end up in prison? Someone who had a history of going out on a Saturday night and getting lippy in the pub?
Seven years down the track, would you want to know about that if you were looking at giving them a job? I would.
Dishonesty convictions? You’d want to know about those too, wouldn’t you?
Imagine how better that would be for the person with the convictions, as well? Everything would be out in the open, there’d be no fear of people finding out through word-of-mouth and the problems that would create.
I’m all for giving people a second chance, but only if all of the cards are on the table.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Questions have been raised about where a Christchurch homeless community being booted out of a church carpark will go next.
City Council's issued an abatement notice requiring Avonside's Holy Trinity Church carpark to stop being used as a campground by 5pm.
An extension is possible if a new resource consent, allowing camping, is obtained.
Labour's Christchurch East MP Reuben Davidson told John MacDonald the problem isn't the people, but the fact we don't have enough housing.
He says we all have role to play in addressing homelessness.
National’s Vanessa Weenink told MacDonald there is a role for the city council to play, to potentially build more community housing and boarding houses.
She says there needs to be a variety of options, as there’s currently not enough choice nor housing stock.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What would you say to a $40,000 pay rise? Yes please?
If you’re the chief executive of Environment Canterbury regional council, you would.
It’s been revealed that in the last financial year, Stefanie Rixecker’s pay increased by 9.3 %, upping her salary by $40,000 to just under $480,000, making her the highest-paid regional council boss in the country.
And this wasn’t one of those decisions by the Independent Remuneration Authority, which sets the pay levels for politicians, which also gives politicians the excuse of saying they have no control over what they get paid.
This decision was made by the elected council members. An increase that the chair of ECAN, Craig Pauling, is busy defending. He says the $40,000 pay increase is "appropriate and deserved".
Appropriate and deserved because the chief executive is a respected leader and is running ECAN during a tricky time for local government.
Craig Pauling says: “It is important to our council that we have a high-performing and respected chief executive at the helm, during this significant time of change for local government.”
Time of change alright. Which is what the Government has been telling councils. And I imagine the noise from Wellington will get even louder when news of this pay increase makes it to the Beehive.
The chair of the council can say all he likes about the chief executive being brilliant at her job and how she has a lot on her plate and how it’s her job to lead ECAN through change and all that, but what he is missing, and what every one of those councillors who voted for this unfathomable pay increase is missing, is that a pay increase of just under 10% is la-la land stuff. On several fronts.
The most obvious is what a $40,000 pay increase for the chief executive of a regional council looks like to the rest of us. Those of us who pay rates to ECAN.
The other reason why this move is so wrong right now is because it looks to me like ECAN is explicitly ignoring the noises coming from the Government about local councils needing to cut their cloth.
How can you have these kinds of expectations coming at you —as well as the likes of regional development minister Shane Jones declaring war on regional councils— yet still give your chief executive a huge pay increase?
It shows just how out of touch our regional councillors are.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
More than 20 thousand secondary teachers are walking off the job today to strike over the lowest pay increase offer in a generation.
Post-Primary Teachers Association members will picket outside dozens of schools and MP offices after rejecting a 3% pay increase over three years.
Opposition Leader Chris Hipkins told John MacDonald teachers deserve more than the Government's offering.
He says that if they accept this offer, they’ll effectively be taking a pay cut as it’s below the rate of inflation.
Hipkins says they at least deserve a pay increase that keeps them at the level they’re at now.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You won’t get me tooting for the striking high school teachers.
Because I don’t think they’re reading the room at all. On the picket lines, unhappy that they've been offered a 3% increase over three years.
And this is nothing to do with the kids not being able to go to school today, because high school kids don’t need babysitting. They can just stay at home and work on their assignments, or go to the mall, or go into town.
The reason I think the teachers are going to find it difficult to get a lot of love today is because I think most people are like me and don’t think that every single teacher signed up to the union deserves a pay rise.
And think that a teacher’s pay should be based on their individual performance in the job.
I reckon plenty of teachers feel that way privately, as well. Yes, they might want to earn a bit more themselves, but I bet you there is no shortage of teachers who think some of their colleagues aren’t up to it.
Who think some of their colleagues don’t deserve to be recognised with a pay rise.
But that’s the system as it is at the moment in the state school sector – pay rises for everyone.
Once up on a time, I probably would have been happy with that one-size-fits-all approach, but what good is a mind if you can’t change it? And I have.
I think, like pretty much every other worker in society, teachers’ pay should be based on how well they do their job. Whenever performance pay for teachers is discussed, questions about measuring performance are raised.
But, at a time where everything can be analysed to the nth degree, I’m pretty confident that we could come up with a robust system to evaluate and measure an individual teacher’s performance.
Hard-liners would probably say that it could or should be down to test results and exam results and nothing else. But I think that would be too simplistic.
Yes, results would have to part of it, but not the only things measured.
For example, how would you measure the performance of a teacher who might have several kids in their class who need specific support? They might be neuro-diverse, or they might have learning difficulties because of things like foetal alcohol syndrome.
That’s where parent feedback would come into it.
Because while a student with learning difficulties might not score highly in all these tests and things the Government is bringing-in, their parents would notice whether they were engaged in school or not.
You imagine a parent saying to a principal that their child has never been so enthusiastic about learning and how much they love their teacher – there’s a performance measurement right there.
But it is ironic, isn’t it, that teachers are busy evaluating and marking the kids on their performances, but no one measures or evaluates theirs.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Canterbury's top police officer believes the current policies around arming New Zealand police officers are appropriate.
Multiple investigations are underway following a double police shooting in Christchurch that left one dead and another seriously injured.
The Council of Licensed Firearms Owners says it's an example of what happens when police aren't trained to handle firearms in high pressure situations.
Canterbury District Commander Superintendent Tony Hill told John MacDonald training's ramped up in recent years to be some of the best in the world.
He says that most of the occasions they’ve looked at over the last few years hasn’t been a question about a lack of access to firearms, so he thinks the settings are right for the current environment.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
We are going to pay more for water services. But even though it's coming about because of government policy, I’m not blaming Wellington. I’m blaming our councils.
Councils that should be ashamed of how they ran down our water infrastructure to the extent that millions of litres of water disappear every day because of cruddy pipes.
And the consequence of that neglect and incompetence is going to hit us in the pocket.
Two examples. In Christchurch, household water bills are expected to increase by $900 a year. In Selwyn, the yearly increase in water charges could be as high as $1800 a year.
Local Government Minister Simon Watts is saying the Government’s Local Water Done Well policy, which is the alternative to Labour’s doomed 3 Waters policy, is "the best approach” to sorting out our water infrastructure.
But I wonder if you’re starting to realise that Labour’s approach wasn’t so bad after all?
Under that model, control of drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater would have been taken away from local councils and handed over to new water authorities.
It would’ve taken away ownership of water infrastructure, too.
I’m more than happy to put my hand up and say, at the time, it was the ownership bit that got me going.
Back then, I thought the then-Labour Government was offering peanuts to take over ownership of water infrastructure.
But I am more than happy to put my hand up now and say that wasn’t the big deal I once thought it was, and I think we would have all been better off under Labour’s model. Because not only are we going to be paying more for our water, but there are also going to be a truckload more water entities than there would have been.
Under 3 Waters, there would have been 10 entities. Now, it’s already looking like we’ll have more than 40 water service providers involving different councils.
So more bureaucracy and more costs, all in the name of local ownership and control.
All in the name of local ownership and control by local councils which, because of their neglect of the water infrastructure year-after-year, are going to be hitting us with big increases in water charges. Local councils who have failed us.
If councils had done what they should have done and not kicked the infrastructure spending can down the road time and time again, then maybe we wouldn’t be feeling so fleeced.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How would you feel about New Zealand building small nuclear reactors to generate more power?
That’s what the Maxim Institute think-tank is calling for. Saying that, if we did, more of the world’s biggest technology companies could be attracted here to establish big data centres and that would add billions of dollars to the economy.
Thomas Scrimgeour from the Maxim Institute says the rest of the world is going nuclear on the power generation front and we need to catch up.
He also thinks New Zealanders could be convinced that small nuclear power generators are a good thing. Saying that, in the 1970s, it was assumed that New Zealand would one-day use nuclear energy to generate power. But that changed in the 1980s because of nuclear testing in the Pacific.
I’m not as confident as him.
I’m open to finding out more about nuclear power generation. But I think if you did something like a referendum on it, most people would be against it.
I may be wrong. But that’s my hunch. Because our nuclear-free policy has muddied the waters bug time.
Our policy doesn’t even let ships that are nuclear-powered into our waters. Let alone ships carrying nuclear weapons. And, because of that, a lot of people think if nuclear weapons are bad then anything and everything nuclear is bad.
But my mind is more open than that.
I’m not saying it would be easy to convince me that we should be using nuclear energy to generate power. I’d have just as many reservations as the next person.
But why can’t we at least agree to look into it?
You know what would happen, though. Even the exercise of investigating further would be hijacked by those who just cover-up their ears and don’t want to know.
Or, more to the point, it would be hi-jakced by those who want to cover up not just their own ears - but everyone else’s ears, as well.
But I’m up for us looking into it.
The reason the Maxim Institute is pushing this thinking today is that it wants us to take advantage of all the big technology companies wanting to set-up big data centres. Especially for artificial intelligence.
They’re saying there’s big money in that for New Zealand, potentially. Microsoft has committed $1 billion to local data centres. While Ammazon Web Services’ Auckland development is expected to contribute around $10.8 billion to the economy over the next 15 years.
We need the power to run them and attract more data centres here. But they need truckloads of power and, as things are at the moment, we aren’t in a position to offer truckloads of power.
Which is why the Maxim Institute is saying we need to go nuclear.
My mind is open to it. But what about yours?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When I first heard about the police shooting and killing someone they had actually gone to help, like most people, I wondered how the hell that could happen.
This is the shooting in Bryndwr in Christchurch overnight on Wednesday, which left a woman dead and a man critically injured.
As always happens, the armchair experts haven’t been slow in coming forward. For example, demanding to know why the police couldn’t have shot the woman in the leg, rather than taking her life.
But unless we have been in the position of a dealing with something like that —a situation where the woman had been in danger but then threatened police with a knife— we can't really criticise the police.
And can you imagine how the officer who fired those shots is feeling today?
But what I am asking is whether or not this tragedy has had any impact on my attitude towards the arming of our police.
And I can honestly say that my attitude hasn’t changed. Despite the tragic outcome, I still think our police need to be armed – in fact, more so than they are already.
You might remember the survey by the Police Association which found that 69% of police officers wanted to be armed on a regular basis. That’s more than two-thirds of our cops who said they reckon they need guns to keep themselves safe on the job.
Over the years, some people have said that arming every police officer would do more harm than good.
Here are a couple of examples: Poto Williams, when she was Police Minister, said that arming officers would “change the community’s relationship with the police”. Which I thought at the time was a load of nonsense.
And I still do, because the relationship has already changed and it’s putting the lives of our cops at risk everyday. Which is why more than two-thirds of them said in that survey that they want to be armed more regularly.
The late Chester Borrows —who was a former National MP and a former cop— was another one anti-guns for cops. I remember him saying that a general arming of the police would see more officers being shot and more civilians being shot. His view was more guns, more deaths.
But how I’ve always seen it, is that it’s very weird we have a workplace health and safety system in New Zealand that is hellbent on keeping workers safe at work by making sure they’re sitting at their desk in the right position, but we’re more than happy for police officers not to be kept as safe at work as they could or should be.
Which is why over recent years, I’ve come to think that police officers should be able to carry a pistol at all times.
And, despite the tragic events in Christchurch the other night, I still feel that way.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Mental Health Minister's defending claiming his Government's inherited Hillmorton Hospital and its failings from the Labour-led Government of the time.
A review of Canterbury's mental health services reveals significant failings, contributing to murders by patients in 2022 and 2024.
Minister Matt Doocey told John MacDonald it's a fact.
He says the report lays bare the state of Hillmorton in June 2022, and that is the reality of the system they inherited.
Labour's Megan Woods told MacDonald this needs to not be about politics.
She says it’s something they all have to take responsibility for, and it’s something they’ve got to work on.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Ronan Keating has been performing for over 30 years.
He debuted in 1993 as the frontman of Boyzone, going on to have an extremely successful solo career from 1999.
Keating joined John MacDonald to talk about his rise to fame, life as a grandfather, and what we can expect to see at Selwyn Sounds in 2026.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I can recall a conversation I had about a month ago with Labour leader and former Covid-19 Minister Chris Hipkins about Part 2 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into his government’s pandemic response.
And he was saying that he was waiting to be invited to appear, and wouldn’t be asking for an invite, and wouldn’t be gate-crashing. That was around the time that he was also saying the Inquiry was a platform for conspiracy theorists.
And I said at the time that, if Chris Hipkins was eventually invited and he declined, then he could forget about being Prime Minister again.
Since then, it turns out he has been asked to front-up to the inquiry in person - and he has declined. Dame Jacinda Ardern, former finance minister Grant Robertson and former health minister Ayesha Verrall have also been asked to appear. And they've all declined as well.
All of them, on the basis of advice from lawyers who are being paid by the taxpayer, that appearing at the Inquiry could attract abuse towards family members and that images and recordings from the Inquiry hearings could be “tampered with and misused”.
All of that’s probably true. But, even then, this is nonsense.
Maybe Hipkins, Dame Jacinda, Robertson, and Verrall need to be reminded that former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson fronted up in person to the Covid Inquiry in Britain.
He didn’t hide behind written responses. Which, as we know, are always full of weasel words that go unchallenged. It wasn’t a holiday for Boris, but he fronted.
And because Chris Hipkins, especially, isn’t fronting, he is political toast.
Imagine if he had said to the others, “Okay, you guys aren’t going, but I’m still the leader of the Opposition, so I am going to front”. If he’d taken that approach, he would’ve had a few days where it might have been uncomfortable for him, but it would be over and done with.
Because if you have a very low opinion of the way Labour handled the pandemic, your low opinion isn’t going to get any worse if Hipkins is grilled in-person at the Inquiry, is it?
In fact, you might even admire him for fronting up. You might even give him credit for it.
But he's not. And in doing so, he's written-off whatever he chance he had of leading Labour to victory next year.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Like anyone, if I can get something for free - I’ll take it.
But if it’s something I have to pay for, then I’ll pay it. Which is how I’m feeling about all this fuss over the new Woodend Bypass, north of Christchurch, being a toll road.
Granted, I won’t be a daily user, so the financial impact on me won’t be the same as it will for someone who uses it every day.
But let’s get a grip. Toll roads are the future.
Tell that to Waimakariri mayor Dan Gordon, though, who is very upset that NZTA plans to charge car drivers $2.50 for a return trip on the bypass. He says many families can’t afford that.
It will cost $5 for trucks, by the way.
I'm not sure what planet Dan Gordon has been on for the last 12 months. But this idea of the new bypass being a toll road was being hinted at by the Government more than a year ago.
Last July, Simeon Brown was Transport Minister and he was saying back then that charging people to use the new road was definitely on the table.
But Dan Gordon's not the only one upset about it. The principal of Kaiapoi North School isn’t happy, either.
Jason Miles reckons most locals will just avoid the toll road altogether - so they don’t have to pay - and they’ll use the road that goes past his school instead.
And he’s worried about the impact that could have on the safety of his students.
Now if I was awarding a prize to either the mayor or the school principal for the strongest argument against the road toll, I’d give it to the school principal.
Because, ever since the bypass at Woodend has been discussed, safety has been a major issue.
So, yes, it would seem counterintuitive to spend billions on a bypass only to have it create other safety issues because of people not wanting to pay to use it and using an alternative route.
But these days - if we want something, we have to pay for it.
Which is what Nick Leggett from Infrastructure New Zealand is saying too.
He says if we say no to tolls, we’re saying no to new highways.
He says: “It’s disappointing to see local mayors lining up to oppose tolling the proposed Woodend Bypass. We all need to face facts. If we want safer, faster, better highways, the users of those roads need to be willing to pay something for them.
“As a nation, we naturally want the best of everything, but that doesn’t come for free.”
Nick Leggett goes on to say: “The fairest and most sustainable approach is for those who use the road to contribute to its upkeep and operation. It is not fair to ask all taxpayers, many of whom will never use the road, to foot the bill.”
And he won’t be getting any argument from me.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If I asked you who you would rather go and have a beer with, Christopher Luxon or Chris Hipkins, who would you choose?
I’d choose Luxon any day. One slight technicality is that he doesn’t drink. But he’d have a lime and soda or whatever he likes to drink, I’d have a beer and we’d probably have a very nice time.
Reason being that on the occasions that I’ve met him in person, he comes across as a very good guy and good fun to be around. I’ve met Hipkins several times too, but I think he’d be a bit more earnest or serious than Luxon.
So why isn’t that coming through in the poll results? Why aren’t there more people wanting to go and have a beer with Luxon?
Why are there almost as many people who would choose have a drink with Chippy? Which I know isn’t the official question polling companies ask voters, but you get what I mean.
According to last night’s 1News-Verian poll, Christopher Luxon’s popularity as Prime Minister is the lowest it’s been in two years.
Last night’s preferred prime minister result had him on 20%, and Labour’s Chris Hipkins breathing down his neck on 19% – which has all the headline writers predicting his demise.
Here’s an example of one: “Luxon’s leadership running out of oxygen as polls tighten”.
You may think these poll results are a load of nonsense, but I don’t. Because it wasn’t just the 1News poll that came out in the last 24 hours.
We also had a Taxpayers Union poll out yesterday which showed a very similar result in preferred Prime Minister. That poll had Christopher Luxon on 20.2% and Chris Hipkins on 20.2%.
So do I believe these poll results? Yes I do.
And why do I think Christopher Luxon is so unpopular with voters? I’m taking my cue from National Party voters I’ve spoken to recently who are shaking their heads.
The common themes that come through are that Luxon is letting Winston Peters and David Seymour run rings around him, that his government —especially his Finance Minister— isn’t delivering anything meaningful, and that he’s still blaming everything on the previous government.
Not that the last government achieved much, but surely people expected the bar to be a bit higher with this government. So that’s why he is polling so low – people see him as a let down.
He’s seen as weak, letting Seymour and Peters rule the roost and he doesn’t own the problems he’s trying to fix. He’s still pointing the finger at Labour more than halfway through his government’s three-year term. That’s letting him down big time.
And people don’t think his government delivering them anything —especially on the economic front— and that he should be giving Nicola Willis the flick and giving someone else the finance job.
Because these National voters I’ve spoken to are saying that she has been a big disappointment.
But when you’re the leader of the party and when you’re the Prime Minister, you’re the one who cops it. And Christopher Luxon is copping it. And he deserves to cop it.
And if we did go and have that drink – that’s what I’d be telling him.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
TOPIC 1 EDITORIAL: STADIUM TRAIN
I love this plan for an express passenger train to get people into Christchurch for events at the new One New Zealand Stadium, which is due to open in April next year.
But I’ll love it even more if the councils around here chip-in to pay for a new railway station at the corner of Moorhouse Avenue and Colombo Street, which the rail company behind the plan is describing as a “key ingredient”.
Because, otherwise, there’s a 4.3 kilometre journey by road from the current station at Tower Junction - which could take about 22 minutes by car.
Private outfit Mainland Rail has come up with the idea to get nearly 6,000 people into Christchurch from Rolleston and Rangiora (and even possibly Ashburton). It’s saying an express service from Rolleston would get people into the centre of town in 20 minutes. It would be about 25 minutes from Rangiora.
It’s worked out how it can work-in with the KiwiRail freight train schedules and it’s already bought second-hand carriages to run the service.
But it’s the new railway station on the corner of Moorhouse and Colombo that needs sorting out.
And, with the likes of Selwyn and Waimakariri councils not putting any money at all into the stadium itself, this is the opportunity - at last - for them to have some skin in the game.
Especially, considering that this service is all about getting people from their areas into town for the big matches and concerts.
Maybe even Ashburton council could get involved. ECAN, as well - considering it’s been pushing the idea of commuter rail services in the Greater Christchurch area.
I know there will probably be no shortage of people who think that, if a private company wants to set-up this service, then it should cover all of the costs. Including the costs of a new train station.
But I don’t see it that way, at all. Because some sort of drop-off point for train passengers at that spot on the Colombo/Moorhouse corner would be brilliant - and not just for people using the stadium trains.
There’ll be others too who think it should be KiwiRail paying for it. But you can forget about Kiwirail coming up with the money anytime soon. If at all.
So, if this thing is going to fly, then it’s time for our local councils to step up.
Who wouldn’t want to see tourists getting on and off the Tranz Alpine service to the West Coast in the centre of town? Instead of that toy town train station at the back of Tower Junction.
And if we are really serious about getting people in Rangiora and Rolleston to even entertain the idea of taking a train to work instead of driving, then we need to offer them something better than a train to Addington.
This idea has the potential to be the start of something bigger and I think it's brilliant
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You can tell council elections are coming up, because that’s the only reason the Christchurch City Council is going to start using high friction road surfaces at pedestrian crossings, instead of speed humps.
Even though it knows that speed humps are safer. Even though it knows that it won’t slow down traffic. But you’ve got to keep people sweet when there’s an election coming up.
They’re starting with a pedesttian crossing Halswell, with the local councillor saying they’re doing it so that people don’t get brassed off.
Andrei Moore says: "We are putting safe infrastructure in without pissing everyone off.”
And there’s your evidence that this isn’t being done for safety. It’s being done to try and calm down all the whingers ahead of October's election.
Talk about shallow.
I know when these speed humps things started appearing, twe all thought “what the hell are these things all about?” And, since then, it's become incredible fashionable to slag them off.
But this is the problem when you get a bunch of people sitting around a council table all thinking they’re road safety experts when the only thing they're expert in is pandering to voters.
Apparently, the plus side of these high friction surfaces is that vehicles are less likely to skid, but they do nothing to slow traffic down. When some muppet is screaming up to a pedestrian crossing and has to slam on the brakes, they’ll be at less risk of skidding.
At least with the speed humps, even the muppets are forced to slow down – that’s not going to happen with your high friction surface, is it?
Cost is another thing in favour of the high friction surfaces, as opposed to the sped humps. A report I’ve seen says installing a speed hump —including the aspahalt, the road marking, and the signage— costs somewhere between $30,000 and $55,000.
Whereas, the anti-skid, high friction road surface costs between $25,000 and $35,000. The fly in the ointment there though is that this special surface costs more to maintain than your speed hump.
But are these speed humps really that much of a problem? What’s so bad about something that forces drivers to slow down – especially when they’re approaching a pedestrian crossing?
There’s nothing wrong with that.
And, if you are totally honest with yourself, do speed humps really have that much of a negative impact on your life?
Or do you think you might have fallen into the trap and followed the crowd in your opposition to speed humps? Because I reckon that, in the grand scheme of things, they aren’t a problem at all.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Local politicians from both sides of the political divide are slamming police process around the proposed restructure in wider Canterbury.
Federated Farmers, City Councillors, and schools are concerned at the lack of community consultation.
Banks Peninsula MP Vanessa Weenink told John MacDonald the communication, for a start, hasn't been well managed.
She says police will need to do a lot to assure her, and the community, that what they're doing is the right step.
While Labour's Tracey McLellan says the community's rightly concerned about the internal-only consultation, which is not at all in line with expectations.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When I heard Transport Minister Chris Bishop talking about the Government’s changes to the road user charges system, I had a bit of a Max Bradford moment.
Max was the National Party minister who told us back in 1988 that his reforms of the electricity sector were going to mean cheaper power prices.
Which is what Chris Bishop was saying yesterday about the plan to ditch petrol taxes and move all vehicle owners to road user charges which, at the moment, are only paid by people with diesel, electric, and heavy vehicles.
He said: “From a cash flow point of view, it’ll help people. At the moment, when you go and fill your car up you pay petrol tax at the pump, right there at 70 cents per litre, roughly.”
The part of yesterday’s announcement that really caught my eye was NZTA not being responsible for collecting and processing the road user charge payments. Instead, that’s going to be farmed out to private operators which the government says will encourage “fairer competition”.
And, in saying that, the Government is trying to sell some sort of idea that by not having NZTA involved, these charges are somehow going to be cheaper.
Which is why I had Max Bradford ringing in my ears. Because he was talking nonsense when he said his reforms back in 1988 were going to mean cheaper power prices.
And Chris Bishop is talking nonsense if he expects us to believe that contracting private outfits to take over is going to mean cheaper costs for vehicle owners.
The minister says it’s possible we’ll pay our road user charges through an app, which is why the government wants to get private operators involved. Because it doesn't want to spend the time and money developing the technology and the systems.
But will this “fairer competition” it’s talking about really mean things being cheaper at our end? Of course not.
And this is not me having a dig at any of the companies who might have heard that announcement yesterday and saw an opportunity. Because that’s what business is all about: seeing opportunities.
And, again, this isn’t me having a dig at businesses, but they don’t do these kinds of things for free.
Being in business is all about clipping the ticket as much as possible. And no business is going to want to get involved in the new road user charging system if it can’t clip the ticket. That’s just how it is.
Which is why I don’t like the Government's plan to take NZTA out of the picture.
Yes, I support the shift to everyone paying road user charges, because that makes sense. Because when you use a road, it makes no difference whether you drive an old dunger or something more modern – you’re still using it.
With road user charges, you pay depending on how many kilometres you drive instead of how much fuel you buy.
And if you’ve got the most fuel-efficient vehicle on the market, why should you effectively pay less to use the same road as someone who can only afford an old gas guzzler?
You shouldn’t. So the move to us all paying road user charges will get no argument from me. What I am pushing back on, though, is the plan to get private companies running the new system.
To let private companies clip the ticket which, as far as I can see, will only lead to us paying more.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
With the Government wanting artificial intelligence to be used to mark high school exams, I asked a ChatGPT bot how it felt about that.
And here’s what it said: "If the Government were to ask me to mark high school exams, I would feel (if I could feel) cautious optimism, with a big dose of responsible hesitation."
The bot said, on the upside, it could process thousands of scripts quickly, never get tired, and not suffer from the end-of-day brain fog that human markers do. It also wouldn't mark one student generously and another harshly on a bad day. And it could apply marking schedules with perfect consistency.
The bot also said there would be downsides. It said exam answers aren’t always clean-cut. A brilliant, unconventional insight might not fit the marking template, but a good teacher sees its value. That’s harder for AI to interpret correctly without "massive nuance training".
It said AI can reflect biases in its training data. Even small disparities in language use, cultural references, or phrasing could disadvantage students if the system isn’t carefully designed and constantly audited.
The ChatGPT bot also told me students, parents, and teachers would rightly ask how something was marked, and public confidence could be eroded.
It said, on balance, it would be in favour of "hybrid marking”, with AI doing pre-marking and humans handling the grey areas and double-checking. So AI would be a support tool.
In short, the AI bot said: "I’m capable. But I shouldn’t be trusted alone. Exam marking is too important to hand over fully to a machine - at least not yet."
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Opposition leader says he's worried Police are retrenching from rural communities.
A planned staffing restructure could move some permanent posted rural officers move to work from 24/7 hubs in Rolleston and Rangiora.
Officer headcount won't drop.
Chris Hipkins told John MacDonald he's been through this in his own area, in Wellington's Upper Hutt.
He says it means Police presence reduces.
He says rural communities are being sold the same story it won't affect local policing but the reality is, it will.
The Labour leader says Minister Mark Mitchell was happy to see more Policing in Auckland city, and it’s time for the Minister to walk the talk and tell the Commissioner he wants rural areas better provisioned.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Canterbury police say they'll still serve rural communities under a plan to centralise officers.
They're mid-way through two weeks of internal consultation on a plan to shift some officers from smaller rural stations, to larger 24/7 hubs in Rolleston and Rangiora.
District Commander Superintendent, Tony Hill, told John MacDonald rural liaison officers will still work with smaller areas, and police will respond and come in from one of the hubs.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Yesterday, when the Government announced that it was getting rid of NCEA, my immediate reaction was that it was a mistake.
That we would have been much better sticking with the system we’ve got and improving it.
Twenty-four hours later, I still feel the same.
There are some aspects of the changes that I think are brilliant. But the more I’ve found out about it, the more convinced I am that this could all be done without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
But here’s what I like.
Quite rightly, people seem to be very excited that the Government wants more young people leaving school with a better understanding of reading, writing, and maths. And it’s not going to get any argument from me.
Because I think we do need to up our game on that front. Which is why it’s going to have this assessment in Year 11 —which is the old 5th form— which will test students on their literacy and numeracy. That’s going to be called the Foundational Skills Award.
The other week, I was at the supermarket and there was a young guy running the check-out. I wanted to split the bill and, without punching numbers into the till trying to work out what half of the overall amount was, he did the numbers in his head. Correctly, by the way.
Which probably shows how low expectations have got when I’m impressed by a young guy at the checkout being able to divide something by two in his head.
So that part of what the government wants to do gets a big tick from me. Because being able to read, write, and do maths are essential for life – whatever you might end up doing after you leave school.
But that could all be done within the current system, we don’t need this major overhaul to achieve that.
I’m also loving the fact that kids wanting to do trades will be able to leave school with a qualification that sets them up for it.
I see one education expert is poo-pooing that, saying that it will create a two-tier system where some students will end up with a vocational qualification and others with an academic qualification.
But so what? That’s not two-tier. That’s not one qualification for the bright kids and one qualification for the thickies. James McDowell from the Motor Trade Association thinks it’s brilliant too that school kids are going to be able to do more at school to ready themselves for taking on a trade.
Other concerns coming through are that going back to the old-school system of more exams and pass or fail marks will mean more students finishing school without any qualifications.
And I agree that that is a real concern, because the way NCEA is structured at the moment means that someone can get credits for things that aren’t all that academic but still mean they leave high school with something to show for their time there.
And they don’t necessarily have to sit exams to get those credits.
So here’s what I’d do. I would keep NCEA, but I would incorporate the brilliant bits of what the Government's wanting to do.
I’d do the testing of reading, writing, and maths. And I would bring-in the trades training part of it too. And I would make sure there are more compulsory exams.
Then, when the kids leave school, I would give them a transcript, like they do at universities. Which would, basically, be a piece of paper showing what subjects they took at high school, what exam marks they got, and what marks they got for other assignments.
Overall, it would be a qualification. But then employers, for example, would be able to read it and see more detail of what a student actually did and actually achieved.
I think that would be way better than throwing everything in the air and starting again.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Just because someone can afford to do something, it doesn’t always mean they should do it.
Which is how I’m feeling about Christchurch mayor Phil Mauger using his own money to pay engineers to design a replacement for the controversial Park Terrace cycleway which, he says, is under-utilised and causing traffic congestion.
According to council data, 648 cyclists use it every week day. Which doesn’t sound under-utilised to me.
What’s more, I don’t like the idea of the mayor circumventing his in-house transport staff and getting some private engineers to come up with another design. I think it’s very sneaky.
You may remember the row over this one a couple of years back, when council transport staff blocked-off one of the lanes heading north on Park Terrace and turned it into a two-way cycle lane.
Marking it off with bollards and reducing that stretch of road to one-lane, instead of two.
If you can’t quite envisage where this is, it’s the stretch of road that goes from the Antigua boat sheds, past the museum, past Christ’s College and The George hotel, up to Salisbury Street.
Which, as I said at the time, was the outcome of the council transport people over-thinking things because they were concerned about cyclists and pedestrians being put at risk by the development work going on at Canterbury Museum.
So they thought that closing a lane of traffic, turning it into a cycleway, and making that stretch of road one-lane, instead of two, was the answer.
When this all flared-up back in 2023, Phil Mauger got into strife when he said council staff were “running amok and they need to be reined in”.
He also described staff as "the anti-car brigade".
Two years down the track - and with an election coming up - Phil has paid some engineers to come up with an alternative design.
Which would see the traffic lane used for the cycleway being reinstated and the 2.5 metre-wide shared footpath that runs between the road and the Avon River being widened to accommodate cyclists.
Personally, I think the idea Phil is pushing is a good one - but I don't like the fact that he’s worked around his own council engineers and paid other, private engineers to come up with a new design.
I know some people will think he’s being a bit of a legend and putting his money where his mouth is. But I don’t. Even though I think it would make much more sense to use some of that space between the footpath and the river.
The reason I don’t like what he’s done, is that he is riding roughshod over his transport staff and he’s riding roughshod over his council’s processes.
Because this cycleway is due to be in place for another three years. Some concillors didn’t like it at the time. But that’s how things ended up.
Even though the mayor has spent his own personal money getting these engineers to come up with a different design, it will only happen if he’s re-elected. And it’s not as if he’s going to pay for the work.
He says his plan will cost ratepayers about $300,000 and will be done within 100 days if he is still mayor after the election.
He also says it depends on him getting a working majority of what he calls like-minded councillors.
But just because he can afford to pay the outside engineers to come up with an alternative design - and even though I think the alternative design he’s proposing would be much better than the set-up at the moment - I don’t like what he’s done.
He’s top dog at the council and he needs to show the council and its staff more respect.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It must be tricky being at school and feeling like you’re not doing anything to prepare you for what you actually want to do when you leave.
The Government is starting to think about that after this new report from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority which says NCEA is too focused on kids wanting to go to university.
The report was prepared for Education Minister Erica Stanford who is promising some big changes.
The report says NCEA doesn’t do enough to get school students ready to work in the trades and hospitality. It says many students end up doing subjects that aren’t relevant to what they want to do when it comes to a career.
So could that be fixed, do you think, if students had the option of studying for an NCEA “trades entrance” qualification, similar to the university entrance qualification?
Dr Michael Johnston from the NZ Initiative think tank thinks so. And I think so too.
The irony is that, when NCEA was first developed, it was all about not being so focused on the academic kids and providing something which gave all students a useful qualification to take with them when they leave school.
But, as the qualifications authority is saying to the education minister, that hasn’t turned out to be the case for anyone wanting to be builders, or plumbers, or sparkies etc.
Which the tertiary education union agrees with and which is backed up by the numbers Dr Michael Johnston from the NZ Initiative has been throwing around.
He says 44 percent of school leavers aren’t enrolled in tertiary education. And only six percent of them end up in work-based training doing things like trades.
From what we’re hearing from the NZ Qualifications Authority and the tertiary education union, a big reason for that is that NCEA doesn’t do enough for students who either know they want to do a trade or the kids who might end up doing a trade if they learned more about it while at school.
And the brilliance of NCEA being expanded to include a trades entrance qualification - as well as the university entrance qualification - would be that, even if someone did leave school with a “trades entrance” certificate, they would still have the option of going to university if they wanted to down the track.
Because, once someone turns 20, they can go to uni whether they’ve got UE or not.
Michael Johnston says school students need to be given a much clearer idea of their options.
He says: "We just esteem university education much more highly than apprenticeship training for no really good reason. Trades people can earn great money and there's no reason why an arts degree, for example, should be seen as better than an electrical qualification or a plumbing qualification.”
Amen to that. Which is why I think his idea of giving high school kids the option of doing NCEA trades or NCEA university entrance is a brilliant idea
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Matt Doocey and Duncan Webb joined John MacDonald to give their thoughts on the biggest political stories of the week.
Changes are likely coming to NCEA – are they needed? And should trades be given more support in schools?
A lawyer is calling for the Government to step in and shut down Gloriavale, but should this be their responsibility?
Doocey has launched a petition against a T2 lane – is this an easy hit for votes? And what is the FBI doing in Wellington?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It’s believed the government has the ability to shut down Gloriavale.
The West Coast religious commune's 85-year-old leader Howard Temple is a sex offender, having plead guilty to 12 charges, including indecent assault, mid-way through a trial.
The charges relate to offending back to the 1990s.
Leavers' lawyer Brian Henry told John MacDonald there are laws that allow the removal of families from harm, and the Corporations Investigation and Management Act.
He claims it's now, beyond doubt, a criminal organization of sex offending and there are options to step in, take over assets, and straighten out what's going on.
Henry says the Prime Minister needs to knock the heads together of every government department tasked with protecting little girls.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The gangs were right, the Government was wrong.
That’s one way to interpret the news that, for the first time, the number of people on the national gang list is higher than 10,000.
The gangs were right. Because they said right from the outset that the Government could do what it wants but they will never go away.
And the numbers don’t lie, do they?
At the time of the 2023 election, there were 9,270 people on the national gang list. Now there are 10,009 – an increase of more than 700.
Which is why, as well as saying the gangs were right, you could also say that the Government was wrong. I think it’s too early, but I think we need to change our expectations a little bit. Which I’ll come back to.
Labour is crowing, of course. But before Ginny Andersen and Chris Hipkins get too carried away, they need to remember that when Labour came to power in 2017 there were 5,343 people on the gang list and by the time the 2023 election came around, that had increased by nearly 4,000.
So Police Minister Mark Mitchell —who has been the face of the gang patch ban and all of the other anti-gang initiatives— is correct when he says that the numbers aren’t increasing as fast as they were.
And he says that slower rate of growth is proof that the Government's tough-on-crime policies are working. The Prime Minister is backing that up, saying the Government is "smashing the gangs".
He’s saying: "I'm proud of the progress that we've made. Putting the gang patches ban in place – many people said that couldn't be done."
Assistant police commissioner Paul Basham is singing from the same songsheet. Saying that because the Government has given the police more power and resources, they’ve got a better handle on gang numbers and illegal gang activity.
Nevertheless, with numbers rising, what should happen next?
Do we accept that we’re never going to stop gang numbers growing? Do we go harder? Or do we give the Government more time for its crackdown to work?
I’m prepared to give the Government a little bit more time. But I think we also need to adjust our expectations and forget about any idea of gang numbers falling dramatically.
Because there will always be gangs. But if the police have a better handle on what they’re doing and —because of that— those of us not involved in gangs feel safer, then that’s a good outcome in my book.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I understand what the Prime Minister is saying about these pay increases for board members at Crown agencies, such as Health NZ and Kāinga Ora, but I’m not buying it.
The top payment was $90,000. It’s now $160,000.
Christopher Luxon says the Government needs to offer higher pay for these board roles so they can attract the best people. But tell that to the 28,000 people who have lost their jobs in the past year.
Tell that to the hospital staff striking for more pay. Tell that to the hospital staff who have had a gutsful of staffing levels going south.
Tell that to most people in New Zealand, and I think they’ll say that the Government couldn’t be more tone deaf if it tried.
As Labour leader Chris Hipkins is saying, people are struggling to make ends meet and this just shows how out of touch the Government is.
To be fair, the Prime Minister is correct when he says that they need to make these roles worth people’s while. Because, whether we like it or not, the Crown is competing with the private sector in trying to get the best people.
But being correct doesn’t always make someone right, and someone needs to tell Christopher Luxon that people don’t care what he knows until we know that he cares.
There he was again yesterday saying that he understands that people are doing it tough at the moment. He knows. But does he care?
The way Public Service Minister Judith Collins puts it is that this is actually a strong move by the Government. Because past governments have been too chicken to pay its board members more, and she says we can’t expect these people to work for chickenfeed.
I get what Judith Collins is saying too. And I know that, in the scheme of things, it’s not as if these increased payments to board members will amount to a massive amount of money.
But for me it’s all about perception and the message it sends.
Yes, people putting their hands up to sit on government boards want to be recognised for their time and effort. But consider how busy the Government has been telling local councils to cut their cloth. Consider how busy the Government’s been telling government departments to cut their cloth.
Yes, people on government agency boards should be paid what they’re worth, but now is not the time for 80% pay increases.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The news today that half of the departments at Christchurch Hospital are operating below full staffing levels doesn’t surprise me.
In some departments, they are less than 80 percent of what they should be.
So, if I’m not surprised, does that mean my expectations of the hospital system are pretty low? The answer to that is “yes”.
I expect that the basics are covered and that’s about it. That our hospitals are full of brilliant people doing their best, stretched to the limit, covering the basics.
The nurses union is describing the staffing situation as “alarming”. One of its delegates has told our newsroom that it constantly feels like they don't have enough staff. And it would be great if they didn’t have to move staff around departments to try and cover everything.
Health NZ says it gets that. But it’s dealing with increased demand (more patients) and it’s struggling to hire people.
Here are some numbers for you. Child health, oncology and intensive care unit nursing have around 30 full-time equivalent vacancies. With two of those departments having roles vacant for more than a year.
But none of that surprises me anymore.
Just like I’m not all that surprised by the news that Christchurch Hospital is getting relatives of patients to go in and sit with them and help out where they can.
Again - is that because of my low expectations? That I’ve come to expect that the basics will be covered and that’s about it?
But here’s where Health NZ’s sob story about not being able to hire staff starts to wear a bit thin.
There are a whole bunch of nursing graduates ready to work, who haven’t been hired to work in our hospitals.
Fifty-five percent of graduate nurses looking for graduate roles in a hospital have received rejection letters. Many of them for the second time.
The mid-year intake has just been finalised - with 722 applying but only 323 getting placements.
One of the ones who have received a rejection letter is Melanie McIntyre, of Christchurch. She came back here from Australia in 2019 to begin nursing training. She did a pre-health course in 2021 and started her degree in 2022.
She says she thought nursing was a safe career but, three years down the track, she is disheartened and unemployed.
After her first rejection, she spent eight months sitting in what they call the national talent pool. Which is, effectively, a waiting list for employers across the health sector looking for entry-level nurses.
But that’s been a no-goer for Melanie and, since February, she’s been volunteering at a charity hospital.
She is so disheartened, that she would like to move back to Australia.
But she’s in her 40s and her kids aren’t keen on going back to Australia. So here she is in Christchurch, with a nursing degree, can’t get work in a hospital, and is doing volunteer work instead.
She says: “It’s just so disheartening. I actually struggle to get out of bed because I’m not sure what else to do.”
I bet. But I suspect that, what we’re seeing here, is the impact of hospitals not having enough senior people to supervise the new nurses on the wards.
And, if that’s the case, then I don’t see things changing anytime soon. If at all.
Which is why my expectations of the hospital system are, what you could describe, as pretty low. That it’s brilliant for the basics - but that’s about it. And only as long as the people doing the doing are prepared to keep going.
But how do you rate your expectations of the hospital system?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There will be no shortage of people today thinking that it's a brilliant move by the Government to ditch official guidelines for including transgender people in community sport and leaving it to the sporting organisations themselves to handle it.
But I think it’s just going to open a can of worms, and these people who think it’s great might think differently if they were on the committee of one of their local sporting clubs.
Because this is not elite sport we’re talking here, this is all about community sport.
And, however you might feel about transgender people competing in sport, you’ve got to admit that having guidelines on how to handle what can be a pretty fraught issue can only be a good thing.
Tell that to the Government though. Or, more specifically, tell that to NZ First.
Since 2022, sporting organisations and clubs have had these guidelines to work with, which say: “Transgender people can take part in sports in the gender they identify with”.
But now sporting organisations and sporting clubs are going to be left to handle it on their own.
NZ First wanted these guidelines ditched and, as a result of its coalition deal with National, Sports Minister Mark Mitchell wrote to the head of Sport NZ yesterday telling her to pull the plug on the guidelines.
The objective being to ensure that everyone competes on a level playing field and things aren’t compromised by gender-based rules.
Mark Mitchell says, when it comes to sport, the Government has a role to play in creating sporting opportunities for people, but it's not up to the Government to decide who should be included and how.
Which I think is a rather elegant way of describing it.
But it ignores the fact that, whether people like it or not, this is something that isn’t going to go away. Transgender people wanting to play sport and compete in the categories they want to compete in isn’t going to go away.
NZ First might not want to hear that. And anyone who thinks that someone born a male, for example, should only be allowed to compete against other males won’t want to hear that either.
But taking away these guidelines helps no one. Because, surely, something is better than nothing.
If you’re on the committee at your local rugby club or cricket club, for example, and someone who is transgender signs up to play and, let’s say they identify as female but are biologically male, what are you going to do?
For the past three years, you would have had these guidelines to refer to. Not that they were explicit rules, but they were guidelines – better than nothing.
Now the people on the committees at rugby clubs and cricket clubs and all sporting clubs and organisations up and down the country are going to be flying blind. And with everyone having their own personal views, it’s going to be a headache.
Mark Mitchell reckons “fair-minded New Zealanders” will be in favour of these changes, which he says are based on safety and fairness.
But all we’re seeing here is politics and if I was running a sporting organisation or a sporting club, I’d be saying “thanks for nothing” to the Government.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The former frontman of English new-wave band Spandau Ballet, now a solo act, Tony Hadley is popping over to our shores early next year.
He’s part of the line up for the 2026 Selwyn Sounds, performing alongside the likes of Ronan Keating, When The Cats Away, and Opshop.
Hadley joined John MacDonald for a chat about his career, influences, and gave an insight into why Spandau Ballet won’t be reuniting any time soon.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Phil Mauger is back on board the climate change bandwagon today – just like he was before the last election.
I remember asking him three years ago what he thought the most pressing issue facing Christchurch was and he said climate change.
And he’s at it again today. So is current city councillor Sara Templeton, who also wants to be the city's next mayor.
It won’t be any surprise to anyone that Sara rates climate change as a top issue or a top priority. And good on her for saying so, because I agree. I think we’ve had our heads in the sand for too long.
So she’s talking today about the need for the city to get on with solid planning for dealing with climate adaptation. Which is easier said than done, of course. Especially with all this talk coming from Wellington about central government washing its hands in terms of helping local communities dealing with things like sea level rise.
As for Phil Mauger, I’ll believe his commitment to climate change when I see it.
He’s talking today about wanting to reduce greenhouse gases and is saying that converting trucks and other vehicles to hydrogen will make a difference.
But, no disrespect to Phil, anyone can bang-on about that and it probably sounds good. But like I say, the proof’s in the pudding. My message is the same for Sara Templeton.
But thank goodness they’re talking about it because I agree that climate change needs to be a top priority. But it does raise the question as to whether you agree with these two that addressing climate change has to be top of mind. Whether you think addressing climate change is a top priority for Christchurch.
We can bang-on about getting the basics done well, but what good is that going to be if we have city leaders who are quite happy to kick the climate change can down the road?
So it’s full marks from me to both of them for at least putting it out there as a top priority for the city.
Especially Sara Templeton, with her view that we need to get on with deciding how Christchurch is going to adapt. But she is bang on because the council already knows that $14 billion worth of property in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula could be at-risk from sea-level rise.
That’s the figure that came out a couple of years ago when the council made a submission to Parliament’s environment select committee.
And since then, what’s happened? What’s been done about it? Next to nothing.
The only person around that council table who has said anything of substance since is Sara Templeton herself who, in February last year, floated the idea of a new ratepayer levy to help with the cost of adapting to climate change.
Her argument was simple. How can we say it’s fair to expect future generations to not only live with the consequences of climate change, but to pay for it as well? To carry the financial burden?
As you might expect, that didn’t go down too well with a lot of people. Because a lot of us are focused on the here and now and don’t give two hoots about what might be on the way.
Not to mention the people who don’t believe climate change and sea-level rise even exist.
What’s more, climate change doesn’t win elections, does it? Which is why you get people wanting to be mayors and councillors only talking about rates and rubbish and sticking to the basics.
Whereas what we really need are city leaders who will get out of the weeds and not worry about the minutiae of every little thing and actually get on with the job of ensuring we are ready.
Ready for the day —whenever that day might be— when $14 billion worth of property in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula is more than just at-risk from sea-level rise.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Labour Leader has responded to Luxon’s heated comments in response to their jabs about the cost of living.
The Opposition has criticised the Government’s flagship cost of living policy, raising a red flag over only 153 families getting the maximum credit across all four quarters.
Luxon says Labour's crying crocodile tears, and that he’s not taking any lectures from "frickin Chris Hipkins" about not supporting working Kiwis.
Hipkins told John MacDonald that Luxon is focused on attacking other people and blaming everybody else, rather than speaking up in favour of his own government’s track records.
“Show me the money” is the Opposition’s call over the Government plan for the new Waikato Medical School.
It'll get $83 million in taxpayer funding and more than $150 million from the university and investors.
The Labour leader told MacDonald we need to train more doctors, but this could take longer than just increasing intakes at existing medical schools.
He says the Government should be transparent about this decision.
Hipkins says Labour won't stop the project if construction's already under way if it gets into Government.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Let's start with the positives in the news that the Government is pressing ahead with a new medical school at Waikato University.
120 new med students every year. You can’t argue with that.
But that’s about it for me.
I’m not going to criticise the Government for doing something to get more doctors, because we need them. Especially in rural and regional areas, which look to be the main focus of this new school.
But I think it would have been way better for the Government to invest more in the existing medical schools at Otago University and Auckland University.
Especially Otago, when you consider all the money that’s going into the new hospital down there.
I see that Otago University is saying the same sort of thing. But I suppose with former Labour cabinet minister Grant Robertson running the place, it would say that.
Auckland University seems to be a bit more diplomatic on it, but both universities have put up the same argument in the past: that, rather than starting something from scratch, it would be better to put the money into training more doctors at the medical schools already up-and-running.
The main concern for me though is the finances. The Government is putting-in less money into the Waikato medical school than it said it would, relying instead on the university and its financial backers to make up the shortfall.
Before the last election, National campaigned on a $380 million medical school, saying it would spend $280 million, and the university would chip in $100 million.
But yesterday the Government announced it would be contributing just over $85 million, and the university would be putting in $150 million with help from its donors.
Which has got the opposition parties asking questions too.
Green Party tertiary education spokesperson Francisco Hernandez says Treasury has already raised concerns about Waikato University’s ability to contribute to the costs.
He says: "The Government got advice that approving the Waikato medical school would raise the risk profile of Waikato University from medium to high.”
And, like me, he reckons the budget’s going to be blown.
"The cost estimates have shifted so much, I wouldn't be surprised if there's scope creep down the line and Waikato Uni ends up having to come back to the Government with a begging bowl, because the cost ends-up being more than what they thought it would be."
And that’s where I see this thing at risk of falling over – either falling over or needing more government money down the track.
Because as soon as anyone starts using the “ph” word, I get suspicious. And the government’s using the “ph” word. Philanthropists. People with money to donate to causes they believe in.
The cathedral in Christchurch – that was going to get truckloads of money from philanthropists, wasn’t it?
Canterbury Museum – the philanthropists were going to be writing out cheques for that project too, weren't they?
And, as someone with a bit of experience in universities and philanthropy, I can tell you that getting money out of people is way easier said than done.
Although —not wanting to be a complete downer— I’ve always said that, post-covid especially, philanthropists are much more likely to put money into things that help people, as opposed to just building something for the sake of it.
But raising money this way is a long haul. And anyone being asked to contribute will want to see a business case. They’ll want to see who else is on board. And that won’t happen overnight.
And I bet you that all the high rollers that the university might approach will look at the Government’s reduced investment and ask how committed it really is.
But here’s my prediction: It won’t be long before the university is knocking on the Government’s door, saying it needs more taxpayer money.
And at that point, we’ll all accept that investing more in our existing medical schools is a way better option.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m going to start by quoting someone I’ve quoted before - Dr Nicola Day, who is a plant ecologist at Victoria University in Wellington.
Knowing a thing or two about plants means she knows a thing or two about pine trees. And here’s how she describes them: “Pines are one of the most flammable plants on the planet."
I referred to the same quote last year when the Government turned down a request to change the forestry rules, so that pine forests couldn’t be re-planted after the big Port Hills fire in February last year. The second big fire within seven years.
And I thought of those comments again at the weekend when it was confirmed that the Christchurch Adventure Park is going to be re-planted in pine trees on land near a new housing development, which will eventually have 430 homes on it.
Which I think is nuts.
The owner of the adventure park land, John McVicar - who re-planted pines there after the first fire - knows some people will think it’s madness planting them again But he says arson is the problem - not the highly-flammable trees themselves.
Credit where credit’s due - from what I’ve seen reported, it seems he has looked into the idea of re-planting in natives which, of course, are less flammable than pine trees.
But he’s saying that natives wouldn’t have worked and, what’s more, he’s saying that the highly-flammable pines themselves aren’t the problem - it’s people lighting fires who are the problem.
In 2017, there were two simultaneous fires and one of them is thought to have been deliberately lit. And there are strong suspicions that last year’s fire was deliberately lit too.
I appreciate that the adventure park is on private land and John McVicar can do what he wants with it.
But when I heard about the pines going back in and then heard about sections in this new housing development near the bike park selling like hot cakes, and how eventually there’ll be 430 new homes there, I wondered whether we've learned anything from those two big fires.
John McVicar is the forest owner and he’s saying that, yes, he gets it that some people will think it’s madness that he’s planting pines again - especially after he re-planted them after the first fire in 2017, only to lose them after the second fire seven years later.
But he’s comfortable that he’s done enough looking into alternatives and he’s pressing-on with planting the pines this winter.
He says he’s had experts look into the idea of planting native trees - which don’t go up in flames at the rate pine trees do - but they found that the site was dry and windswept with rabbits and goats and, for native trees to survive, they would need years of intensive care.
He says leaving the land as it is isn’t an option, either. Because weeds would take off and the experience of mountain biking in a forest would be gone.
All of that said - have not we not learnt anything from those fires? Especially the first one. Have we forgotten about the site of those trees going up in smoke?
I haven’t.
Just like the Christchurch City Council, the Selwyn District Council and ECAN haven’t forgotten. Because, last year, they went to the Government wanting help to stop pines being re-planted in the areas where the fires were.
Because the forestry rules, as they stand, allow anyone who has existing rights to have a forestry plantation to replace it like-for-like if it’s damaged or destroyed by fire.
The adventure park is a case in point. After 2017, the pines were re-planted there because the landowner had an existing right to plant them. There was nothing that could be done to stop that. This is what these local councils wanted to change.
And, because the Government didn’t want to change the rules, we’re stuck with the laws as they stand. Which means the pines are going back.
In my view, what makes this worse than the time they were replaced after the first fire, is that we know there are, eventually, going to be 400-plus more houses near the adventure park.
And that’s why I think this is so wrong. The land owner himself knows that some people will think it’s madness too. But how do you feel about it?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Education Minister Erica Stanford is my politician of the day for announcing that the Government isn't going to be building any more of those terrible open-plan classrooms.
But she’ll be my politician of the year if she goes further than that and finds money to put some walls and doors in the modern learning environment monstrosities that already exist.
In fact, I think the Government is morally obliged to help any state school that wants to get rid of their open-plan classrooms. It’s morally obliged because this disastrous experiment was forced on the schools.
And it will cost a truckload of money but it’s the only option, in my mind.
Unless, of course, there are schools that are perfectly happy teaching kids in barns. They can fill their boots.
But I bet there are a truckload of schools looking at this announcement and thinking “what about us?”
The way Erica Stanford puts it is that she’s had overwhelming feedback that open-plan classrooms aren’t meeting the needs of students.
She says: “While open-plan designs were originally intended to foster collaboration, they have often created challenges for schools, particularly around noise and managing student behaviour.”
Which is a polite way of saying that it was a hair-brained idea that shouldn’t have seen the light of day. And to Erica Stanford and the Government’s credit, they’re not building any more.
Which Rangiora High School principal Bruce Kearney says is great, but he wants to know about all the schools that have already been lumbered with open-plan classrooms.
Some of which have had a gutsful and have spent a lot of their own money turning the barns into old-school classrooms.
Rangiora High School is one of them. They spent $1.5 million. Shirley Boys’ High School in Christchurch spent $800,00. And Avonside Girls' spent $60,000 on screens and acoustic panels because a full fit-out was going to be too expensive for the school to pay for on its own.
Avonside principal Catherine Law says she is “thrilled” to see the move away from open-plan because it’s done nothing for students having a sense of belonging, and it had a really detrimental effect on teaching and learning.
She says year 9 and year 10 kids —the old third formers and fourth formers— are the ones who seem to struggle the most, because they’re the ones getting used to high school.
She says those years especially are the worst times for kids to be expected to try and work in open-plan areas. She says there’s a lot of anxiety with the kids not knowing where they sit and where they belong.
And she thinks that any school that wants to get rid of the open-plan set-up should get funding to do it.
If the experience at Rangiora High is anything to go by, why wouldn't the Government spend some money fixing up this shambles?
Since Rangiora put in the walls and doors, attendance is up by 12%. Which principal Bruce Kearney puts down to “happier teachers, happier kids, and a happier school”.
And he is in no doubt that the Government needs to stump up with the money so all schools that want to benefit from this brilliant move by Erica Stanford, can.
I’m going further than that though.
I think the government is morally obliged to do it. Because even though it wasn't this particular government that forced modern learning environments on schools, it was still the government-of-the-day.
The current administration is now admitting that the experiment has failed. So there is no way it can say that but still expect kids already being taught in these battery farms to put up with it.
And there’s no way it can admit it was a cock-up and expect teachers to keep teaching in these places.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones says we live in uncertain times and, because of that, we need to crank up the Marsden Point oil refinery again.
I agree that we live in uncertain times, but I certainly don’t agree that we should pour time and money into something which has had its day.
Shane Jones isn’t the only person talking about it though. The Prime Minister has said too that the Government is considering reopening Marsden Point as part of its plan to strengthen the country’s fuel and energy security.
Because, since it was closed in April 2022, we’ve been importing all our refined fuel.
We’ve also been importing all the bitumen we need for roads as well since the refinery closed. Before then, 70% of the bitumen used in New Zealand for roads was produced at Marsden Point, with 30% imported. Now 100% is imported.
But let’s not forget some of the nonsense that gets trotted-out about the old refinery. Which, once you cut through and dismiss, shows just how crazy it would be to try and get it up and running again.
First up: it wasn’t the previous Labour government that shut it down – the Associate Energy Minister was trotting out that line again this morning.
It was actually shut down by the private company which owned it back in 2022. The company was known as Refining NZ, these days it’s known as Channel Infrastructure.
I think the Government needs to drop this idea of looking into reopening it. Because if the people who know a thing-or-two about running a refinery think it’s a stupid idea, then who am I going to listen to? The people who know what they’re on about?
Of course I am. We all should, including the Government.
Because all this is, is another one of those desperado elements of the coalition agreement between National and NZ First.
Shane Jones is from the north and he’s just doing what any MP would do for their region.
And, before he continues with all this bluster about geopolitical clouds casting doubt on our future fuel supply, he should listen to what Refinery NZ said a year after shutting down the refinery.
They said it would cost billions to reinstate and take at least a couple of years to do it. So why would you? Especially, when you consider who might run the thing.
Because if the private outfit that used to run it wanted out, I don't see anyone else putting their hand up to take over.
What’s more, generating electricity is the future. Refining oil isn’t.
Even one of the union people who fought against the closure thinks we’d be flogging a dead horse trying to reopen it.
Justin Wallace is First Union’s oil and gas co-ordinator and he’s on record as saying that it would be unrealistic to expect the refinery to be cranked into action again.
He has said that although the footprint of the refinery is still there, the company that shut it down dismantled its key components as soon as they were able, and 80-90% of the staff who had worked at the refinery have left.
He says: “They've gone overseas, taken redundancy, or retired. Unless the Government is willing to tax more people to find more money to rebuild it, I think it's a pipe dream.”
Can someone please pass that on to Shane Jones?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How about this for an idea?
Instead of the tax people pay on the first $60,000 of their income going to the government, what if it went into a savings account to pay for healthcare and put food on the table when they retire?
It’s an idea being pushed by former finance minister Sir Roger Douglas and University of Auckland economics professor Robert MacCulloch which, they say, is needed because of the ageing population.
They reckon people could save as much as $21,000 a year, with some of the money going into a health account, some going into a superannuation account, and the rest going into a “rainy day” account.
There are some bits about this that really I like, and I’m not so sure about other aspects.
The thing I like most is that —for pretty much the first-time ever— we would have tax money ringfenced for specific things.
Whether we can describe it as tax money I’m not sure, because it would be money not going to the government but going into these individual bank accounts instead. But we’ll call it tax money.
Sir Roger and Professor MacCulloch have done the numbers and they reckon that —if the government didn’t get its hands on the tax money from the first $60,000 of everyone’s income— on average, people would end up with just over $20,000 in their account each year.
Breaking that down, they say we’d have about $9,500 going into the health bucket, just under $7,400 going into the superannuation bucket, and $4,200 going into the “rainy day” bucket. That’s each year – providing you’re working, of course.
So I like it for the ring-fencing and how we would know exactly how much we have up our sleeve.
And if you do the numbers over the course of someone’s total working life —that’s assuming that they start work at 20 and stop working at 65— the average person that Sir Roger is basing his numbers on could have about $950,000 in their account.
That’s without interest being factored in. So they could retire with more than $1 million in the bank to pay for healthcare and to live off.
And if you’re thinking we’ve got KiwiSaver, so why would we need this extra savings account? If you’re thinking that, chances are you’re well-off enough to afford KiwiSaver.
Because Professor MacCulloch is saying today that many low-income earners just can’t afford KiwiSaver and they would benefit big-time if most of their tax actually went into a savings account. Which makes sense to me.
Dig a little deeper though and Sir Roger Douglas’ old ACT Party ideals start to come through, with him saying today that this approach would give people the freedom to choose whether they get medical treatment, for example, in the public sector or the private sector.
But what if every Tom, Dick, and Harry had all this money and decided to get their hips done privately? That would be boom times for the private hospitals, but what would it mean for the public hospitals?
Possibly less government investment.
And what if a model like this was adopted and we had politicians down the track letting people use the money in these dedicated accounts to pay for first-home deposits and all that carry-on? Which has happened with KiwiSaver.
Sir Roger says he’s been banging on for ages about what he and Professor MacCulloch are calling an “economic car crash”.
They say governments over the years have chosen to ignore the looming health and welfare crisis that we’re heading into, if we haven’t reached that point already.
At the root of it is the ageing population. And they’re saying today that we just can’t keep on keeping on the way we have and the way we are.
And I agree with them. Which is why —even though I’ve got some misgivings about the impact this could have on things like government investment in the healthcare system— overall, I think it’s a brilliant idea.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
We can safely say that someone who rides their motorbike at 110 kph in a 50 kph area is a threat.
We can also safely say that someone who rides their motorbike at 110 kph in a 50 kph area and runs a red light is a danger.
We can also safely say that someone who rides their motorbike at 110 kph in a 50 kph area, runs a red light and kills two pedestrians is a menace.
This is a real-life story. And, upfront, I’m going to say that the person responsible is someone who should never be allowed to ride a motorbike or drive a car again. But under current laws, he can. And he is going to be allowed to.
The person I’m talking about is Mark Kimber. And, in July 2022, he was doing exactly what I’ve just described. On Friday, he was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison for the manslaughter of Karen and Geoffrey Boucher. And when he gets out of prison, his licence will be taken off him for three years.
The Bouchers had been out for dinner at a restaurant in Bethlehem, about 8 kilometres from Tauranga, and were crossing the road when they were killed by this guy. Both of them died at the scene.
But here’s where it gets worse. If it could.
Before the crash, he had 11 prior convictions for bad driving. These included careless driving, speeding, drink-driving, dangerous driving, failing to stop and driving while suspended. He also had 70 driving infringements on his record.
What’s more, in the time between the fatal crash and his appearance in court, he was done for speeding twice.
Which tells me that this guy has proven that he will never change and he should never be allowed to have a driver’s licence again.
Tell that to the sentencing judge, though. Who seemed to think that this guy's childhood needed to be taken into account when she was sentencing him for the manslaughter of this innocent couple.
I’m not going to get too bogged down on that side of it. Because it’s the fact that this judge thinks losing his licence for three years is a tough enough penalty.
At the moment, someone in New Zealand can lose their licence indefinitely and can only get it back if they've proved that they've done something about their drinking or drug-taking.
But I don‘t think this guy should ever be allowed to drive again. Because he has shown time and time again that he doesn't give a stuff about anyone else on the road.
If anything, it’s the two speeding offences he committed between the time of the crash and his day in court that ram it home for me.
When someone kills two people like this guy did, you would think that they might be a bit more cautious on the road.
Especially, knowing that're going to be hauled through the court for it.
But Mark Kimber didn’t take his foot of the pedal. And it’s my view that people like him need to be kept off our roads for good. And, instead of “indefinite disqualification” being the strongest punishment we hand out to repeat offenders like him, we should be taking their driver’s licences off them for good.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Not as straightforward as it sounds.
That’s pretty much the message coming through loud and clear in this new report which says importing liquified natural gas to make up for our dwindling local supplies is do-able. But.
You’ll remember how, last year, when we had factories closing and people paying through the nose for their electricity, talk turned to what could be done, especially given we are at-risk of not having the gas needed to generate power.
So the Government brought up the idea of importing liquified natural gas.
Fast-forward a few months and four of the big companies have put their heads together, looking into the practicalities of importing gas. The outcome is this report out today effectively saying we could do it, but there are a few things to think about.
The main ones being the price tag and how long it would take to get it happening.
First up, the cost. Up to $1 billion. That’s to get the infrastructure needed so that we can bring the gas in and store it.
It could be done cheaper, but the gas would be 25% more expensive.
Secondly, if we’re up for that kind of spend, it wouldn’t be an overnight fix. It would be about four years before we started to see the benefits.
Another main point in this report is that we could spend the money and wait for it all to come online, but there could be years when we don’t even need the extra gas.
That’s because power generation in New Zealand uses a combination of hydro, gas, and wind.
And in the years when we have plenty of rain and the hydro lakes are full, for example, we might not need to import gas.
So we could go down the route of spending all this money over the next four years —setting ourselves up— and the demand for gas that we might have now not being the same down the track.
But that’s a bit like pouring money into a fire alarm and sprinkler system and not using it, you know it's there and give it gives you security.
That’s how I see this gas importation business – it would be a back-up. And so-what if it wasn’t needed all the time?
The question facing us now is what do we do now that we have a better idea about the complexities and the cost?
Paul Goodeve, chief executive of the Clarus energy company, thinks we need to ask ourselves whether it’s worth doing without getting obsessed about the cost.
Because as I said earlier, it could be done cheaper —at around $200 million— but that would mean the gas would be 25% more expensive.
I’m no doubt that we have to bite the bullet and press go, and press go on the expensive option.
Because if you or I, or the Greens or whoever, think that this is nuts and we shouldn’t be importing gas and we should all have solar panels on the roof, that’s la-la land.
If you listen to the likes of Greenpeace, they’ll say that importing gas shouldn’t even be an option and we should be going full-bore with solar and wind power generation.
Again, la-la land. Because the reality is, we need a mix of generation options.
And even though it looks like importing liquified gas might not be as straightforward as we might have thought when the government started talking about it last year, what are the alternatives?
Crossing our fingers and hoping for the best? No thanks.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Do you think the Government and councils would be “morally bankrupt” if they stopped paying people out when their properties are so flood-damaged that they can’t live there anymore?
And would you feel the same about people living in areas at risk of flooding being forced to pay more for flood schemes and sea walls because they’re the ones who benefit most?
That’s what a panel of experts is recommending to the Government. But a climate policy expert is saying that would be, you guessed it, “morally bankrupt”. And I agree.
What’s more, I think this approach would let councils off the hook for allowing places to be built in crazy, at-risk locations.
What’s happened, is an independent reference group set up by the Ministry for the Environment has come up with a list of recommendations to help the Government work on some climate adaptation legislation.
Adaptation being what you do when something like climate change and sea-level rise threatens to take-out an area.
This group is made up of economists, people from the banking and insurance sectors, local government and iwi. So a wide range of people. And if I there’s an overarching theme to their advice, it would be this: “You’re on your own buddy.”
And instead of looking to the councils and governments for hand-outs and direction, people should have to decide for themselves if they’re going to stay living where they are.
And if their properties get flooded and there’s no way they can keep on living there, then they shouldn't expect their local council or Wellington to buy them out.
Talk about hardcore. Talk about morally bankrupt.
This group of experts isn’t stopping there, either. It’s also saying that, if you live in an area where there is a risk of flooding and things like sea walls and flood schemes are needed, then you and your neighbours should pay more for those things because you’re the ones who benefit the most.
So, if we apply that to some of the things that have happened here in Canterbury, that would mean people in the Flockton Basin area in Christchurch, paying more for the privilege of living somewhere that used to flood at the drop of a hat.
Remember that? And how the council poured truckloads of money into a pumping system that stopped the water overflowing in the Dudley Creek area and flooding the streets and houses?
The Christchurch City Council spent $49 million on a flood mitigation scheme in Flockton Basin. Elsewhere in town, it spent about $70 million to deal with flooding issues along the Heathcote River. That included buying-out people's houses. Some friends of mine had their place bought out as part of that scheme.
But under these recommendations to the Government, the people in Flockton Basin would be expected to pay more than the rest of us because they’re the ones who are benefiting directly from their streets and houses not flooding anymore.
Also under these recommendations, my mates wouldn’t have their house bought out by the council – even though they can’t live there anymore because it keeps flooding
I would hate to see us take this approach. Which is why agree with climate policy expert, Emeritus Professor Jonathan Boston from Victoria University, who is saying today that leaving people high and not necessarily dry like this would be “morally bankrupt”.
He says: "One of the core responsibilities of any government is to protect its citizens and to deal with natural disasters and so on. That is above almost anything else."
He’s also criticising this group’s recommendation that any changes be phased-in within the next 20 years, saying that the risks and impacts of climate change are going to continue evolving beyond this 20-year deadline.
He says to put an end-date on it is "Morally bankrupt and highly undesirable".
And, as I say, it would let councils off-the-hook. Because for me, if a council gives consent for something to built somewhere, then that same council needs to carry the can if it turns out that that something is somewhere it shouldn’t be.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour leader and former Covid-19 Minister Chris Hipkins thinks phase two of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 response is a platform for conspiracy theorists, and he is non-committal about turning-up to give evidence.
The most committed I’ve heard him so far is saying that he’s working on some written responses. But if that turns out to be the extent of his involvement, then he can forget about being prime minister again.
Because let me remind you of a couple of things.
While it was the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who, generally, fronted the Government’s Covid response. It was Hipkins —as Covid Minister— who drove it behind the scenes.
Secondly, if it was good enough for former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to front up in person to the UK’s Covid inquiry, then it is more than good enough for Chris Hipkins to front up in person to our inquiry.
In December 2023, Boris Johnson spent two days being grilled by the committee of MPs, which had the job of looking into how his government handled the pandemic.
This is the guy who told people they had to isolate at home and then had parties at 10 Downing Street.
This is the guy who disappeared to his country house when Covid was running rampant.
This is the guy who, somehow, lost 5,000 WhatsApp messages from his phone, which couldn’t be used as evidence at the inquiry.
This is the same guy who told the UK inquiry that he was the victim of not being properly informed about the seriousness of Covid.
Boris Johnson is the guy who is widely considered to have cocked-up the response in Britain but who, despite all that, fronted-up to take questions and take the heat over two days.
And it wasn’t pleasant for him. He was grilled. But say what you like about Boris Johnson, at least he fronted up.
From what I’ve seen, at no point did Boris Johnson dismiss the inquiry in Britain as a platform for conspiracy theorists.
At no point did Boris Johnson bang-on about the Covid inquiry in Britain creating an opportunity for theatrics from conspiracy theorists.
And, at no point, did Boris Johnson hide behind written responses and weasel words.
But that is exactly what Chris Hipkins is doing.
He says he wants to be “cooperative” but “I don’t want to see a whole lot of theatrics. I’m very interested in engaging with them on how we can capture the lessons”.
To be fair, Hipkins probably does have a point about the time period covered by phase two of the inquiry and how it, conveniently, leaves out the time NZ First was in coalition with Labour, but he needs to get over that.
Just like he needs to get over the fact that, yes, there will be no shortage of conspiracy theorists turning up at the inquiry.
But so what? It’s a free world. And we can decide for ourselves how much credence we want to give them.
But Chris Hipkins shouldn’t be free to decide for himself whether he fronts up in person at the Covid inquiry, or not.
He was Covid Minister and he has to front.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Chris Hipkins is doubling down on saying the Covid Response Inquiry's terms seems to provide a platform for conspiracy views.
The Labour leader also said the second phase —that began this week— excludes looking at any decisions made when NZ First was in Government.
Hipkins told John MacDonald opinions from the likes of Brian Tamaki and Liz Gunn deserve to be heard but shouldn't overshadow submission on other experiences.
He says if the Government's genuine in wanting all voices heard, it's important for it not to be dominated by a few people.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Isn’t it funny how the Government likes to talk about government support needing to be based on need, but seems to forget about all that when it comes to those nice middle-class people.
Of which I am one. I’m not claiming to be nice, but I am what you would call middle-class.
Which makes me fully qualified to ask why a family bringing in $229,000 a year should get taxpayer support to pay for their kids’ early childhood education.
It also makes me highly qualified to answer that question, and to say that a family earning that amount of money doesn’t need or deserve that level of taxpayer support.
The Government has expanded its FamilyBoost scheme, which is all about letting parents claim back some of the money they pay early childhood centres. The Government’s done it because not as many people were taking advantage of the scheme as it had expected and which Finance Minister Nicola Willis had budgeted for.
Before yesterday’s announcement, families earning up to $180,000 a year were eligible to claim back 25% of their early childhood fees.
Now families earning as much as $229,000 will be able to claim back 40% of their early childhood fees and I find it impossible to see how that can be justified.
Granted, I’m looking at this through the eyes of someone who had kids going through the early childhood system 15-to-20 years ago. I’m also looking at it through the eyes of someone in Canterbury as opposed to somewhere like Auckland.
Nevertheless, I still don’t see why or how the Government thinks a couple earning that amount of money —way more than 200k a year— needs financial support.
I saw some parents on the news last night at the centre in Wellington where Nicola Willis turned up to make the announcement yesterday, and they were all for it. But, of course they would be.
I can say that because I know how, when you’ve got pre-school kids, you’re still getting over the hit it has on the finances.
You might be down to one parent working – that’s if there are two of you. You’ve possibly got a decent-sized mortgage. Or you’re paying rent. So, of course, you’re going to think you need a leg-up wherever you can get it.
But what parents of very young kids don’t tend to think about is that it doesn’t get any cheaper. In fact, it gets more expensive the older the kids get.
Which brings me my other criticism of this expansion of the FamilyBoost scheme: what about the parents of older kids?
What about the parents who have got kids at high school and have to come up with money for all sorts of things, such as uniforms, sports trips, music trips, laptops. You name it.
Not that I’m saying that every parent with kids at the high school stage deserve the kind of carte-blanche handout the Government’s giving parents who have got kids going to pre-school.
But it highlights further how expanding the FamilyBoost scheme just doesn’t make sense.
And I think the opposition parties can be accused of tiptoeing around the issue. Especially Labour, which is banging on about the Government’s changes yesterday to the FamilyBoost programme being “desperate”.
Megan Woods is Labour’s acting finance spokesperson and she’s saying today that the Government is scrambling to help families dealing with the cost-of-living crisis.
She’s saying: "If Nicola Willis truly understood the cost-of-living crisis, then she'd have acted a long time ago."
But what Megan Woods should be doing is ripping into the Government for thinking that families earning just on $230,000-a-year need government support to pay for their kids to go to pre-school.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Government wants to free-up the laws relating to citizens' arrests. But should this include letting retail staff detain children and young people caught shoplifting?
The Chief Children’s Commissioner, Dr Claire Achmad, is saying today that it shouldn’t. And I agree with her. But not for the same reason.
She says allowing shop owners and shop staff to detain young people would contravene the right of children to be free from violence.
She says that right applies to kids anywhere and everywhere - including in shops and retail outlets. Even when they’re nicking stuff.
Dr Achmad says shop staff have every right to ask for stolen stuff to be handed over. But it wouldn’t be fair on the young offenders if the people in the shops also had the right to detain them. And I agree with her. But not for the same reason.
Overall, I’m 50/50 on this idea of citizens arrests.
At the moment, there are limitations on when and where they can be done. But the Government wants to loosen those limitations. And isn’t ruling out loosening them to the point where shopkeepers could detain kids stealing stuff.
When I say I’m 50/50, I’m all for security guards getting stronger powers to detain people. Providing they get the right training. But as for the rest of us. Forget about it. As for shopkeepers arresting young people. Forget about it. Because it’s got danger written all over it.
Danger from over-enthusiastic vigilantes going overboard. And danger for the people taking these young crims on.
Which is why I don’t want to see people in shops being given the green light to arrest or detain kids and young people stealing their stuff.
That's where I differ from the Chief Children's Commissioner. She's opposed because of the kids' right to be protected from violence. I'm opposed because of the danger to retailers who, collectively, lose about $2.5 billion every year through retail crime.
I detest shoplifting just as much as the next person. But if we give shop owners and shop workers the power to make citizens arrests of kids and young people caught stealing their stuff any time, any place - what do you think will happen?
It would mean unfair pressure being placed on, often young, retail workers to intervene and put themselves at risk.
I know some retailers would tell their staff either not to intervene or only do so if they felt confident enough to.
But there would also be some employers who would see a law change as a licence to require their staff to intervene. And, as we’ve seen countless times, just because someone is 11, 12 or 13, it doesn’t make them any less of a risk or less or a danger.
There are kids who carry weapons. There are kids who have no regard for other people and who are quite prepared to use these weapons.
Do we really want shop staff being given the powers to take these kids on and to try and arrest them? Of course we don’t.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I didn’t do any study after I left school —no university, no polytech— so I’ve never had a student loan. I know about debt though, thanks to the mortgage.
And I reckon it would be very easy for me, as someone who has never had to pay off a student loan but who knows what it’s like to have the responsibilities of a mortgage, to dismiss what a former IRD prosecutor is saying today.
A former IRD prosecutor who says we need to go a bit easy on New Zealanders living overseas who are way behind in their student loan payments and are too scared to set foot here because they think they’ll be arrested at the border.
Dave Ananth is a tax barrister who has done work for IRD in the past. He says it’s crazy that, at a time when we want and need skilled people working here, we are so hardcore with these people that they’re just not coming back.
Because they’re too scared to come back.
And I agree with him. Which kind of surprises me because I’m normally big on people not shying away from responsibilities and all that.
But when you consider some real-life examples, I reckon it’s very easy to appreciate the argument for change.
Dave Ananth is saying it’s all very well going overseas, but that doesn’t mean people walk into well-paying jobs. The grass doesn’t always turn out to be greener.
So what he’s calling for IRD to be lenient enough so that these Kiwis aren’t scared of coming back. He says a bit of leeway would go a long way.
One approach he thinks could work is IRD talking to these people and seeing if they could apply for some grace on the basis of hardship. Or agree to letting them come back, pay a few hundred dollars for a start and see how it goes.
And I don’t see anything wrong with that. Because what would you rather have? These people stuck overseas owing all this money? Or would you rather they were here making a genuine contribution to the country?
It’s a no-brainer. As this tax lawyer says, if nothing changes, it probably means some of these people never setting foot in New Zealand because they could potentially be arrested.
Kiwis who have expertise in the likes of engineering and technology. There are medical people he says would be here if they didn’t have the threat of arrest hanging over them.
And he’s giving some real-life examples to back up his argument. Such as a New Zealander living in Australia whose loan has blown-out to $170,000, mostly because of interest.
Back in 2014, this guy completed his pilot training but couldn’t find any flying work here, so he went over to Australia and worked as a commercial pilot for six years.
Things got tricky for him when Covid hit, there was no more flying for him, and he had to take a low-paying job in a storage warehouse. Which meant he got way behind in his loan payments.
Then there’s the case of a woman living in the United States. Her debt has blown-out to $70,000 —$55,000 of that from interest— and she isn’t coming home to see her sick mother because she’s terrified she’s going to be arrested at the border.
As she says: "I've been petrified something's going to happen to my mum and she's going to pass away and I'm not even going to be able to go there."
I was talking to someone this morning who said they went overseas for just a year, and it cost them $1,000.
So there is no shortage of stories that show how this system just isn’t doing anyone any favours. It’s not doing the people with the student loans living overseas any favours and it’s not doing the rest of us any favours.
Because these people have the skills and expertise we are crying out for.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by National’s Vanessa Weenink and Labour’s Reuben Davidson to break down the biggest issues of the week.
They discussed student loan repayments – is there something that can be done to bring overseas loan holders back to New Zealand?
Global companies like Uber are paying minimal tax over here – are we being ripped off?
And ACC is planning to be more scrupulous when paying claims due to pressure from the Government to run a tighter ship. How will this play out?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When there’s an election campaign happening, how much do you care about the cost of the policies the political parties are pushing?
Or, more to the point, how willing are you to trust the politicians when they say they've done the numbers, and they all stack up?
My willingness to trust them is very low. Which is why I think we will be all the poorer for ACT and NZ First voting down the plan for a publicly-funded outfit that would have done the numbers and worked out the actual cost of election policies.
Because until now, all we’ve been able to do is take the politicians on their word. And it’s going to stay that way.
Not that the concept of a separate costing agency is an overnight thing or a new thing. The idea has been around since 2016, when Green MP Metiria Turei first raised it.
In fact, what she wanted —and what the Labour Party wanted too— was broader than what Finance Minister Nicola Willis eventually proposed to Cabinet. But which is now history thanks to the two minor coalition parties.
Nicola Willis’ version would have made the government of the day’s financial information available to political parties when they were putting their policies together.
But even that watered-down version was too much for ACT and NZ First, with David Seymour saying that it isn’t warranted, because he doesn't think it would stop messy election-year debates about how party policies might be paid for.
But it raises the question about election promises and whether us voters are still sucked in by the political promises on their own, or whether we are more discerning and whether we think it would be good to have more transparency. More scrutiny.
I want more scrutiny. Because without it, all we have to go on is gut instinct. Or the believability of politicians. All politicians of all stripes and colours I’m talking about here – all we can do is take them on their word.
Before I hold up National’s tax cuts as an example of why we need a publicly-funded agency to go through political policies with a fine-tooth comb, let me remind of you of that daft idea Labour had before the last election of taking GST off fruit and vegetables.
At first blush, it might have sounded like a good idea. But I wasn’t sold. I don’t think many of us were, because we had no idea how effective it would be.
Not just from the perspective of whether it would actually make fruit and veggies more affordable, but also what it could mean for government coffers. Grant Robertson always poo-pooed the idea but then, somehow magically, came around to the idea just before the election.
And there he was, telling us that he’d done the numbers and he’d realised that, actually, it would have all stacked up financially and we’d all have kiwifruit and broccoli coming out of our ears.
But without the proof, it was all hot air.
Same thing with National’s tax cuts. We were told it was going to mean more money in our pockets, but not a lot was said about how out-of-pocket the Government might be because of it, and what that would mean down the track.
And what happened? The tax cuts went ahead, and government revenue dropped.
That foreign buyers tax was another one. The only expert analysis we had to rely on was what all the so-called “independent experts” roped-in by all the parties had to say about the policies they were roped-in to comment on.
And all that did was create all the usual noise and confusion and we were back to voting on gut instinct because who knew what the hell to make of what was being said left, right and centre?
How different things would be if all of these brilliant vote-catching ideas were put through the wringer by an independent, publicly-funded agency.
How better informed we would all be. And how careful the politicians would be about selling us snakeoil policies that we only end up regretting falling for.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Questions over Christchurch City Council planning to spend $200 thousand on a shuttle bus study.
Environment Canterbury wants to stop the proposed resurrection of a free inner-city shuttle, saying 1800 bus movements each weekday is enough.
A 2023 law change means ECan will get the final say.
Mayor Phil Mauger admits he voted for the costly study.
But he told John MacDonald ECan didn't mention anything until it was included in the annual plan.
He says there's no use spending the money if it doesn't get the green light, so council should re-think the idea.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Having sold more than 30 million albums worldwide, legendary English rock band 10CC is celebrating their anniversary in style, their world tour bringing them to New Zealand’s shores.
They’ll be hitting up Christchurch on the 10th of July, performing at the Isaac Theatre Royal.
Co-lead singer and base player Graham Gouldman joined John MacDonald for a chat about life in the band, as well as reflecting on his growing appreciation for the songs.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Government has obviously decided that its law and order week. It started with tougher sentences for people who attack first responders and prison officers – which is a good thing.
Then it was tougher sentences for people who dish out coward punches – that can’t come soon enough.
And the latest are these tougher measures to try and do something about the rate of shoplifting. Again, something I’ve got no argument against.
But here’s where the seed of doubt starts to emerge.
When it comes to crime, pretty much the only thing governments can do is make sure there are laws in place to try and deal with it adequately.
The last government was accused of being easy-osey on crime. The previous Police Commissioner was accused of being the same.
Then, National especially, promised things would be different under its watch, which is why we’re seeing all these announcements this week.
But where the rubber hits the road is what is actually done to catch the criminals —that’s where the police come into it— and, once they are caught, what punishments are actually handed out to them. Which is where the justice system comes into it.
And those two areas are where I see the Government’s good intentions struggling.
Because you ask anyone and they’ll tell you that the cops are struggling to keep on top of things as it is.
Even with a change in Police Commissioner —with the new guy seeming to be much more up the Government’s street than the last guy— the police are still struggling to cope with their workload, aren’t they?
That's not a criticism of the police, it’s just how things are. So that’s one stumbling block.
The other one is the justice system.
How confident are you that, even when these criminals do make it to court, the judges they appear before aren't going to be unswayed by the usual talk about hard upbringings and misfortune and “poor decision-making”?
In some respects, I see that as more of a problem than the lack of police resources.
And when I say the justice system, I’m not just talking about the judges, I’m also talking about the people who represent these criminals.
Because I think there is a systemic issue within the justice system that has taken years to develop and which, I believe, will take years to change. Where the lawyers fight for minimum sentences and where the judges often, it seems, fall for it.
Which is why people are asking why the Government isn’t requiring minimum sentences for shoplifting, coward punches, and attacks on first responders and corrections staff. It’s setting higher maximum sentences, but no minimum sentences.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said on Newstalk ZB today that the Government might look at minimum sentences, but not for now. Despite the precedent that has been set with some of the ridiculously low sentences we’ve seen in our courts in recent times.
Which is why, although I’m pleased the Government is doing what it’s doing, I have serious doubts that the police and the justice system will deliver what the Government wants.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I don’t like this idea David Seymour’s pushing of privatising the Interislander ferry service and getting a private operator to run it, instead of KiwiRail.
And if I was to sum up why I’m opposed to it as succinctly as I could, it would come down to just two words and one number. State Highway 1.
Tell that to the ACT leader and Deputy Prime Minister, though.
He’s saying the Government doesn't need to own the ferries and that it would make sense for the Government to get its money out of the ferry business and use it to pay off debt or build things like roads.
He reckons that history shows that governments are the worst at running businesses, and reckons private operators would do a much better job of owning and operating the ferries.
But I think that would be too much of a gamble when you consider that Cook Strait isn’t just a stretch of water, it’s actually part of State Highway 1. And I wouldn’t be happy having two private operators being responsible for getting us across that stretch of it.
Because with private operators, they’re only in it if there’s a buck to be made.
Which I don’t have a problem with, but we already have one private operator running services on Cook Strait – would you really want to see that become two private operators?
Two private operators who would have every right to pull the pin if they decided it wasn’t worth their while continuing?
Or what if one of them went under? Would you really be happy with one private operator having a monopoly on Cook Strait?
Besides which, this talk of privatising the Interislander is just letting KiwiRail off the hook. You ask people in the street, and most will probably tell you that the Interislander service is pretty unreliable.
That may or may not be 100 percent true, but I’m certainly not going to say KiwiRail is doing a brilliant job with the ferries.
However, instead of talking about selling off the ferries and giving the job to someone else, the Government should be telling KiwiRail to pull its socks up instead. Because the service it provides between Picton and Wellington is an essential service that needs to stay in the Government’s hands.
I wouldn’t even be up for partial privatisation like Air New Zealand, for example.
Someone I was talking to was saying that they thought Air New Zealand was a great advertisement for partial privatisation.
Saying that even though quite a few people have a beef with the airline in terms of its fares and where it does and doesn’t fly to, you can’t argue that the airline is a very well-run business.
But that still isn’t enough to convince me that it would be a good idea for the Government to wash its hands of the Interislander ferry service.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Government’s plan for tougher sentences for people who don’t think twice about assaulting first responders and corrections officers is great. But I think there are some other people who should be included.
Doctors and nurses. These are the people who, it seems, can be at just as much risk of being attacked.
It’s brilliant that the Government has got the ambulance paramedics in their thinking. But the threat doesn’t necessarily go away once they’ve dropped someone off in the emergency department.
In fact, it could be argued that, at times, hospital staff are at more risk than prison officers. Because, in prisons, there are all sorts of precautions and measures in place to minimise the risk of violence. There’s none of that in hospitals, though.
Not that I see the new law being a solution to this problem we have, where some muppets think it’s ok to assault and injure the people who come to our rescue 24/7.
The ambulance guy I heard on Newstalk ZB this morning sounded like he’s in the “give it a go and see if it works camp”. Which I guess he’s more than willing to do given he said that his paramedics are assaulted pretty much every day. He said, at least, a couple of times a day. Prison officers - there were 900 assaults on them last year.
But guess what the numbers are for health workers? Numbers aren’t available for last year but, according to Health NZ data, there were about 14,000 assaults on staff by patients, family members and visitors between January 2023 and December 2024.
The number of assaults increased by 30 percent between the first half of 2023 and the second half of 2024.
Fifteen out of 19 health districts saw increases in assaults on staff over the period.
No assault on anybody is acceptable. Especially first responders. But, if we’re going to judge the situation on numbers, then you could say that the nurses and doctors in our hospitals are at much greater risk of being assaulted than fire, ambulance, police and corrections officers.
And emergency department staff, especially, should be protected by this new law. They’re not. But they should.
Then we get to the broader question as to how or why we’ve got to the point where a law like this is even needed.
How has New Zealand become a place where some of us have a complete disregard for people who are just here to help? That’s the wider question.
And I reckon there are two possibilities. One, the ambulance guy on the radio mentioned. The other is something much bigger.
First - alcohol and drugs. They are undoubtedly part of the problem. Because if you’re off your nut on alcohol and/or methamphetamine, you’re probably much more likely to have a go at a first responder, aren’t you?
More likely than if you weren’t. And, while I think it's great the Government intends to crack down on first responder assaults, I don’t think it’s going to make a big difference.
The other reason I think we’re seeing more and more of this violence towards first responders and hospital staff, is something much deeper.
And it’s something that I think we are all guilty of - to varying degrees.
Respect. Or lack of it. Society, in general, has way less respect for authority than it used to. And we are all more inclined to challenge authority these days than we used to be.
So, maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that there are some people who take that next-level and are prepared to fight against the authority of ambulance paramedics, firefighters, police officers, corrections officers, doctors and nurses.
Sadly, I think that horse has well and truly bolted and I don’t see us ever getting back to a time when the idea of assaulting or injuring first responders never entered anyone’s head.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by National’s Vanessa Weenink and Labour’s Megan Woods to delve into the biggest stories of the week.
Parliament's pressed pause to remember Te Pāti Māori MP Takutai Tarsh Kemp after she died yesterday as a result of kidney disease – what will happen going forward?
Doctors are unhappy with the Government’s new virtual GP service, are they right to be?
And what are their thoughts on taxpayer money potentially going to Moana Pasifika, with Whanau Ora’s funding of the association that owns them?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How do you feel about the prospect of paying higher income tax rates and more GST?
I think it’s inevitable. So does the Inland Revenue Department. Because of our ageing population.
Especially if people think we can have a whole lot more of us 65 and over —which is going to happen— and still provide the same level of assistance and support that is provided now.
So IRD is making its case for more tax in what’s called its “Long-term Insights Briefing”, which puts ideas on the table for governments to consider and to help the country plan for the future.
It’s saying cutting costs is one way, but it would be much better to generate more government revenue. To collect more tax. Which I agree with.
It’s saying today that the future is uncertain, and we need a tax system that can be changed relatively easily, which is why it's focusing on income tax and GST. Because those taxes already exist.
Income tax makes up 52% of the tax take and GST accounts for 25%. So there’s nearly 80% of the total tax take covered just through PAYE and GST.
Company tax, by the way, accounts for just 17% of the tax take.
Here are a few more numbers which IRD is using to justify more tax money coming in to cope with the ageing population.
At the moment, 16% of us are 65-and-over. But we’re on our way to, eventually, having a quarter of our population 65 and older and somehow, we have to pay for that.
Because as the Infrastructure Commission pointed out this week, we’re going to need less schools and more hospitals. But as we know, hospitals are a lot more expensive than schools and we’re going to have to find the money somehow.
IRD isn't giving any specific numbers. So it isn’t saying what it thinks GST could or should be increased to. Likewise, it's not saying anything about what income tax rates could be increased to. It’s just saying that we need to get used to the idea of paying more.
Which is another demonstration, isn’t it, of how the Government made a mistake reducing the amount of tax revenue it gets.
Because I know it talked about us paying less tax and reducing costs at the same time. But running a country costs money, you can only cut costs to a certain point.
And when you throw an ageing population into the mix —and the costs that come with that— we all have no option but to chip in a bit more money to pay for it all.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Infrastructure Commission's draft 30-year plan is the kind of big picture thinking we’ve been saying is needed, instead of the ad-hoc, politically driven approach we have at the moment.
Essentially, the Commission says we’re going to need less schools and more hospitals because of the ageing population.
It also says we’re going to need more roads and better roads, and we’re going to have to do some serious thinking about how we pay for them.
Its draft plan doesn’t go into too much detail, other than we’re going to have to have more user-pays.
Already, we’ve got one commentator floating an idea that I don’t necessarily like, but which I think is inevitable. Because, as the Infrastructure Commission is hinting at, the current way we fund roading in New Zealand has “yesterday” written all over it.
Once upon a time, it was probably feasible or sustainable for the government and councils to pay for it all. Or us to pay for it all through our taxes and our rates and not have to pay anything else on top of that.
But those days are gone. Which is why I think Matthew Birchall from the New Zealand Initiative think-tank is onto something.
He reckons that we should do away with the current road-user charging model —which has people driving the likes of diesel vehicles paying road user charges— and replace it with distance-based charging for all vehicles, on all roads. So the more you drive, the more you pay.
He says with vehicles becoming more fuel-efficient and electric cars growing in popularity, the current model isn’t fit for purpose. In the next decade alone, NZTA reckons it will be short of about $4 billion to $5 billion. That’s the next decade, let alone the next 30 years.
He says we need a fairer system that directly links road user charges to those of us who use the roads and how much we use them.
And, aside from being a very practical way of getting the money needed for roads, I reckon it would also work in favour of people who think we should all be on public transport.
Because, chances are, it might be cheaper in some instances to take the bus.
Matthew Birchall calls his idea “smart road user charging” – or smart RUCs. He says: “Under this system, fuel excise duty would be gradually phased out and replaced with distance-based charging for all vehicles."
He says road users would choose between an automated “pay-as-you-drive” system or a pre-purchased RUC licence, similar to the existing diesel RUC system. And he says charges would vary based on factors like vehicle type, weight, and time of travel, ensuring that costs are allocated efficiently and equitably.
I’m not sure about the equitably bit because I imagine people living in our bigger cities who might not be big income earners might live further out of town and, therefore, might be stung more than wealthier people living closer to the city.
But, broadly, I think it’s a great idea. In fact, I think it’s a no-brainer. I don't love it. But I think it is inevitable.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Opposition Leader has laid out his view of what's needed for peace in the Middle East.
A wavering ceasefire remains between Israel and Iran after scolding from the US President, although both claim breaches by the other.
Donald Trump claims his country's strikes this week destroyed Iran's nuclear programme, but early US intelligence indicates it's only set it back by months.
Chris Hipkins told John MacDonald diplomacy is needed from everyone.
He says bombing isn't the answer to ending a nuclear arms race, and anyone believing that should think again.
When it comes to the rising number of children bringing weapons to school, Hipkins says the issue didn’t come up when Labour was in Government.
Figures show 526 students were stood down, suspended, or excluded for using or having a weapon at school last year – up 80% on 2018.
Hipkins told MacDonald his party gave schools the power to search kids' bags, but it's not a realistic way to deal with this problem.
He says it's time to get the Ministry of Education, Police, and schools to think of proactive solutions.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If we choose to ignore or downplay this new information out today about kids taking weapons to school, we’ll be doing it at our peril.
Because what do you hear people say time and time again when something terrible happens? These are people in the news who might be commenting about a stabbing or a shooting, or something like that. What is it we hear them say time and time again?
“We never thought this sort of thing would happen here.”
We hear people in the United States saying it whenever there’s something like a school shooting. And you would think people over there wouldn’t be surprised, given it happens so often.
And we heard it here after the mosque shootings – which had a lot more credence because it’s true, we never imagined something like that happening here.
But this is why I’m sitting up and paying attention to these stats that have been released to under the Official Information Act.
Because we are kidding ourselves if we think that an increase in the number of kids being caught with weapons at school is anything other than the proverbial canary in the mine.
Last year, 526 students were stood down, suspended, or excluded for using or having a weapon at school. About 80% up on the numbers in 2018.
And I bet there’ll be no shortage of people of a certain age saying today that they used to carry a pocketknife around with them when they were young and it wasn't a problem.
But there’s a key difference between then and now, which is why I think we ignore these numbers at our peril.
And it’s got nothing to do with the weapons themselves. It’s all about the way society has changed and the attitudes and thinking of the kids carrying these weapons and the lives some of them lead.
Schools are like a slice of society. They’re not little bubbles that are totally isolated from the rest of their communities. Even if there hadn’t been any increase in the number of kids being caught with weapons – any amount of weapons getting past the school gate is way more concerning now than it might have been in the past because of that shift in attitude.
When you were a kid, if you snuck something into school that you shouldn’t have —a pocket knife or whatever— I bet it never crossed your mind that it might be useful if someone started giving you a hard time or something. These days, some people do think like that.
Example: in May last year, we had that young guy fatally stabbed by another school kid at the bus stop in Dunedin. The guy with the knife was charged with murder but was, eventually, found guilty of manslaughter.
Granted, it didn't happen at school, but it just as easily could.
These days, people not only have weapons, they’re also not afraid of using them.
That’s the big difference here. And that’s why we need to pay attention to these numbers out today. Because here in New Zealand we are brilliant at sticking our heads in the sand, thinking bad stuff won’t happen.
And we need to wake up and start doing more than just assume that schools have got this under control.
I see principals are saying today that they could do with a bit more support, in terms of the Ministry of Education putting more money into providing guidance for schools on how to deal with the issue of kids and weapons.
But that’s not enough.
We will never be able to wind the clock back and change this attitude shift that has been happening in recent years, where we have people carrying weapons who aren't afraid to use them.
Which means that we will never be able to stop some school kids from thinking that it’s perfectly fine to leave home in the morning with some sort of weapon in their bag or their pocket.
But we can do something about it once they arrive at school. And if that means random bag or pocket searches, then so be it.
Because, if we don’t, all the people with their heads in the sand will be rabbiting on about things happening here that they never imagined happening here.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger is in campaign mode for this year’s elections, saying that he thinks the Government might be onto a winner with its idea of forcing councils to put a cap on rates increases.
I’m wondering if Phil does actually think it’s a good idea, or whether he’s just saying it.
Because I think it would create havoc for local councils having Wellington telling them how much they could increase rates each year.
And this isn’t me banging the local democracy drum. This is me taking a commonsense view of things. Something you can’t always credit politicians for – whether they’re in central or local government.
This idea that Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has been talking about in the last 24 hours doesn’t fall into the commonsense category.
Because yes, every time I see my rates bills I think, “that’s a truckload of money”. And like you probably do as well, I wonder where it all goes.
But that's what we elect local councils for. We elect them to run the outfit and make the decisions and decide how much they need to charge us ratepayers to pay for it all.
And we have to like it or like it. Pretty hard to lump it.
Which is why it’s very tempting for politicians to bang on about keeping rates down and focusing on the basics. But here’s where all that talk falls over and here’s why it’s nonsense for the Government to think it can tell councils how much more to charge ratepayers each year. And here’s why Phil Mauger is wrong to say that it’s a good idea.
First of all: we’re part of the problem. Because even though we don't want to pay more rates, we want more from our local council.
We want libraries staying open later. We want footpaths fixed as soon as we see them start to crack. We want roads fixed, but we don’t want road cones. We want the council to lend us money for community projects but then, when the rubber hits the road, we cry poor and say we can’t afford to pay the interest.
We want, want, want. And that means one of two things: either the council saying no or the politicians saying yes, because they think it’ll get them re-elected.
The other major issue is the whole funding structure for local government.
Which is why I think the Government is taking a very narrow approach here. How on earth the Government thinks it could put a cap on annual rates increases without looking at the wider issue, I don't know.
And that wider issue is the fact that local councils are being asked to do more and more under their own steam, without any extra funding to make it happen.
Example: the Government wants more tourists coming here, but what about the infrastructure needed to support that growth? The Government doesn’t pay for that. Local councils do.
And the way things are structured at the moment, pretty much the only way they get the money they need to do all the things the Government and us ratepayers want them to do, is to charge rates.
And the more we and the government want the councils to do, the more rates we have to pay.
That’s why this talk from the Government about councils needing to manage their finances better is such nonsense. And Phil Mauger needs to see that too.
He thinks a rates cap could be a way of forcing the city council to look at the way it spends money, saying: “I’m open to it. I’m not saying it’s the best thing since sliced bread but I’m certainly open to looking at it. I want rates to be as low as they can.”
Phil, the only way that’s going to happen isn’t the Government putting a lid on rates increases. The only way that's going to happen is councils stopping themselves kicking cans down the road and not spending money.
We see it time and time again. Councils go for the stuff people can see and ignore the stuff people can’t see. Unsexy stuff like water pipes and sewerage pipes.
They ignore them so well that, one day, it all goes pear-shaped and suddenly they're facing a gazillion-dollar upgrade. And how do they pay for that? What's the only way they can pay for that?
Increased rates.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The US air strikes on Iran yesterday are a disaster. A disaster that New Zealand needs to stay well clear of.
Before yesterday, the prospect of it happening was a disaster-in-the making. And, now that it’s happened, it’s an absolute disaster.
Not because of what might happen today, tomorrow or the next day. But, what will happen when the world least expects it.
Not just in terms of what Iran itself will do. I’m talking about the inevitable terrorism activity because of what happened yesterday.
Because, if there’s something US President Donald Trump seems to have forgotten in all of this - before he ordered those bombers to fly to Iran and back - is that history often, if not always, teaches us something about the future.
When I heard about the attacks yesterday, the first thing I thought about was 9/11. When the world was changed forever after the Al Qaeda terror attacks.
Why do you think they happened? What was the lesson that you think might have been learned from that? That Trump might have learned?
The lesson 9/11 taught us was that the US and the Middle East don’t mix.
The September 11 attacks happened because of the United States’ history of supporting Israel. That was the nub of it. And it might be why the US has been shy of launching attacks on Iran in recent years. Until yesterday, anyway.
And what better display of the US supporting Israel can you get, than yesterday’s airstrikes?
Which is why I see some very grave consequences coming. As I say, it won’t be today. It won’t be tomorrow. And I hope I’m wrong. But do you really see these peaceful negotiations happening after yesterday?
Seven bombers flying 37 hours from Missouri to Iran and back. Bombing three sites - involving not just the stealth bombers, but other fighter jets and a US submarine, as well.
Seventy-five bombs dropped - including 14 “bunker busters”. Which, by the way, was the first time ever that these bunker busters have been used.
And then we had Trump and his military bosses crowing about “severe damage and destruction”. But then turning around and saying they don’t want war with Iran.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying that the US “is not looking for war in Iran” and that the “world is safer and more stable than it was 24 hours ago”.
That’s not how I’m seeing it, at all.
And Donald Trump saying after the bombings, “now is the time for peace”. Really?
Quite rightly, UN head António Guterres is saying “there is no military solution.”
He’s saying that the airstrikes are a dangerous escalation which “could rapidly get out of control - with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world.”
Which is exactly how I’m feeling about it.
And I hope that the most-involved New Zealand gets in all of this is sending the air force plane to help kiwis who want to get out of Iran and Israel. There are about 80 New Zealanders in Iran and about 100 in Israel.
And that needs to be it. Because this conflict is not something we need to be involved in.
I’m pleased to see the Foreign Affairs Minister keeping his cool and not banging the drum about New Zealand doing its bit. Defence Minister Judith Collins is the same.
In fact, Winston Peters says it’s the most serious issue he’s had to respond to during his whole time in politics. Likening the way the world is waiting to see what happens next, to the Cuban missile crisis in the early 1960s. When it looked like the US and the Soviet Union could go to war with each other after Soviet missile sites were discovered in Cuba.
So let’s get the Kiwis home who want to come home, and leave it at that.
Because, if we sign-up to anything involving Donald Trump, we’ll have absolutely no idea what we’re getting ourselves into.
Because, it seems, that the only country that had any sort of heads up before yesterday’s attacks was Israel. And I don’t want New Zealand having a bar of it.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Government’s been making it increasingly clear over time that it doesn’t really give two-hoots about local democracy.
But, in the last 24 hours, it’s gone next level.
First up, we’ve got housing minister Chris Bishop, who announced yesterday that he’s going to be given special powers to ride roughshod over council plans if he doesn’t like them.
Essentially, if he thinks a council has a district plan that doesn’t support economic growth and development, or won't do anything to create jobs, then he can come in over the top and say “nah nah nah, you’re not doing that.”
In fact, from what I’ve been reading, it seems any government minister is going to be able to modify or remove aspects of council plans that they don’t agree with.
Talk about big brother.
But that’s not all.
Chris Bishop also got himself involved in a spat with the Christchurch City Council, saying that the council’s failed attempt to push back on the Government’s housing intensification rules was “nuts”.
He’s saying: “It is an inarguable, and sometimes uncomfortable, fact that local government has been one of the largest barriers to housing growth in New Zealand."
Going on to say: “Christchurch City Council just outright defied its legal obligations.”Signing off with the accusation that the council was “nuts” if it thought it could get away with not doing what the Government wanted it to do.
Now, even though I didn't have a problem with Chris Bishop declining the council’s request for Christchurch to be treated as a special case and not have to go along with the Government’s housing intensification policy, I think he needs to rein it in a bit.
But this attack on local democracy doesn’t stop with Chris Bishop.
Shane Jones is at it, as well. Saying in a speech to local government leaders that regional councils have had their day and he wants to get rid of them.
“What is the point of regional government?” That's what he said when he stood up at the lectern in Wellington last night.
He seems to think that, with all the changes the Government is making to the Resource Management Act, we won't need regional councils anymore.
Saying: “There is less and less of a justifiable purpose for maintaining regional government.”
Which I do kind of get. Because I know a few people in local government and I have asked them recently where they see the likes of Environment Canterbury going if the Government is going to give the resource management act the heave-ho.
Because that’s what regional councils were set up to do in the first place. To implement the Resource Management Act. There have been a few add ons since then - like running bus services.
And I’ve long been a fan of local government amalgamation. But for a government minister like Shane Jones to stand up and give a speech to local government people and tell them that he wants to ditrch regional councils - that is arrogant.
Just like this plan to let ministers interfere in council plans if they don't like what they see. That’s arrogant too.
But it’s more than just arrogance. It’s an attack on local democracy.
Which, apparently, is something the government values.
When it suits, it would seem. Because, when he was announcing these new powers - which are going to be in force until all the changes to the Resource Management Act have gone through - he admitted it was a significant step.
"But the RMA’s devolution of ultimate power to local authorities just has not worked.”
Which is code for saying: "Even though we say we’re all into local decision-making, we’re only into it when it suits Wellington".
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch’s Mayor is back with John MacDonald to discuss the biggest stories from the week that was.
The Government is giving the Housing Minister the power to overrule local councils, and Phil Mauger has some strong opinions on the topic.
Housing intensification is still on the docket, but he’s made it clear they’ll be pushing back against it all the way.
And why are there so many leafblowers out and about? Is that a good use of taxpayer money?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How weird is it that there are different rules or expectations regarding life jackets, depending on where you are in the country?
I’m not the only one who thinks it’s weird. A coroner who has looked into the drownings of a 10-year-old boy and his mother thinks it’s weird too, and is calling for change.
And instead of local councils being responsible for setting lifejacket rules, she wants there to be a single rule for the whole country making life jackets mandatory on all small boats. Everywhere.
And I totally agree. I know there’ll be no shortage of people thinking that it’s pointless making life jackets mandatory because, even where you have local councils now saying they have to be worn, there are still people who don’t.
But this is why a single, blanket rule for the whole country is needed.
This follows the deaths of 10-year-old Ryder Ferregel and his mum Gemma Ferregel, in November 2022. They were on Auckland’s Manukau Harbour and they were out on a 4.8 metre boat doing some scalloping.
There were three other people on board the boat and what happened is it was hit by two waves in pretty close succession, and because of that, it capsized.
At the time, no one on board was wearing a lifejacket. What makes this more tragic —aside from the fact that a woman and her son lost their lives— is that before the boat capsized, Ryder had been wearing a lifejacket but his mum said he could take it off because it didn't fit him properly and was riding up on him.
So, by the time the boat capsized, there was no one wearing a life jacket.
And coroner Erin Woolley is saying today that if they had been, Ryder and Gemma would have had a much greater chance of survival.
And that’s why she wants to see life jackets to be made mandatory on small boats, everywhere. She thinks we need a single rule for the whole country – not just rules set in different areas by different local authorities.
It would also be clear to people who aren’t boaties what the rule was, giving them licence to call people out for not wearing life jackets.
For example: you’re at the boat ramp and you see some muppets about to head out with no life jackets – even people in the car park there just watching the boats, they would know what the rule was and they’d be much more likely to say something, wouldn't they?
What’s more, if there was a single rule for the whole country, it wouldn't be left to local authorities to have local rules that only they can enforce.
If there was a single life jacket rule for the whole country, the Coastguard —for example— could fine people for not wearing a jacket.
It's crazy, isn't it, that they can come up to you when you're out fishing and fine you if the fish in your bucket are undersized, but they can’t fine you for not taking the appropriate safety precautions.
That’s because lifejacket rules are set by local by-laws and it’s the job of the councils to enforce them. Which coroner Erin Woolley wants to see changed. And so do I.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It was bad enough that a patient at Hillmorton Hospital who had threatened to kill was still allowed to come and go and ended up killing an innocent woman at her Christchurch home.
The fact this person had killed someone else previously, before taking the life of Faye Phillips last year, makes the circumstances behind the tragedy worse.
On both occasions he was a mental health patient, which is why Ruth Money —who is the Government’s Chief Victims Advisor— is saying that we must have a Royal Commission of Inquiry into our mental health hospital system.
And I’m with her. I think it has to happen.
Last week we were astounded to learn that Elliot Cameron had been allowed to leave Hillmorton as he pleased, because he was a voluntary patient.
Apparently, it had been decided at some point that he didn’t have to stay, but because he didn’t want to leave, he wasn’t forced out and he’d made all sorts of comments about killing people if he was forced out.
And from the reports I’ve read, it seems staff had been helping him clean up his room, which may have led him to believe that he was about to be moved on.
But who knows. Whether that was his motivation for murdering Faye Phelps, we’ll probably never know.
Either way, last week he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 10 years. And today, we’re finding out that it wasn’t the first time he had killed someone.
In 1975, he killed his brother. Shooting him while he slept at his parents' house.
And when he committed that killing, he was a mental health patient. Just like he was a mental health patient when he murdered Faye Phelps.
We haven’t known this until suppression orders relating to the 1975 case were lifted last night, which means we now have more context for this terrible, terrible situation.
Last week, I couldn’t understand how anyone at Hillmorton could think that someone who had threatened to kill was fine to walk out the gate, get a bus to Mt Pleasant and do some gardening work for an innocent elderly woman.
There is just no way that should have been allowed to happen.
But the fact that he had already shown himself capable of killing someone makes that decision to let him come and go even worse.
And if I was a member of Faye Phelps family —or if I was a friend of Faye Phelps— I would be absolutely livid, given these new revelations.
What’s unclear to me, from the reports I’ve read, is how aware Hillmorton was that Elliot Cameron had killed his brother 50 years ago.
I think it’s probably safe to assume that the hospital had some knowledge of it, given he’s been a mental health patient for 57 years. And that he was found not guilty of murdering his brother back in 1975 because he was deemed to be insane at the time.
So it beggars belief.
As Faye’s daughter Karen said last week: “Public safety must come first and should always have come first. Sadly, it wasn’t prioritised, and the result is what happened to my mum.”
And that’s where the Government’s Chief Victims Advisor Ruth Money is coming from too. She’s saying: “Another patient who has warned of his intent and distress numerous times and yet he too has gone on to kill for a second time.
"The public deserves an inquiry that can give actionable expert recommendations, as opposed to multiple coroners inquests and recommendations that do not have the same binding influence. The patients themselves, and the public will be best served by an independent inquiry, not another internal review that changes nothing."
And I couldn’t agree more because this is not the first time public safety has been compromised.
Three years ago, there was the case of the Christchurch woman walking home after getting the bus from work and being stabbed to death just a short distance from her home by a mental health patient at Hillmorton.
No updates on where the internal investigation into that is going. I understand it’s “ongoing”, but that’s exactly why Ruth Money wants a top-level inquiry. She wants more than internal inquiries and toothless coroner’s inquiries.
She thinks a Royal Commission of Inquiry into our mental health hospitals is way overdue. I think so too.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’ve surprised myself a little bit with my reaction to the news the police are looking at introducing body cameras.
Generally, I’m all for it. But the civil liberties people have raised some very good points about them being misused.
One example they’re giving is the potential for the cameras to be combined with facial recognition technology. Which I'm torn on, after finding out about facial recognition being used at the Richmond Club, in Christchurch, to keep an eye on people using the pokie machines.
They're are asking how we're going to know - once police start wearing body cameras - when an officer is filming and when they’re not.
Is there a chance, for example, that you or I might be walking down the street and get filmed by the cops walking towards us?
Which is why the head of New Zealand’s civil liberties council is saying that there needs to be robust policies in place before any officer starts going around the place wearing one of these things.
The bit Thomas Beagle is concerned about most, is the lines between body cameras and facial recognition getting blurred.
He’s saying: “Suddenly, it turns footage into data of who was where, what their names are, and what they were doing. In a way, that’s really quite worrying and can be put together to build up the surveillance society.”
So he wants clear, robust policies in place. Policies which make it clear, for example, who will be able to access any footage captured on the body cameras.
He says if we’re going to bring-in body cameras, we may need to look at the idea of having someone independent deciding when footage is released and who it’s released to.
He reckons that could be a job for the Independent Police Conduct Authority, making the very good point that the cameras not only need to serve the police well - but they also need to serve the public well.
And that’s the bit that has probably surprised me a bit. That I’m not as holus-bolus enthusiastic about police body cameras as maybe I expected myself to be.
The civil liberties people are spot on - referring to cases overseas where police have refused to release body camera footage when officers have been accused of things like misconduct.
I’ve also been reading a BBC report which talks about other ways these things have been misused. Or abused.
It reports more than 150 examples of camera misuse by police in England and Wales.
For example, officers turning the cameras off when they’ve been dealing forcefully with someone. Giving someone the old heave-ho. You know: “I’ll just turn this thing off for a minute while we give this turkey what he deserves.”
The BBC has also discovered cases where police have deleted footage and even shared footage with other officers on WhatsApp.
But, before you think I’ve gone totally civil liberties on it - I’m all for the police wearing body cameras.
For many reasons. For starters - it’s crazy that security officers and parking wardens can wear them, but police can’t.
And, even though there are a truckload of examples of these cameras being misused, you could say the same about any bad police behaviour.
There are dodgy cops everywhere - but that doesn’t mean we get rid of the police.
And, as police commissioner Richard Chambers is saying today, New Zealand is one of the few countries not using them.
He says body cameras are great for gathering evidence and they’re great for keeping staff safe.
So he’s going to have people working on options over the next 12 months and, hopefully, by that time - they’ll be ready to press go.
I see Chris Cahill from the police association is a bit worried about the cost.
He’s saying that some countries are getting rid of them because of how much it costs to store the footage.
And, not surprisingly, he doesn’t want to see the spending on body cameras meaning there’s less money to be spent on frontline officers and police vehicles.
He says: “It isn’t the game changer that we thought it might be, but it has certainly got significant benefits and many officers in Australia don’t want to deploy without it.”
But all up, when I consider what Chris Cahill is saying about the cameras not being the silver bullet and the many cases overseas of these things being misused, I still think is a great move by the police commissioner.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Donald Trump won’t be too happy with Helen Clark right now, because she’s saying she doesn't want New Zealand to be an ally of the United States ever again.
I’m with her on that one – while Trump is president, anyway.
I’m also with Defence Minister Judith Collins who isn’t saying anything about Trump doing a review of the AUKUS military alliance with Australia and the UK, to make sure that it’s a fair deal for America.
I think Judith Collins going all quiet about this cloud over AUKUS is the approach we should be taking more broadly, as well. And New Zealand should be more like Switzerland and keep pretty much every country at arm's length.
As Helen Clark is saying, if you’re an ally, you can get dragged into all sorts of things you shouldn’t. Whereas, if you’re a “friend”, you can keep your head down, treat every country pretty much equally, and stay out of international dramas you don’t need to be involved with.
I heard former defence minister Wayne Mapp saying that the fact Trump has said this AUKUS review will be done and dusted in 30 days, shows that it’s unlikely that the U.S. is about to pull out.
Tell that to Dr Emma Shortis —who is a senior researcher in international affairs at the Australia Institute— who is pointing out that the submarine part of the AUKUS deal includes a “get-out clause” for the United States.
She reckons Trump is about to use that clause – not that she’s too upset about it. She’s saying today that AUKUS is "a disaster" for Australia and only ties Aussie ever closer to “an increasingly volatile and aggressive america”.
And, with respect to Wayne Mapp, I’m going to listen to this expert from Australia.
Understandably it’s caused a fuss in Australia, because they’re due to get a few nuclear subs from America as part of all this. Three second-hand submarines for $368 billion.
On this side of the Tasman though, the Government is keeping shtum, with Defence Minister Judith Collins not wanting to get dragged into it. Which makes sense, because —at the moment— we’ve got nothing to do with AUKUS.
The Government’s been making noises recently about doing a bit of tyre-kicking and seeing whether we might get involved at a lower level. “Pillar 2” is what they call it.
But there’s nothing coming from the Government about Donald Trump running his eye over AUKUS to check that America's getting the best deal. Former Prime Minister Helen Clark isn’t holding back though.
She says: "I would not want to see us back in the position where New Zealand is expected to spend a whole lot more money on defence; expected to follow the US into whatever its strategic venture is. I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam War and New Zealand going into that for not a good reason at all and walking out the other end with Kiwis dying on the battlefield for no good reason. I don't want to see us ever in that position again."
I’m with her on that one.
Australia’s possibly feeling that way too, given that it signed up to the AUKUS agreement when Joe Biden was president. And, aside from wanting to get the submarines, and aside from the fact that it’s already ploughed $800 million into AUKUS, it might still be having a bit of buyer’s remorse given Trump’s unpredictability.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Matt Doocey and Duncan Webb joined John MacDonald in studio for Politics Friday. They discussed Helen Clark’s recent comments around New Zealand’s relationship with the United States – do they agree?
On the topic of privacy versus safety, when it comes to mental illness, is keeping people safe a higher priority than keeping someone’s health private?
And Tourism New Zealand’s new 100% Pure marketing campaign has been launched, and Duncan Webb is not a fan.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m all for the push to have wool carpet used in government buildings but I think it’s a mistake putting it in state homes.
Kāinga Ora has announced that, from next month, there will be woollen carpets in all new state homes. It’s also going to use wool if the carpet in existing homes needs replacing.
Economic Growth Minister Nicola Willis says Kāinga Ora has managed to get a deal that will mean the wool carpet won’t cost any more than nylon carpet.
Which is interesting because, in December last year, KO said it had done some cost analysis work which showed that it could save roughly 34% using nylon carpet. So the wool carpet people have obviously sharpened their pencils.
Nevertheless, is it practical? And my answer to that is no it’s not. And will it end up costing us in the long-term? Yes it will, and I’ll tell you why.
But first, here’s why I generally like the government’s move to use wool carpet, but why I don't think it's a good idea in Kāinga Ora properties.
It makes perfect sense for the Government to be doing what it can to support our farmers who grow wool, who’ve been pushing it uphill recently. Wool has almost become a burden for farmers because of the returns they’ve been getting.
So good on the Government for going down the wool route, because it has to buy carpet, so why not buy the carpet that does the farmers a favour, while it's at it? Especially, when you consider the amount of money the Government must spend on carpet.
I don’t have a dollar figure for you, but I was reading a briefing that was written for the incoming government after the last election, which said that the Government has approximately 1 million square metres of office accommodation around the country, costing approximately $330 million a year.
That’s a lot of potential floorspace for carpet and that’s a lot of potential floorspace to get our farmers' wool all over.
But here’s why I don't think it’s a good idea having wool carpet in state homes.
Government buildings —such as government department offices and schools— generally have cleaners going through pretty much every day. And so if the DOC office or the local primary school has wool carpet, they get cleaned pretty regularly, don’t they?
A Kāinga Ora property is different. The only time cleaners get sent into a state house is when someone leaves or is booted out.
And this isn’t me tarring every state housing tenant with the same brush, because most tenants are probably very good. But we’d be naive to think that every tenant vacuums the carpets every day. We’d be naive to think that every state house tenant is a cleaning freak and will do everything they can to keep stains out of the carpet.
I remember when we put wool carpet in —it was when the kids were still quite young— and we did everything we could to stop it getting marks and stains on it, but it still got stains and marks on it.
And I’ve seen nylon carpets in action, and you can’t deny that they are brilliant for keeping clean. I’ve seen red wine spilled on nylon carpet and you can pretty much just wipe it away.
That’s the kind of carpet that Kāinga Ora should be using.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m not exactly sure where to start with this, because it is just so tragic and there is so much to it.
I could start by ripping into the people who run Hillmorton Hospital, in Christchurch, for not doing more to try to prevent one of their patients murdering a woman at her home in Mt Pleasant – because I want to rip into them.
I could start with the thought that ran through my head when more details emerged at Elliot Cameron’s sentencing yesterday for the murder of 83-year-old Faye Phelps, but I’ll come back to that.
Where I’m going to start is with what the cousin of Elliot Cameron said after the sentencing. Because it doesn’t just relate to this tragic case, it relates to other tragic cases we’ve seen too.
And it’s all to do with how out-of-kilter things have got when it comes to protecting people’s privacy versus protecting people from danger.
Alan Cameron is the cousin of the killer, and he is saying that people like Faye, and anyone else this guy did garden work for or had dealings with, should have known that he was a mental health patient living at Hillmorton Hospital. Especially given his threats to kill someone if he was forced him to leave the hospital.
They should have known that he’d been in mental health care for most of his life.
Alan Cameron says: “Just shoving people out into the community isn't good enough, without ensuring that there are supports. I feel if more could have been done it might well have made a difference.
"To protect his privacy they won't involve the family, but he wanted my involvement."
He says people should have been informed that his cousin was living at Hillmorton because they could’ve then decided whether they wanted anything to do with him.
He says: "It would have put others on alert to observe him and to keep a note.”
And I couldn’t agree more.
Because Faye Phelps had no idea. She was completely in the dark, all in the name of protecting this man’s privacy.
Just like the probation people couldn’t knock on the doors of people living near that guy who was released from prison and ended up murdering the Colombian woman living next door to him.
She was in the dark too, because it would have breached that guy’s privacy, as well.
So when are we going to wake up to the fact that this obsession with privacy is killing people?
Because there is no way that Elliot Cameron should have been allowed to come and go from Hillmorton and do gardening work for people without those people whose homes he was going to having any idea about him.
You could say that anyone can ask questions but when you hire someone to do gardening, you ask them about things like their availability, price etc.
Faye Phelps was never going to ask him if he was mentally unwell, was she? She should have been told. Because, if she had, she might still be alive.
But we will never know that. Or more importantly, her family and friends will never know that. Either way, Faye Phelps and the people who loved her were let down big time.
As Faye’s daughter Karen says: “Our family never thought in a million years something like this would happen. The reality is it could be any member of the public next.”
Which brings me to what went through my head when I saw the reports on the sentencing yesterday. Straight away I wondered how many other patients are walking out the gates at Hillmorton, jumping on buses, and none of us have any idea.
Faye’s daughter Karen is thinking the same, saying: “Public safety must come first and should always have come first. Sadly, it wasn’t prioritised, and the result is what happened to my mum.”
As for Hillmorton Hospital – you would think, wouldn’t you, that the people running the place would have learned a thing or two from that tragic case three years ago when one of their patients stabbed a woman to death in broad daylight.
Maybe they have, but it doesn’t look like it. And they need to learn pretty quick that protecting people’s safety has to come first – even if it means breaching someone’s privacy.
I think it’s outrageous that Hillmorton Hospital thought it was fine for a guy who repeatedly threatened to kill to come and go as he wanted, and not tell innocent people that their gardener living in mental health care and has been for most of his life.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour's leader says Te Pati Māori should focus on the issues most New Zealanders care about.
Parliament last week voted to hand down the harshest suspensions in history to three MPs over a haka performed during the Treaty Principles Bill vote.
Labour's Willie Jackson and Adrian Rurawhe argued the punishments were too harsh, but also suggested the Party could compromise or say sorry.
Chris Hipkins told John MacDonald housing, health, and education are the main things Māori around the country raise with him.
He says that Te Pati Māori made their point around the haka, but he thinks people want to see them get back to debating the big issues now.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How would you feel if the Government came out and said solar energy is the future and it was going to throw everything at it?
Because that’s something I think it needs to seriously consider doing.
For me, there would only be one fly in the ointment – I’ll get to that. But it’s not enough for me to say that the Government shouldn’t be ploughing money into solar energy.
Lodestone Energy is in the news today talking about its latest solar farm, which will cover 42-hectares in the Clandeboye area in South Canterbury. There’s also the big solar farm being built near Christchurch Airport, among others in the South Island. Which is brilliant.
But I think our reliance on private operators to get these things up and running is very risky. Which is why I think the Government should be getting some skin in the game, as well.
Now before you start thinking, “what about SolarZero?”, that’s different to what I’m talking about. That wasn’t about solar farms, that was a joint venture between the Government and a private outfit which supplied solar panel kits to homeowners.
But it does show the risk of relying on private outfits because SolarZero went into liquidation and that was it.
I’m not saying that Lodestone Energy, which is behind the solar farm at Clandeboye, is a risky bet. I only want the best for them.
But as anyone in business will tell you, nothing is guaranteed. That’s why we don’t have a solely private health system. Why we don’t have a solely private education system.
If anything, state ownership is —at the very least— a backstop.
And that’s why I think the state needs to get more involved in solar power generation.
The potential fly in the ointment is use of land that might otherwise be used for things like growing food, but I can live with that.
The Government might point to the Christchurch Airport solar farm and say that the Crown has a 25% share in the airport, so it's already investing in solar generation, but that would be dancing on the head of a pin. I’m talking here about the Government allocating money to the construction and operation of state-owned solar farms.
But how would you feel about that?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
“A complete balls up”. How about that for what might be quote of the day?
That’s how Christchurch city councillor Andrei Moore is describing the council’s handling of the housing intensification row.
It’s a row that has been shut down for good by Housing and Resource Management Minister Chris Bishop, who has rejected Christchurch’s bid to have its own, separate housing intensification rules.
Which I have no problem with. If he had given-in to Christchurch, it would’ve opened the floodgates right around the country. So good on Chris Bishop.
It’s a final decision too, by the way. No correspondence will be entered into. The council can’t blow any more money running off to the environment court. So Christchurch has to like it or lump it.
What it’s going to mean is high density, multi-level residential housing in the CBD (good), Riccarton (good), Hornby (good) and Linwood (good).
Even if it means neighbouring properties losing sunlight. Which is not necessarily good - but that’s just reality. We need to get over that.
Not that I’ve felt that way from the outset. When these new rules were first proposed three years ago, I didn’t like the sound of them.
And there was no shortage of people saying they felt the same way. And I suspect that a lot of people will still be very unhappy about the prospect of a new place going up next to them and losing their sunlight.
But that’s just reality. I accept that now.
Because what other option is there in a city where the population is only going in one direction?
Do we want the city to spread out even further, chewing up land that is much better used for things like growing food? Of course, we don’t.
If there’s one very small example of how the city has just kept on spreading outwards, it would be Musgroves - the second-hand building supplies outfit in Wigram.
I’m still amazed at how that place is surrounded by buildings now. When I remember it being pretty much in the wops not all that long ago.
And, if we don’t allow the city to become more built-up, we’re just going to see more and more houses built in places like Rolleston and Prebbleton. Which aren’t in Christchurch - they’re in the Selwyn district.
Which means more and more people travelling into the city every day, using Christchurch’s roading infrastructure but not paying a bean towards it. Because they pay their rates to Selwyn.
But let’s come back to councillor Andrei Moore - who is saying today that the council has ballsed this up.
He said back in April that he thought it was nuts that the council was insisting on pushing back on more intensified housing in Christchurch.
He said - and I agreed with him a hundred percent at the time (and I still do) that “it’s high time we wake up and deal with the reality of city growth”.
What’s more, it hasn’t been cheap. The most recent, available figures show that the council has spent about $7 million fighting the Government’s proposals.
It’s not a total loss for the council. Three of its ideas have been accepted by the Government, which include increasing the building height limit on the old stockyards on Deans Ave to 36 metres.
Mayor Phil Mauger says: “We obviously wanted to get our alternative recommendations approved. So, to only have three of them get the tick, is a kick in the guts.”
As a result of the Government telling the city council to pull its head in, we’re potentially or eventually going to see 10-storey apartment buildings within 600 metres of suburban shopping areas. Even if it means neighbouring properties losing sunlight.
Urbanist group Greater Ōtautahi thinks it's brilliant and gives the city certainty.
They say the quarter-acre dream of a standalone house on a large section is unsustainable.
Spokesperson M. Grace-Stent says: “Not everyone wants to live the exact same lifestyle. Allowing more housing to be built allows people to make that choice for themselves.”
They say: “We want people to be living near the city centre, near the amenities, not pushed out further and further into the Canterbury plains”.
And they’ll get no argument from me.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Imagine a school having $800,000 in the bank.
Imagine all the things a school could buy with that amount of money.
This is a state school I’m talking about, not a Flash Harry private school that can put the call-out to the old boys and the old girls when it needs cash to do something.
So a state school with $800,000 in the bank, and this state school has to spend that money fixing up a cock-up forced on it by the Ministry of Education.
The cock-up I’m referring to is that disastrous experiment called the “modern learning environment” – where our kids have been the guinea pigs, forced into huge barns instead of your old-school single-cell classrooms.
And the school I’m talking about, having to spend $800,000 of its own money to get out of this ideological nightmare, is Shirley Boys’ High School in Christchurch.
Good on it for flipping the bird at the modern learning environment, but I think it’s crazy that the school has to dip into its own reserves to pay to sort it out.
I know whether it’s the school that pays or the Ministry of Education that pays, it’s all pretty much taxpayer money. But the difference is Shirley Boys' is spending money it’s actually got in the bank, which could be spent on all sorts of other things. That’s why I think the ministry should be paying for this work.
I’ve been anti this modern learning environment nonsense right from the outset. Which was pretty much straight after the earthquakes when schools in Canterbury needed rebuilds.
And what happened is the powers-that-be jumped on the bandwagon and started telling schools that this is how it was going to be. That, if they wanted classrooms, they were going to be barn-like structures with up to 200 kids in them.
To be fair, it wasn’t just the Government and the Ministry of Education forcing this one. There were some teachers and principals who thought it was a brilliant idea too.
I’ve mentioned before how I was on the board of our local school for about six years, and they got sucked into the modern learning environment frenzy.
In fact, they didn’t wait for new buildings. They had the caretaker knocking out walls left, right and centre every weekend, it seemed. And I thought it was nuts at the time and I still think the concept is nuts.
As does Shirley Boys'. As does Rangiora High School, which did the same thing. It cost them even more – they spent $1.5 million turning their open-plan classrooms into single classrooms.
But here’s what the principal at Shirley Boys', Tim Grocott, is saying about why they’re doing it.
"The level of distraction was just too high. There was too much movement going on. They can hear what is happening in the class next door. Particularly if something was being played on TV or anything like that. So that level of distraction was a negative factor."
He says the school did a formal inquiry into how the kids and the staff were finding the open-plan set-up and found that there was widespread unhappiness and so the school had no option but to do something.
So it started the work during the last school holidays and will finish it during the next holidays.
Tim Grocott says the changes that have been made so far have gone down very well.
He says feedback has been “overwhelmingly positive and instantaneous”. I bet it has.
He says: “The staff on the first day were absolutely thrilled. One of our teachers was hugging the walls in her classroom because she was so thrilled to have walls. The boys are just much happier too."
Tim says he thinks that open plan classrooms are a flawed concept that just did not work for his school.
Are they ever.
And the Ministry of Education needs to admit that and needs to front-up with the money to pay back Shirley Boys’ High School for the $800,000 it’s spending to fix up this flawed concept, and elsewhere too.
Or, more correctly, it needs to front-up with the money to pay schools back for the mess caused by this failed experiment.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John was joined by Matt Doocey and Tracey McLellan this week for Politics Friday.
They discussed the situation with Shirley Boys High School, who have spent $800,000 to move their school away from the modern learning model. Is it fair that schools have to foot the bill for this? The decision has been made around punishment for Te Pati Māori, does this affect Labour's view of working with them in future, and is there really gas to be found in New Zealand?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I love this idea the Commerce Commission and the Grocery Commissioner have come up with, of supermarkets giving us everyday low prices instead of the ever-changing, so-called “special prices”.
The supermarket specials that really brass me off are the ones where you might see meat in one of the fridges, and they’ll have a sign showing the price per kilo.
That means absolutely nothing to me. Maybe there are some shoppers who know all the ins-and-outs of prices per kilo, but I’m not one of them.
The other thing about specials is that, most of the time, it feels like the supermarkets are yelling “special special special” at me, but it doesn’t look like much of a special.
I’ll be the first to say that I’m in the lucky position of not having to rely on supermarket specials. That’s a financial thing, but it’s also because I’m no longer at a stage of life where there are three kids at home and where it’s not unusual to kiss goodbye to $400+ a week at the check-out.
But I’ve never been one of those people who buy their bananas at one place because they’re cheap and my mandarins somewhere else because their cheaper.
And, when I see and hear the ads about specials, they pretty much don’t register with me.
And it’s not just because I can afford to pay what I have to pay. And it’s not just because the supermarket shops are cheaper these days because there aren’t three kids living at home.
It’s also because I see supermarket specials in the same way I see cafes with signs outside saying “great coffee”. They can tell me what they want as much as they like, but whether I believe it or not is another thing.
The other week I went into Pak 'n Save and when I hit the fruit and veg section there was a sign telling me that the 99 cent broccoli heads were an amazing special.
I wasn’t that convinced because they seemed pretty small to me, but I grabbed a couple anyway.
But as I kept moving around the fruit and veg section, I saw another bin of broccoli heads —again with the sign saying 99 cents a head and “amazing special”— but these things were about twice the size of the smaller ones at the start of the fruit and veg section.
What was that all about?
And it’s little examples like that —as well as the one I mentioned earlier about specials being based on price per kilo— that demonstrate how much of a rort this whole “special” thing is.
So I agree with Grocery Commissioner Pierre van Heerden who is saying that doing away with specials and having everyday low prices instead would be more straightforward and transparent.
He also thinks it would allow any new operators coming into the market to put real pressure on the existing supermarkets. I’m not as sold on that bit, because I don’t think there are any foreign supermarket companies interested in coming here.
But if he thinks that, that’s fine.
The only problem I’ve got with this idea is that it’s going to be voluntary —for now, anyway— whereas I think it should be compulsory.
The Commissioner says they’ll give the supermarkets a year or so to get with the programme, but I want to see this happening ASAP.
So does Consumer NZ. Its boss, Jon Duffy, says: “We know New Zealanders love a special. We also know there’s not much that’s special about supermarket specials.”
He’s spot on there.
He says: “Everyday low prices would benefit all shoppers, so would price transparency. Right now, it’s so hard to know what’s a fair price because the prices of certain goods fluctuate so much.”
And that’s the nub of it right there. If you go to the supermarket today and see all these signs saying special here, special there, all you can do is take their word that it somehow is a special.
And like the sheep most of us are, we think ‘aww, on special…I’ll get a few of those”. But how do we know we are actually getting the best deal?
We don’t. Which is why the Grocery Commissioner and the Commerce Commission think the days of the supermarket special should be numbered.
I think so too.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger joined John MacDonald this morning for their regular catch up.
In the wake of Raf Manji’s comments about capping rate increases, how does the Mayor feel about its achievability?
ECAN is making a case for a passenger rail in Canterbury – is it a good move? And is selling off Lichfield Street car park a wise decision?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I am really torn. Because when it comes to facial recognition technology, I’ve always been of the view that if you’re not doing anything wrong, there’s nothing to worry about.
But, at the risk of sounding like I’m going a bit “civil liberties” on it, I’m starting to change my tune a bit.
Which I’ll admit is a bit weird considering the Privacy Commissioner has announced that he’s all good with the facial recognition trial that Foodstuffs supermarkets have been doing in the North Island.
But what’s making me feel uneasy is the potential for this tick of approval from the Privacy Commissioner to be seen as a licence for anyone and everyone to use facial recognition however they want.
Because there’s an outfit in Christchurch —which isn’t a supermarket— using facial recognition technology right now. Which shows why the Privacy Commissioner is also saying that, as well as the Foodstuffs trial being all good, we need to tread carefully with how this technology is used.
He’s not saying it outright, but I think we’re on a slippery slope if we don’t make sure there are better legal safeguards in place to make sure businesses and organisations —and individuals too possibly— don’t start using facial recognition however and wherever they want.
So that we don’t look up in two years’ time and realise that we’ve got a runaway train on our hands.
Which is why I don’t think Michael Webster giving his tick of approval for what Foodstuffs North Island has been doing —saying that it complies with the Privacy Act— is the be-all and end-all.
I know you would think that it might reassure me that I’ve been on the right track thinking that only people breaking the law need to be worried about facial recognition technology.
But I’m not so sure.
Because it’s not just supermarkets in the North Island giving facial recognition a go. The Richmond Club, in Christchurch, is also using it.
I’ve seen a photo of a poster on the wall at the Richmond Club telling users of its pokie machines that it’s trialling facial recognition software to help it keep an eye on problem gamblers.
The sign says: “The Richmond Club is currently trialling facial recognition software - however, this is only in the gaming room.”
The poster says: “Such footage is used in conjunction with our CCTV surveillance cameras and other publicly-available sources of imagery to assist in identifying individuals for a variety of reasons.”
And it goes on to say that it’s all about identifying problem gamblers and that all footage is destroyed when someone who has been playing the machines leaves the room.
The person who sent me this photo said they spoke to half of the people in the gaming room at the time and none of them were aware that facial recognition was being used, despite the sign on the wall. And they didn’t like the sound of it.
Which I can understand.
Because using pokie machines isn’t illegal. Even though I can’t stand pokie machines, they’re not illegal. Just like having a gambling problem isn’t illegal.
Stealing stuff from a supermarket is illegal, but going and playing the pokies on a Saturday afternoon isn’t.
Yes, the Richmond Club is legally obliged to look out for problem gamblers, but does it need facial recognition to do that? There’s no doubt it’s probably very useful, but I reckon the club could easily look out for people without facial recognition.
And I would, generally, say that using facial recognition to track people doing anything that isn’t illegal, is not what it should be used for.
I heard the Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster saying this morning that people are, generally, happy for it to be used to try and stop crime. But at the same time, people are concerned about it being misused.
He referred to a survey his office did which found that two thirds of people are happy to see increased use of facial recognition if it reduces theft and enhances personal safety.
But it also found that 49% of people are concerned or very concerned about facial recognition technology being mis-used.
These survey findings also said that 64% of people are concerned about not being told about or agreeing to the use of facial recognition technology.
So the Richmond Club in Christchurch is ticking the box on that front, with the poster on the wall telling people that it’s trialling facial recognition in the gaming room.
But I think we’re in real danger of this technology being used in ways that most of us would consider to be over the top.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Leeann Watson, CEO of Business Canterbury, joined John MacDonald to give a quarterly update.
Are we seeing signs of recovery in Canterbury? What would a commuter train mean for the city business scene?
And will the Government’s new approach to WorkSafe make a difference for local businesses and how they operate?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If there’s anyone who shouldn't be told they can wind things back on the health and safety front, it’s a New Zealander.
Because generally, we are absolute shockers when it comes to this sort of thing and our health and safety laws are the only thing standing between our “she’ll be right” attitude and misery and tragedy.
Especially when you consider that —even with the health and safety laws we have at the moment— our workplace fatality rate is 60% higher than Australia’s and more than 500% higher than the UK’s.
So a perfect time, isn’t it, for us to be getting rid of what the Government says is WorkSafe's “safety-at-all costs mentality”?
Just in case you think I’m a health and safety freak, I’m not.
But I’m also enough of a realist to know that, without these laws, more people would be going home at the end of the day injured or not going home at all.
Another reason why us New Zealanders are the last people to be told we can go a bit easy on the old health and safety is that we have very short memories.
I haven’t forgotten the 19th of November 2010, when the first Pike River explosion happened. I remember distinctly getting home from work that afternoon and all of us watching the live coverage.
That was what set-in-train a huge overhaul of health and safety laws because, as we eventually discovered, the guy who ran the mine wasn’t the hero we all initially thought he was.
Pike River was where it all started. And the government is setting out today to walk all over the progress that we’ve made since then – apparently because we’ve gone too far with it.
But even though I’m just as capable as the next person of shaking my head at some of the things businesses and employers are required to do in the name of keeping people safe, I’m not happy about the screws being loosened.
But what the Government has in its favour is that most people haven’t experienced the consequences of things going pear-shaped at work.
That’s why it’s so easy to dismiss health and safety as an overreaction. But I bet if you have known someone who has lost their life at work or if you know someone who has been seriously injured at work, then you’ll have a much more realistic view of things.
The irony is we’ve got the Government on one hand saying today that its crackdown on badly-behaved state housing tenants has worked
But, on the other hand, it’s saying that it wants to be less heavy-handed on employers who don’t do everything they can to keep their people safe.
Which is why the Minister of Workplace Relations and Safety, Brooke van Velden, wants WorkSafe to ditch what she’s calling its “adversarial nature” and to move from managing risk generally to critical risk.
But what on earth does that mean?
Do you know the difference between “general” risk and “critical” risk?
Example: is an extension cord running across the floor somewhere at work a “general risk” or a “critical risk”? The answer to that depends on the consequence.
If the consequence of a power cable running across the floor in the office is just a bit of a nuisance and nothing else, then you could probably categorise it as a “general risk”.
But if that cable lying across the floor means someone trips on it and they bang their head pretty hard on a wall and get some sort of brain bleed, then that becomes a “critical risk”, doesn’t it?
See what I mean?
The idea of taking the pedal off the metal and only taking “critical risks” seriously probably sounds great to many of us. But dig a bit deeper or even think about it for a few minutes and you’ll realise that it’s a huge mistake.
It’s a bit like Trump coming in and saying that all this Paris climate change stuff is nonsense and suddenly you’ve got people around the world saying, “yeah yeah, enough of this climate change nonsense”.
And the reason that’s happening is because people like Trump are giving people permission to go all climate change-sceptic on it.
Which is exactly what the Government is doing with its loosening of the health and safety laws. It’s giving people permission to go easy on health and safety, which is the last thing us New Zealanders need when our default position is “she’ll be right”. It is a disaster waiting to happen, all over again.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday John MacDonald was joined by National’s Hamish Campbell and Labour’s Duncan Webb to discuss some of the biggest stories of the week.
The Government will soon be issuing fines to parents of repeatedly absent students – will this work? Is it a new idea?
Campbell almost manages to explain the RMA changes in one sentence, but what do they mean for New Zealanders?
And is there a place for more dairy cows in Canterbury, along with a passenger rail?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I can’t find an exact figure but from what I have seen online, I’m pretty confident in saying that there are hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid fines in New Zealand, and that figure is about to rise even further.
Because the Government is dreaming if it thinks people fined for not sending their kids to school are going to suddenly start sending their kids to school, and that they're even going to bother paying the fines.
They won’t. They’ll just ignore them. They won’t pay up.
Because if they don’t feel bad about not sending their kids to school, they won’t feel bad about getting a fine. And they won’t feel bad about not paying it either.
A fortnight ago, Associate Education Minister David Seymour announced that the Government is going to spend $140 million over the next four years with one aim: getting more kids to turn up at school regularly.
And I said at the time that we’ll wait and see, but it seemed that he had stopped banging the drum about fining parents whose kids don’t go to school. And I said, we’ll see, because leopard and their spots, and all that.
And it turns out I was right to be doubtful, because the leopard hasn’t changed its spots and today, he’s telling these parents that the Government is out to get them.
But it won't make one bit of difference.
And I've said before that I think starting school later is an idea worth considering because I want us to get creative when it comes to truancy. There’s no evidence to show that fining parents works. In fact, there’s evidence to show that it doesn’t work.
In the United States, for example, Texas, Pennsylvania, and California went through periods where parents could be heavily fined if their kids were repeatedly absent.
Parents were fined $500 for every absence. Some states even used ankle bracelets for kids who were repeat truants. It didn't work because it created mistrust in the system and in authorities and the truancy rates got even worse.
So what might work, if fining parents isn’t going to work?
Well this is where Sweden comes into the conversation.
I’m not a fan of any sort of financial penalty because, as far as I’m concerned, anything that takes money away from families isn’t good because that affects the kids themselves.
But if you want a financial penalty approach, in Sweden if a parent is on a benefit of any sort, their payments get cut if they don’t send their kids to school.
Apparently it’s had a positive impact. And I think the reason it works way better than fining parents is that it takes money away without these parents having any choice.
Whereas if they get a fine, it’s still their choice whether they pay it or not.
Plus, here in New Zealand, I think there’s a culture where some people just don’t give a damn about fines – that’s why so many just don't get paid.
Which is why I think that the Government’s plan to fine parents who don’t send their kids to school won't make one bit of difference.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I hope Environment Canterbury isn’t bothering listening to Waimakariri MP Matt Doocey.
He’s not impressed that the regional council is going to spend money doing a business case for a rail passenger service between Rangiora, Christchurch, and Rolleston.
Matt Doocey says it’s nothing more than a pie-in-the-sky idea and, given we’re in a cost-of-living crisis, he says ECAN should stick to its knitting and focus on getting costs down and reducing rates.
But what Matt Doocey should be doing —instead of criticising ECAN— is praising it for showing some initiative.
He should be praising it for showing that it’s prepared to do the kind of big sky, big picture thinking that local government hasn’t been doing, and which we’ve been saying it should be doing.
I think Doocey isn’t reading the room, and I suspect that there will be a lot of excitement about ECAN pushing this rail idea. What’s more, ECAN has put some money aside for a possible rail project.
Plus, it’s talking about not just limiting this rail passenger idea to Rangiora, Christchurch, and Rolleston. It’s saying that, once up and running, the service could be extended to places like Amberley, Ashburton, Timaru, and even further south into Otago and Southland.
I’m loving the idea. I’m also loving the fact that ECAN is prepared to put some skin in the game. To spend some money and find out once-and-for-all how much of a goer this could be.
ECAN is onto something because if there’s a common complaint about how the earthquake rebuild played out, it would be the fact that, despite all the talk that Christchurch was going to be the most modern city in the country, it’s not. Because we’ve just stuck to the same old, same old when it comes to things like transport.
And local government has to carry some of the blame for that. But now, ECAN wants to make good on that.
What this comes down to for me is this: what do expect of local government?
Do we just expect it to stick to its knitting and do the basic boring stuff? Or do we expect our councils to be the big picture thinkers?
If you’re like me and you want to see councils doing the big picture stuff, then you’ll agree that we’ve lost the ability to think big.
Mark my words, there’ll be no shortage of people running in the local body elections later this year banging-on about sticking to the basics.
Whereas ECAN is showing that it’s thinking about the future, which is exactly the kind of thing I want to see not just from ECAN, but all our councils.
Tell that to Waimakariri MP Matt Doocey, though.
He’s saying today: ‘Rather than coming up with pie in the sky motions, ECAN should focus on reducing rates which have rapidly increased - putting more pressure on ratepayers in a cost-of-living crisis.’’
Compare that to the likes of ECAN councillor Joe Davies who is saying we can’t wait 20 or 30 years, and we need a solution in the next five to ten years.
He says: ‘There’s a corridor already in place so there would be significantly lower set-up costs and this is an opportunity to link Rangiora and Rolleston to the city.’’
So he sees opportunity. Matt Doocey sees obstacles.
ECAN sees opportunity and is doing something about it, which is the approach I want to see a lot more of from our local councils.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It would be very easy for me to say that the organisers of those ridiculous Run it Straight combat sport events have blood on their hands after the tragic death of 19-year-old Ryan Satterthwaite.
And I would be saying that if Ryan had been involved in an official event. The thing is, he wasn’t.
That’s not stopping other people from piling in though. There are experts saying today that we need to ban the whole thing. But I don’t think that’s realistic.
Because for starters, banning officially organised events wouldn’t stop the likes of what happened in Palmerston North on Sunday when Ryan was hanging out with mates and when they decided to give it a go.
So this thing’s gone nuts on social media. It involves two people running directly at each other and slamming into one another.
The people behind it are touting it as the world’s fiercest combat sport, which is all about mirroring the extreme collisions you sometimes see happen during the likes of rugby and rugby league matches.
You’re bound to have seen the pictures from a couple of official events held up north in the last couple of weeks.
I’ve seen it reported that there might have been a couple of concussions and anyone who’s had a concussion will know that they’re not a walk in the park.
I saw one of the organisers banging-on about having medical people on-hand and how all the competitors are checked before and afterwards. Nevertheless, there’s no way you’d get me involved.
But what it all comes down to for me is those two words you hear trotted out quite often about all sorts of things: personal responsibility. Or personal choice.
There was Ryan with his mates on a Sunday afternoon, and they thought they’d give Run it Straight a go – just for a laugh.
Just like any other bunch of young guys, they’d seen the stuff on social media and would’ve seen the news coverage of the recent events held up north and decided to give it a go.
A ban of any type wouldn’t stop that kind of thing happening. Tragically.
But even though I think we’re dreaming if we think a ban is needed, there are a couple of things we could do.
I agree with Stacey Mowbray from Headway —which is a concussion support organisation— who is saying that education could be key to trying to do something about this situation. She says parents need to sit down with their kids and talk to them about the dangers of all this.
The other thing that I think we should be doing is to do what we can to take away some of the glamour around this so-called sport.
For example, I think the likes of the Christchurch City Council should decline any requests to hold Run it Straight events at any of its facilities.
That wouldn’t stop people like Ryan Satterthwaite and his mates giving it a go, but it would send a very clear message that Run it Straight doesn’t have the support of the local community.
But I think that’s about as far as we can go.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
James Meager is responding to Chris Hipkins’ comments about the Minister for the South Island role.
The Labour Leader called the position a “PR job”, saying there would be no need for Meager’s role if the Government was actually prioritising the South Island.
Hipkins says Meager's not doing anything because he has no budget or decision-making ability, and this is just a way of telling the South Island it hasn't been forgotten.
Meager has hit back, saying it speaks volumes that Hipkins thinks the only way to achieve something is having a big bureaucracy and budget.
He says it’s disappointing to hear that kind of comment, and he’d rather hear something more positive about the aspirations of the South Island, which is why he’s there.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour's yet to rule potential coalition partners in or out.
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters is refusing to work with Chris Hipkins next election, but has not entirely ruled Labour out.
On social media, Peters posted a Government of Labour, the Greens, and Te Pati Māori would be a "circus" and a "radical woke show".
Hipkins told John MacDonald that they actually ruled out working with Peters before the last election, and he’s said since that that’s unlikely to change.
However, he says potential coalition decisions will be made closer to the election, based on principles and the party’s compatibility, rather than the petty personality vendettas that seem to be occupying Peters’ time.
The Labour Leader is also calling the role of the Minister for the South Island a "PR job."
Rangitata MP James Meager picked up the new portfolio in January, alongside Hunting and Fishing, Youth, and Associate Transport.
The Prime Minister says he will be a critical voice for the South Island.
But Hipkins told MacDonald there would be no need for Meager's role if the Government was actually prioritising the South Island.
He says Meager's not doing anything because he has no budget or decision-making ability, and this is just a way of telling the South Island it hasn't been forgotten.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
“Don’t sweat the small stuff.”
That’s the message cops have been given about shoplifting.
And the powers-that-be can say as much as they like about their memo to staff about only bothering with shoplifting worth more than $500 not being worded as well as it could have been, but the message is very clear. You steal stuff worth less than $500 and you’re going to get off scot-free.
If I was a retailer, I’d be really brassed off. I’d be brassed off with the cops and I’d be brassed off with the Police Minister, who is no longer doing interviews about retail crime, apparently.
This is the guy who made a career out of sending off media releases every time there was a ram raid. This is the guy who promised the crims would be scared of him and his coalition government, because the free ride for crims was about to end.
This is the Mark Mitchell who said this two years ago, when he was in Opposition:
“While retail crime incidents have more than doubled since 2018, fewer offenders are being held accountable for their actions. Despite an enormous spike in retail offending under Labour, the number of convictions for this type of offending have decreased.
“Staggeringly, this drop in convictions coincides with skyrocketing incidents of retail crime. Offenders are simply not being held to account by a Labour government which has been nothing except soft on crime.”
So if I was a retailer, I’d be angry. I’d also be very worried. In fact, even if I worked in retail —not necessarily owned a shop, but worked in a shop on the daily— I’d be worried.
Because I’d know that even if I saw someone nicking stuff and I called them out on it, they’d just tell me to go to hell. “What’re you gonna do? Call the cops?”
Sunny Kaushal, who used to run the Dairy & Business Owners Group and now chairs the Government’s advisory group on retail crime, says other countries have taken this approach and it’s gone very badly.
Quite rightly, he says that it “emboldens” criminals. Makes them even more brazen, because they know nothing’s going to happen.
Which is why —if I was someone who likes to go into shops and help myself to stuff— I’d be very happy. Because the police writing this stuff down and it getting out means retail criminals have a licence to do what they want.
They can go into your local supermarket and walk out the door with $490 worth of groceries. You picture $490 worth of groceries in a trolley at Pak n Save and someone walking out the door without paying, knowing the police won’t be coming anytime soon. Pretty much flipping the bird at anyone who tries to stop them.
Now I’m realistic and I know, just like you do, that the chance of the police turning up is less likely than it used to be.
And yes, they’ve probably always had a cut-off point where they decide something’s too small fry to investigate.
Which is fine, but, making it an explicit instruction or suggestion not to investigate unless the stuff nicked is worth more than $500, is a major cock-up by the police.
And I don’t know if there’s any coming back from it.
Because, even if the Police Minister showed some fortitude and told the police to ditch this approach to retail crime, we know that even then the likelihood of the police getting involved in this lower-level retail crime would be pretty low. Because they just don’t have the resources.
Which tells me that, despite tough talking from politicians, the battle against retail crime is a losing battle. And if it’s not a losing battle, it’s a battle we’ve already lost.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Government is describing the 20 hours unpaid community work that people on the Jobseeker benefit will be made to do from today if they don’t follow the rules, as a penalty.
And there’ll be no shortage of people cheering on from the sidelines, who will also be seeing it as a penalty.
I think it’s great too. But not for the obvious reasons.
The Opposition doesn’t like it, saying it will mean people getting stuck on the benefit for longer; that it could push people into homelessness, and they’re describing the community work as “forced labour”.
The Green Party’s social development spokesperson Ricardo Menéndez March is saying: “This community work sanction will leave people without homes, without food, and with worse employment outcomes. Louise Upston is making it harder for beneficiaries to find employment.”
But he needs to open his eyes a bit.
Because I think the complete opposite. I’m seeing it as an opportunity for people - not a punishment.
Because we all know how easy it is for someone to go down a rabbit hole and how difficult it can be for them to come out of it. For all sorts of reasons - including unemployment.
It can happen to people in all sorts of situations and I reckon it must be very easy for someone who is unemployed to fall into the trap of putting stuff off and isolating themselves.
Thinking they’ll get around to writing up that CV tomorrow. Thinking they’ve got heaps of time to get that job application and, generally, letting time drift away on them.
And, in the process of all that delay, delay, delay, they start to feel worse about themselves and they cut themselves off from people and society. To the point where they look up one day and wonder where the past year has gone.
And they know themselves that if they just got out a bit and mixed with people then they might start to feel a bit better about themselves and might be more motivated to sort their life out.
But straight away the prospect of trying to organise something is all too much and nothing changes.
These are the types of people who don’t do what the Government says is expected of people on the Jobseeker benefit. They don’t apply for jobs; they don’t show-up for interviews; and they don’t attend employment expos. Because they’re broken.
But if they get a call from MSD one day telling them to turn up at such-and-such a place, on this day at this time, to do community service work - then I think it could flick a switch inside some people.
They’ll see it as the kick up the pants they know they need and they will turn up and they will do their five hours of unpaid community service work each week for four weeks and, while they’re doing it, they’ll be meeting people; they’ll feel like they’re contributing something and they won’t be as stuck as they had been.
For some of them - not all of them, of course - but some of them, won’t want to let go of that feeling of belonging somewhere and being part of something and they will do all the things the Government wants them to do and they’ll much have a much greater chance of finding work and turning their life around.
You might think I’m being over-optimistic. That I’m giving people on the dole too much credit. You might think that if someone wants a job, they’ll find one.
But there is more to it than that. Yes, I’ve made my way in the world. Whenever I’ve found myself out of work, I’ve always managed to find something or been able to make something happen.
But I don't take that for granted and I know very well that, just like the next person, I’m only a few steps away from going down that rabbit hole I’m talking about.
We could be that person I describe before who loses their job, loses their confidence, loses their self-respect and who looks up and finds that they’ve pretty much sat on the couch for a year. Hiding from the noise and letting their world get smaller and smaller and smaller.
And that is why I think the Government is actually doing unemployed people who don’t follow the benefit rules a favour.
It might think 20 hours of unpaid community work is a punishment. But I think it could be the best thing any government has done for the unemployed in New Zealand.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today Megan Woods and Matt Doocey joined John MacDonald following the release of the budget.
They discussed the key aspects of it including changes to KiwiSaver, will there be an announcement on the retirement as it sound like Matt is hinting towards? Should parents really support 18 and 19 year olds if they aren't working? And what is in the budget for Canterbury?
LISTEN ABOVE.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Quite a well-known chief executive and finance guy told me once that, in business, you should always make use of other people’s money first.
Which is exactly what the Government is doing with the KiwiSaver changes announced in yesterday’s budget.
It wants more of our money going in from our wages and salaries and less of its money going in through government contributions. Although, that’s our money too when it comes down to it.
But the gist is, the minimum contributions are going to increase from 3 percent to 4 percent and the bit the Government chips in each year is halving - from a maximum of $520 to a maximum of $260.
The change in what we pay-in to our KiwiSaver is going to be somewhat gradual. From April 1 next year, the rate will shift to 3.5 percent, before increasing again in April 2028 to 4 per cent.
But if you’re earning more than $180,000 a year, there’ll be some changes coming sooner. You’ll have no government money at all going into your KiwiSaver from July this year.
Which I think is great. Because why should someone earning that amount of money get a government hand-out? They shouldn’t.
Especially, when you consider that the finance minister made no noises yesterday about any longer term changes - such as the ones I always have and always will push for: means testing the state pension and increasing the age you can get it.
But with no talk about either of those, I think the Government should have gone harder and faster with the contribution changes.
I’m not the only one who thinks this.
Rupert Carlyon runs a KiwiSaver provider and he says 4 percent plus 4 percent is better than the 3 percent plus 3 percent that we have now - but nothing like the 6 percent plus 6 percent they have in Australia.
And he says it’s nowhere near the 15 percent average contribution rates in other OECD countries.
He says: “We have a long way to go, but it's better than nowhere."
Another provider, Dean Anderson, says the finance minister should have stood up yesterday and delivered an outline of how New Zealand is going to follow Australia’s lead and increase contributions more than it did yesterday.
And he will get no argument from me.
Because we need to be way closer to the way they do things in Australia with their retirement savings scheme if there’s any hope of keeping state pension entitlement anything close to 65.
Which I think is way too low. The retirement age should be, at least, 67.
We also need to be way closer to the way they do things in Australia if we’re going to hold on to this pipedream of keeping the pension a universal benefit that everyone - whether they need it or not.
Yes, I know the consequences of contributing more to KiwiSaver. It means less money in the pocket in the here and now. Which is why some people are warning us today that the changes aren’t great news for everyone.
Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson says low-income earners, Maori, women and self-employed will be hit the hardest by the lower government contributions.
She says: "It's a shame there are so few government incentives for a scheme that underpins private saving for retirement.”
The Retirement Commissioner would have liked to have seen the Government use the money it’s going to save from reduced contributions to help these people out.
But, irrespective of how we are affected by having to pay more into our KiwiSaver and getting less contributions from the government, we need to remind ourselves what saving is all about.
It’s about denying ourselves in the here and now, to benefit in the future. And yes, we will all be affected by these changes announced yesterday to varying degrees.
But, what it comes down to for me, is that these changes are about denying ourselves a little bit more than we do at the moment, so that we can have a little bit more in the future.
And what’s so bad about that?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There’s a danger that when the new stadium opens in Christchurch next year, we'll have no idea exactly what speed we should be going when we drive around the area.
At the moment, the council wants it to be 30kph on Madras Street, Tuam Street, Lichfield Street, Duke Street, Hereford Street and St Asaph Street.
But now it’s being told by the Government that it can’t do that, and I think they should just make it 50kph. I’ll explain why shortly.
There are also parts where the council wants the limit to be 10kph on Lichfield Street between Madras and Manchester. Apparently, the council believes that that can stay based on the design of the street and expected traffic volumes.
If we wind back the clock, 2023 was when the council consulted us on the 30kph limit and, apparently, it got the tick from people and so that’s been the plan ever since.
But between then and now, the Government’s got involved because it’s not into all these reduced speed limits that popped up under the last government.
Which means the council has been told that it needs to drop the 30kph speed limit idea and the speed limit around the stadium needs to be at least 40kph. And the council being the council, has to go and do a whole new round of consultation.
Which has central city councillor Jake McLellan saying that it’s nothing but a waste of time and money. He says the council should be left to decide for itself what speed limit it wants around the stadium. Or anywhere for that matter.
And I’m with him on that bit. Of course it should. Except I want the council to set a 50kph, for the simple reason that if the traffic is crawling, we will all crawl.
When everyone is trying to get to or around the stadium when there’s a big event on, the speed limit could be 100kph, but we’d all still be going about 20 or 30 or even 10kph.
Which is why I think most people, if they were asked, would say there should be no special speed limit and it should just be 50.
Because I think it’s simple really. If there’s an event on where there are truckloads of people making their way to the stadium, traffic will be at a standstill anyway. Or there’ll be roads completely closed off.
There are no speed limits around the Apollo Projects Stadium – or the “temporary” stadium, as it’s also known.
I know that it’s not right on the street, like the new one in town will be, but when there’s a match on there or a concert or whatever, the traffic is what it is. Just like it will be when the new one is up and running.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There's consultation on speed limits around Christchurch's Te Kaha stadium - once again.
New Government rules are forcing the City Council to ask for public feedback for a second time.
A 30 kilometre-an-hour limit was approved for multiple surrounding streets but can no longer be implemented because of the changes.
Mayor Phil Mauger told Canterbury mornings although this feels like over-consulting, this needs to be right to ensure public safety.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Let’s call it and say that workers going to and from Christchurch Hospital at night-time deserve better.
This is after what’s being described as a “very violent” assault on a staff member heading home after work last weekend. It’s understood the woman had been on a shift at the birthing centre, on Antigua Street.
What we know at this point is that security around the hospital’s birthing unit has been bolstered and, as a temporary measure, security escorts are being provided for staff, student nurses, and midwives during the hours of darkness.
The thing is though, should this extra security be a permanent arrangement for hospital staff? And if it’s needed at the hospital, what about other workers going to and from work at night and first thing in the morning?
And this is where I’m feeling a bit torn. Because, yes, of course nurses and everyone at the hospital need to be safe. And yes, I think these extra measures do need to be permanent. So I’m on the side of the hospital staff here.
And if there’s anything people like midwives and nurses get, it’s a lot of support from the public. Especially when things like this happens – and rightly so.
Also, because safety has been a real concern with staff having to park far away from the hospital campus.
I always remember the call we had from a nurse a couple of years ago, and how she told us she always carried a pair of scissors in her pocket when she walked to her car at night, because she was so worried about her safety.
So Health NZ has told staff in an email that an incident happened last weekend and explained what it’s doing to keep people safe, saying that safety is its top priority.
The email says: “Additional security measures have been put in place after a serious assault last weekend. Our security team has, as a temporary response, bolstered security in the area around this part of the hospital. This will be a priority over the coming days to provide an extra layer of security.”
And the bolstering of security that they talk about are the security escorts being provided for staff, student nurses, and midwives during the hours of darkness, and mobile patrols being focussed on shift changes when people are coming and going.
But there are plenty of other people doings jobs where they have to turn up and leave at odd hours – late at night, the middle of the night and first thing in the morning. And they have to run the gauntlet in the dark.
But here’s where I land. I think that, when it comes down to it, not every worker can expect to have extra security put on. But when it comes to nurses and midwives here in Christchurch, they should.
Don't ask me for a thorough explanation of why I feel that way because I know that, in some ways, it doesn’t make sense. But that’s where I’m at.
Reading between the lines, I think the email that went around health staff indicates that these extra security escorts are going to be nothing more than temporary. Because it included all the usual stuff about the incident being a timely reminder for hospital staff to look after themselves and others.
The emails says: “Ensuring your personal safety when leaving or arriving at the hospital involves a mix of situational awareness, planning and taking precautions.
“Whether within one of our campuses or travelling to and from work, please be always conscious of your security and take appropriate actions to protect yourself and your property. Taking these precautions can help minimise risks and ensure your personal safety.”
So a bit of health and safety backside covering, but medical staff deserve better than that.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In an ideal world, I would love us to have more trains.
In an ideal world, I think it would be great if all our big cities had rail passenger services.
Not just Auckland and Wellington that Transport Minister Chris Bishop was talking about when he announced this morning that there’s $600 million in this week’s Budget going into rail.
I won’t go all scratched record on it and start asking where the money is for the Greater Christchurch area, but I would love to see money going into commuter rail here.
Because if we do think rail has a future in New Zealand —and I’m talking about passenger rail as well as sending freight by rail— I think it’s more realistic to expect commuters to take the train than people going out of town on holiday.
So that’s one area where I’d put the money – into passenger trains. And that’s probably my ideal world scenario, which I’ll come back to.
What I think is certainly more achievable though, is getting more freight shipped around the place on trains. Because we’ve shown how bad we are as a country at maintaining our roading network. And, if you believe the rail advocates, they’ll tell you that the main problem is trucks. That they’re responsible for chewing up the roads.
And, when you travel down the east coast of the South Island, it does strike you how much of a donkey track State Highway 1 is in parts.
Yet we seem to be quite happy for these trucks —designed in countries where they do have massive motorways— to go up and down that donkey track night and day, 365 days a year.
So get more freight on trains first. And then, if we’re going to do anything more with passenger trains, focus on getting people to work and school on a train instead of expecting them to go to Nelson for their holidays on a train.
Because I’ve long thought how brilliant it would be if we had a rail service from Rangiora to the city and from Rolleston to the city.
Imagine what the motorways would look like. Imagine getting into town on a train —not a bus, where you can get all the same disruptions as other vehicles— but you scream into town on the train, you don’t have to worry about finding a park, and then get the train back home again in the evening.
The Canterbury Regional Transport Committee obviously likes the sound of that too.
This is the entity that involves all councils in the canterbury region —including ECAN— and NZTA. And the number one job of the regional transport committee is to implement the Canterbury Regional Transport Plan.
In recent years, there’s been talk of passenger rail services running from the city to Rolleston and as far north as Amberley.
Reading the most recent regional transport plan, the enthusiasm that we were hearing a couple of years seems from the transport committee seems to have been tempered a bit.
There is still political interest in a passenger rail service south of Christchurch but there are no timeframes and, of course, where the money comes from is the stumbling block.
But there are positive signs if you're into the idea of rail, like I am.
The regional transport plan sets a goal of increasing the amount of freight moved by train in Canterbury by 100% over the next eight or nine years. So that’s good.
But it also talks about the population of Selwyn growing by around 58,000 people over the next 20-and-a-bit years. And, in Waimakariri, the population is expected to go up by 25,000 people in the same period.
Christchurch is expected to have another 66,000 people.
So there’s an extra 149,000 people living in the Greater Christchurch area, and we think the Northern Motorway and the Southern Motorway are going to be just fine? Dream on.
And that’s the argument right there for passenger rail services in the Greater Christchurch area.
Which is why when I ask, should we be investing more in rail here in Canterbury, my answer is yes.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Here’s a story someone told me this morning about what happened within the last six-or-so weeks, when a Christchurch woman took her teenage daughter to the after-hours surgery.
I’m telling you this because the Government has announced that there’s going to be increased funding in Thursday’s budget for after-hours medical care.
Which is great. I’m not going to bag the Government for that. And the fact that people in rural areas are going to get better access to urgent healthcare is great.
But there’s an aspect of yesterday’s announcement that makes no sense to me.
It’s the fact that none of that extra funding is coming Christchurch's way. New Zealand’s second-largest city, and there’s not going to be anything extra pumped into after hours healthcare here.
This is the place where, in the last year or so, we’ve had the 24 hour surgery unable to operate 24/7. Where we’ve had the emergency department turning people away. Shutting its doors because people can’t get into the after hours or can’t afford the after hours and the ED gets overwhelmed.
And this is the city where what I’m about to tell you won’t be a one-off. It won’t be unusual. But it illustrates why it makes no sense whatsoever not to increase the level or capacity of after hours services available here.
So this woman took her teenage daughter to the after-hours in Christchurch.
I won’t go into any medical details other than to say that her daughter was very unwell and, eventually, it was discovered that she was so unwell that she needed surgery.
Which happened. Eventually.
So her mother took her to the after-hours, where they waited six-and-a-half hours to be seen by someone.
They eventually saw a doctor who told them that nothing could be done for them at the after-hours and that they needed to go to the emergency department at Christchurch Hospital.
They went to the hospital and waited through the night until about 4:30 the following morning, when someone came out and told them they were too busy at the emergency department, and they were given a voucher for a free video call consultation.
All up, they had waited about 12 hours to go to the after-hours, be sent to the emergency department, and be told by the emergency department that they were too busy. And then sent home with a voucher for a video consultation.
So they did the video consultation and, at the end of that, they were told they needed to go back to the emergency department.
They went back to the emergency department and saw a doctor, who said that the young woman needed surgery.
This all happened on a Sunday into Monday. So there wasn’t even the Friday and Saturday factor, when after-hours clinics and emergency departments are typically at their busiest.
But, under the Government’s plan, nothing’s going to change here in the Christchurch area. No extra funding. And stories like that one will happen over-and-over again.
So, after waiting all day and night, they had the video consultation about mid-morning and the surgery was done pretty much within 24 hours. That’s how unwell she was.
The Prime Minister says the Government’s plan is all about restoring faith in the country’s healthcare system. He says: When a child’s fever spikes in the middle of the night, parents have somewhere to go without delay. When an elderly person suffers from a fall they won’t be left waiting in pain.”
I don’t know how he can say that to us here in the Christchurch area. I don’t know how he can say that to people living in Waimakariri, who are still waiting for an after-hours.
There’s one on the way, apparently. But it will be another 14 months or so.
And, to be honest, I’ll believe it when I see it because the private outfit behind it has been dragging the chain for quite a while now.
But, even then, that won’t solve the problem of cost. It will still be too expensive for some people to go to the after-hours and they’ll still try to rely on the hospital emergency department.
Which is how things are going to remain here. Which is so wrong.
When it comes to after-hours healthcare, we are being shortchanged big time. And we deserve better.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
"I've seen some bad times in this house, but this is one of the lowest I've ever seen. When you go to that sort of standard of language, nothing's beneath you after that, is it?"
That was Winston Peters yesterday after his coalition colleague, Brooke van Velden, used the c-word in parliament.
And I’m with him 100%.
He said he was disgusted that the word was said in Parliament, and he was disgusted that the word was used in a newspaper article at the weekend – which is why it came up for discussion yesterday.
And the timing of it was interesting, because just hours after the c-bomb went off, it was announced that the co-leaders of Te Pati Māori have been suspended for three weeks, and one of their MPs suspended for a week.
This is in relation to them getting out of their seats in Parliament and doing the haka as a protest against David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill.
The part of it that actually got them in strife wasn’t the haka, it was the two-finger gun salute given to David Seymour while they were out of their seats.
If you were to ask me: “What’s worse? The two-finger gun salute in Parliament or an MP using the c-word in Parliament?” I would say that the bad language is way worse. Hands down.
And if you were to ask me: “What’s worse? MPs doing a haka in Parliament or an MP using the c-word in Parliament?” Same. The bad language is way worse than that too.
I’m not defending the Māori Party MPs, because what they did is not the kind of thing I expect in Parliament. At the time, I thought it was a great piece of theatrics, but it’s not appropriate.
Just like I’m not going to defend Green MP Julie Anne Genter crossing the floor that time to go nuts at Matt Doocey. That didn’t meet my expectations of parliamentary behaviour either.
Which is why I think that ACT party deputy leader Brooke van Velden has to be hauled over the coals. Even though she, reportedly, had permission from the Clerk of the House.
And why I agree with Winston Peters and with Judith Collins who have both been saying since yesterday afternoon that we have reached a new low. That behaviour in Parliament has reached a new low.
It’s believed that van Velden is the first MP to intentionally use the c-word in the House. This was when she was replying to a question from Labour about the Government’s pay equity changes.
Or, more to the point, a question referring to the opinion article at the weekend about the pay equity row, where the writer used the c-word.
I don’t know why Labour even brought it up, when it seems to have been silent about the derogatory nature of the article. I thought the article itself was appalling, but the writer seems to have gotten away with it because her employer is backing her to the hilt.
But that doesn’t mean that Parliament should turn a blind eye.
I wasn’t impressed with Speaker Gerry Brownlee's handling of things yesterday. Not once did he interrupt van Velden, only saying afterwards that it might have been better to refrain from using the word. Saying “more discretion” could have been used.
The wet bus ticket treatment from the Speaker doesn’t give me much hope that standards in Parliament are going to improve.
I know people have been saying forever that parliamentarians behave badly but I think Parliament needs to up its game big time.
That is where laws are made. Parliament is where we look-to for leadership. And this is probably a bit old school, but Parliament sets the standard for society.
Some people say it should reflect society, but I say it should set the benchmark, and our politicians should show us what a civil society looks like.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
“It’s like making a silk purse out of a pig’s ear.”
That’s a quote from the boss at Transporting New Zealand, which represents the transport sector, talking about Brougham Street in Christchurch.
Because it’s been revealed by NZTA that the $150 million revamp of Brougham Street, one of Christchurch’s busiest streets, will include T2 transit lanes – which the truckies are brassed-off about because they won’t be able to use them.
And I’m with the truckies. I think it’s nuts that on a street like Brougham Street —which is a pig’s ear of a road if ever there was one— we’re going to go all “rules are rules” on it and not do something that I think would make a genuine difference.
As the truckies do as well.
So these transit lanes, or T2 lanes, can only be used by vehicles carrying more than one person. They’ve been on the Northern Motorway since 2021. There is a stretch of T2 that trucks can use there, on the Tram Road on-ramp near the Waimakariri Bridge.
It's probably just to make it easier for them to turn onto the motorway, but don’t go telling us NZTA that you can’t do the same on Brougham Street because it “might set a precedent”.
So Dom Kalasih from Transporting New Zealand says Brougham Street is a pig of a road and Scott McAlister from logistics company Mackleys says traffic congestion there is “bad and getting worse”.
He says: “All the improvements are focused on pedestrians and cyclists. That’s fine. But it needs to conjointly be done with freight.”
Tell that to some people living in the area though, who are happy that the T2 lanes will mean the trucks being closer to the middle of the road and not travelling so close to the footpath.
I understand where they’re coming from but the bigger picture, surely, has to be getting that stretch of road moving – especially the trucks.
And I know rules are rules, but I reckon Brougham Street is a special case. And truckies should, of course, be allowed to use these transit lanes.
It’s a key link for freight and it makes no sense to keep them stuck in the slow lanes.
Forty-five thousand vehicles use Brougham Street each day —trucks make up 10% percent of them— and the truckies are saying it adds 30 minutes to their trip. Which I think is a very compelling argument for bending the rules. If not bending the rules, then re-writing them.
You only need to travel on a bus in one of those bus lanes to get an idea of how much quicker trucks could get through in a T2 lane. I know they would be sharing the lanes with other vehicles —unlike the buses which have the bus lanes to themselves— but it’s worth a go, isn’t it?
The other part of this is that NZTA is going to have to make sure that these new transit lanes on Brougham Street are policed.
You might have seen it reported earlier this week that the T2 lanes on the Northern Motorway haven’t been policed since they opened four years ago. Which means people are sailing through when they shouldn’t be. So there will need to be monitoring and enforcement on Brougham Street, otherwise the T2 lanes will be a complete waste of time.
They’ll also be a complete waste of time if trucks aren’t allowed to use them.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Construction is booming in Canterbury – but what is the market doing?
Construction Analyst Mike Blackburn joined John MacDonald to delve into the current situation in the region, the areas that are seeing major work, and if they’re seeing an over-supply of multi-unit dwellings.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Well done to the Government for making all the right noises about dealing with truancy.
It’s going to spend $140 million over the next four years with one aim: getting more kids to turn up at school regularly.
It’s looking good. But I’m wanting to see some more creative approaches than what’s been talked about up until now, and I've got some ideas.
Most of the $140 million ($123 million) is going to go into setting-up what the Government is calling an “attendance service”. So sounds a bit like the old truancy service.
But what I’m hoping is that it's going to be prepared for this new service to be a bit creative on it, and not go down the old route of stick and no carrot.
In fact, I’m hoping there’ll be no stick, because I don’t think punishing parents, for example, is the solution.
So I’ve got two things I would do if I was running this new service. Which might sound like a weird way of going about it, and, if I’m honest, these ideas generally go against how I've thought about school for the whole time I’ve been a parent. But here goes.
If I was in charge of the new school attendance service, I would start by looking around the world to see what has worked already. And I would try to get schools here on board with something they trialled at a school in the UK that actually got some results.
Starting the school day later.
This was at a high school, and what they did is they gave 800 students a late start. They didn't start classes until 10am, and absenteeism went down by 27%.
So that’s one thing I’d do. But I would go a bit further than that and I’d try to get schools on board with starting at around 11:30am. You’d probably have to limit it to high schools for all sorts of practical reasons, like parents and caregivers needing to get to work and all that.
And I’d make it an 11:30 start because we saw after the earthquakes how much better teenagers whose high schools had to share campuses and were only physically at school for half the day did in their NCEA results.
I know it’s very easy to say or think that kids who wag school are all the same. That they’re no hopers, or that their parents are no hopers. But we need to think about some of the practical reasons why kids aren’t turning up as often as we think they should, or not at all.
And if teenagers, especially, need to sleep in —as we know they do— then let them, knowing that they have to be at school later in the morning.
The other thing I would do if I was running this new truancy agency is I would encourage schools not to be so hellbent on insisting kids having to be in the actual classroom.
Which probably sounds like a weird approach for someone given the job of getting more kids turning up at school, but I think we need to decide whether we’re going to focus on attendance or participation. They’re two different things and, if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll probably agree that participating in the education system in some way, shape or form is far more important —far better— than just turning up and attending.
So it’s attendance versus participation.
As a parent, I always wanted my kids physically at school because I think they learn a lot about dealing with people actually being there. But if you’ve got a child who just can’t cope with that —for whatever reason— then why shouldn’t they be able to participate in the education system by working from home?
Why should they be labelled a truant? Shouldn't we do what we can to make sure they get an education? That they participate? Of course we should.
And if the best way or the most appropriate way for them to get that education seems a bit weird to some of us —those of us who think you can only be educated at a school with everyone else— then we just have to get over ourselves and accept that people learn in different ways.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Opposition Leader's welcoming Government investment into school attendance.
$140 million from this year's Budget will go towards a new system and better data monitoring.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins wanted truancy officers reintroduced two years ago when he was PM.
Hipkins told John MacDonald it's clear disbanding the previous truancy service in 2012 was the wrong decision.
He says it’s a good step in the right direction, and gives credit where credit is due.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This poll out today saying nearly half of us are more concerned about power prices than we were a year ago, is nonsense.
Because I reckon we’re all concerned about it, not just nearly half of us.
If you’re not concerned about your power bill, then I’ll have what you’re having thanks.
Only 8% of people who took part in this survey by Curia said they were less concerned. I’ll have some of what they're having, as well.
More to the point, as well as being worried about the prices, we should be just as —if not more— concerned about the lack of action when it comes to doing something about it.
And maybe that’s because there is actually one way of doing something about it. It’s probably a bit old school, but I reckon we are never going to get on top of rising power prices unless the government takes over ownership of the whole thing. Just like it used to.
Nationalise it.
Because I’ve had a gutsful of politicians saying the same stuff, year after year, and nothing changing – and I’m talking about politicians from all sides here.
And the people who took part in this survey feel the same. 69% said the Government isn’t doing enough to bring prices down. 13% thought it was, and 18% didn’t know.
The results also show 67% believe the profits being made by electricity companies are unreasonably high. The only thing I would say to that is, how do they know?
I’m sure you can find that information somewhere, but I think there is an assumption that the power companies are creaming it.
Nevertheless, for me, the only solution to the power price issue is nationalisation – then we’d get more than just words and no action.
Example: Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones going all “shock horror” on it. Saying he can’t believe how bad things have got.
He’s saying today: “I can’t believe, even in my lifetime, I’d see it this bad.”
Which is all very well, but what are you going to do about it Shane?
My message is the same to Energy Minister Simon Watts, who is saying: “Energy prices have added real pressure to household budgets at a time when the cost of living is already biting hard”.
Yes Minister. But tell us something we don’t know already.
The current government. The last lot. The government before them. And the one before them. They’re all the same. They tut-tut about power prices and promise this and promise that, but nothing changes.
And it’s probably because they know that they can’t actually do anything, because the model is broken.
They probably know that the only way they could do something would be to buy back the shares in the big power generation and retail companies that were flogged off years ago go back to some sort of electricity corporation model.
I’m not the only one thinking that this is old-school approach is the answer.
Power prices going through the roof are a problem all around the world. Which is why over in the UK, one of these think tank outfits thinks the British government should take over ownership of all the gas power stations so that consumers aren't "held to ransom" by the power companies.
So if they think that, and I think that, what do you think?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There are two things certain in this world. There will always be cars and there will always be idiots.
That’s why this move by the Government to make it easier to seize and destroy cars won’t get rid of the boy racer problem. But it’s better than nothing and good on the Government for doing it.
At the moment, the police can only seize or destroy a boy or girl racer’s car if they offend three times. We’re talking about three offences, in particular: taking part in illegal street racing; fleeing from the police. and getting involved in an intimidating convoy.
So do either of those things three times, and the car can be taken off them.
But, once this new legislation is passed, there’ll be no second or third chances.
Which I think will help the police no end because, as the law stands at the moment, they have to have evidence that someone has offended three times before there’s any chance of taking the car off them.
Which is probably why only three cars have ever been seized and crushed under the original legislation that the former-National government brought-in back in 2009.
So it’s a problem that politicians have been trying to solve for a fair while now. And not just at central government level.
We’ve tried over the years in Christchurch. The council brought-in the “no cruising” zones. which are still here. In fact, there are more now than there used to be.
A concrete pad was built at Ruapuna Speedway too. The idea being that they could all go out there and fill their boots doing skids and burn-outs. But no one was interested. Because meeting-up somewhere like Ruapuna to let rip in a car - something organised and legal - that’s not what boy racing is all about.
It’s about stuff happening on the spur of the moment. It’s about not following the rules. It’s about taking over a piece of road and making it your own.
So that was never going to work. Just like the “no cruising” zones were never really going to work, either. Sure, it might have sorted things out a bit in the central city, but all it did was push the problem somewhere else.
Particularly into the semi-rural areas the cars head-out to every weekend.
But back to the Government’s latest crackdown. I think it’s great that it’s, at least, doing something - but we shouldn’t think for a minute that it’s going to mean goodbye to the scourge of boy racers.
Think back to just over a year ago, when an 18-year-old woman died tragically after the car she was in crashed into the side of a house in Rangiora.
They’d been at an illegal street racing event and, when the police turned-up, the driver took off and ended up crashing.
Under this new legislation, he would have had his car confiscated there and then. Maybe it would even have been crushed.
But do you think for a minute that that guy thought about the consequences of his actions before deciding to hoof it from the police?
Do you think he would’ve thought about it any more if he knew he ran the risk of losing his car? I don’t think he would have. Which is why I don’t see this law change having any major impact.
I would love it to and good on the Government for doing something. But I don’t think this will mean an end to the problems boy racers cause.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I don’t often quote Albert Einstein, but I’m going to today.
“Those who believe that politics and religion do not mix, understand neither.”
And if the new pope didn’t understand that before today, he will now. Because Cardinal Robert Prevost —who will be known as Leo XIV— has only just been elected and already he’s being lobbied by politicians around the world.
He’s the first pope to come from the United States, and the pressure on him to start making noises on global issues has been pretty much immediate.
As I was following the live coverage this morning, Volodymyr Zelensky was already on social media saying that he hopes the new pope will condemn Russia’s invasion of his country. Saying that he wants the Pope to push for international law to be upheld, to condemn Russia’s military aggression and to do whatever he can to protect the rights of innocent civilians.
Colombia's president was at it too. Saying that he hopes the new pope will back Latino migrants living in the United States who he says have been “humiliated” by the current administration.
Which raises two questions: 1. How much political sway does the Pope actually carry? And 2. Is it the job of a religious leader to try and influence global politics?
I’m not convinced that the Pope does actually carry much sway. He does in terms of leading the Catholic Church, but that doesn’t mean that the Pope and other religious leaders can or should hide away and just focus on running the shop.
Because if they do that, they become irrelevant.
Take the British royal family. They’ve been criticised over the years for being out of touch —for being too removed from the real world— and look at what’s happened to their power and influence.
The same goes for the Catholic Church. The same goes for all religions.
If they ignore what’s going on in the real world —and if they don’t have a view on what’s happening in the real world— then they will become irrelevant in people’s eyes.
I was reading some comments by Margaret Susan Thompson, who is a professor of history and political science in the United States, and she was saying that the Pope doesn’t necessarily change the world, but he can influence the way Catholics think about global issues.
She says: "Ultimately, the Pope has very limited political power in terms of shifting peoples' opinions on an issue. But his moral guidance is still helpful to many Catholics.”
Not that the new pope’s predecessor, Pope Francis, shied away from saying a thing or two.
I don’t think his comments carried any particular weight —in terms of influencing outcomes— but he did exactly what I think the new pope needs to do. What all religious leaders need to do. Even if their actual influence is limited, they need to show their relevance in the modern world.
Pope Francis did condemn the war in Ukraine. He said Russia had carried out an unjustified act of aggression. He called Ukraine a "martyred nation" and appealed for peace pretty much every time he appeared in public.
But he didn't stop the war. He also didn’t stop what’s going on in Gaza, even though he did video calls to a Catholic church in Gaza every day.
But that doesn't mean he shouldn’t have done it, and it doesn’t mean that the new pope shouldn’t do it, either.
Because, especially in times like these, it is critical that the Pope and all religious leaders of all types show that they are part of the real world that we all live in.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined this morning by Megan Woods and Vanessa Weenink, to delve into some of the biggest issues of the week.
It’s been a big week for Weenink, who holds the electorate seat for Banks Peninsula – she gave an update on the State of Emergency in the area, and her thoughts on the response.
Pay equity was the big topic of the week – it's been revealed National Party members were told about the plan last week – how did Weenink feel at the time?
And David Parker believes it’s time for MMP to go – does his stance hold merit?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’ve always been a fan of MMP. And I still am, but there’s one thing about it that I do struggle with – the list MPs.
I know it took some of us a while to totally understand why we have list MPs. I understand – but I don’t necessarily like it.
Which is why I thought retiring Labour MP David Parker raised some good points about MMP in his valedictory speech in Parliament.
He reckons we should replace it with something else. His preference is the single transferable vote system, and he thinks we should have another referendum to see if people want to stick with the MMP voting system. I don’t think we need a referendum because I think most people are happy with it. I am, anyway.
Where I am with David Parker is list MPs. He didn’t say straight out that he thinks they’re a waste of time. That’s probably because he’s a list MP himself – or he was, anyway.
But he thinks that, even if you're a list MP, you should be connected to an electorate.
I know you see some list MPs driving around the place with signage on their vehicle saying “so-and-so, so-and-so, your such-and-such MP in wherever you might be”. Example: Tracey McLellan bills herself as a Labour list MP based in Banks Peninsula.
But that’s just optics. It’s just done to make us think that a list MP is just as approachable and interested in their local community as someone specifically elected to represent an area.
And I think list MPs have got a big sell job on their hands to convince us of the value they bring.
I know they say they work frantically. But how does that stack up when we’ve got the likes of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon dealing with everything that comes with being PM – plus he’s also the MP for Botany.
So David Parker is right to be saying that list MPs need to do more than just meat in the room at Parliament when it comes to voting in a pack.
I disagree with him though when he says MMP is to blame for polarising people.
He says MMP has based politics in New Zealand on identity, but I thought that’s what MMP is all about.
Because identity politics is when you get a political view based on things like ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, denomination, gender, sexual orientation, social background, political affiliation, caste, age, education, disability, intelligence and social class.
My response is: what’s so bad about that?
It’s not as if we didn’t have special interest political parties before MMP. We had Christian Heritage and the Christian Democrats. And the Values Party was pretty much an environmental political outfit. Even Social Credit had a particular identity –it wasn’t just another mainstream political party.
Another thing I disagree with is David Parker's view that MMP is bad because it polarises people.
He says under the first-past-the-post system, New Zealand was one of the best countries in the world and that, with MMP, the place was meant to get even better.
But he says it hasn’t. He says politicians are more divided than ever and New Zealand society is more divided than ever.
But I don’t think MMP is to blame. People are polarised all over the world – more so after Covid. And there are many different voting systems all over the world.
Nevertheless, David Parker thinks MMP has run its course and he reckons it’s time to put it to the people and have another referendum to see if we’re still happy with MMP, or whether we’d like to change to something else.
Even though I've got issues with list MPs, I'm good with the way things are.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Banks Peninsula's State of Emergency remains in effect, with warning of more severe weather on its way for much of the country.
The emergency was declared a week ago during record rain and flooding.
Orange warnings have now been issued for more heavy rain for several parts of both islands, heading from south to north over the next two days.
Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger told Canterbury Mornings the State of Emergency will be reviewed again at 4pm.
He says they worry rain tomorrow may impact existing slips and could make things a bit messy.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Next time I hear one of our government politicians banging on about New Zealand being the first country in the world to give women the vote, it will sound very hollow.
Because while that might be something to crow about, what the Government’s doing in relation to equal pay for women, isn’t.
You’ve got to, at the very least, give Brooke van Velden credit for taking one for the team yesterday and announcing that the Government is pulling the plug on any current pay equity claims and making it harder for any future claims to get through.
And that’s exactly what it’s going to do. We know that because not only is the Workplace Relations Minister saying that the pay equity rules are “muddied and unclear”, the Prime Minister is also saying that these changes could save the Government “billions of dollars”.
That’s because the majority of the women affected by this are government workers. But they won't be the only ones.
There may be some people who like the sound of saving billions of dollars. Probably most of them blokes. But I’m picking the majority of people will find that kind of sales job appalling.
I do.
Especially when these changes aren’t going through the usual processes. There’s no select committee process. Within hours of Brooke van Velden making the announcement, it was all underway under urgency.
And it’s going to mean that current pay equity claims in the system will be dropped and must be started again under the new rules, which are going to make the whole thing tougher and save us billions.
The government’s reasoning —or the reasoning it’s talking about publicly, anyway— is that pay equity claims have been going through without what it describes as “strong evidence”.
Apparently, after the announcement, ACT MPs were crowing that Brooke van Velden had single-handedly rescued this month’s budget with these changes.
National MPs pushed-backed on that. With Finance Minister Nicola Willis fronting media —flanked by fellow female National MPs Judith Collins, Erica Stanford, Louise Upston and Nicola Grigg— denying that this is being done to balance the Government’s books.
She said that the Government believes in the principle of pay equity when women can prove that they have been disadvantaged.
She said: "What this is about is ensuring we are clear, transparent, and fair to ensure that where those claims are made they relate to gender-based discrimination and that other issues to do with pay and working conditions are raised during the normal employment relations process."
Which is a fair and reasonable thing to say. But what isn’t fair and reasonable is the way the Government is going about this – leaving out the select committee process and rushing it through.
Until the Government can convince me otherwise, I’m believing the ACT MPs who obviously think that this is all about saving money and nothing more.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It was very clever of the Government announcing that it was going to pump $12 billion into defence before saying anything about where the money’s coming from.
A lot of us got all excited about the defence money because, even if you’re a pacifist, you would have to agree that our defence force has been running on the smell of an oily rag for a very long time. That’s just a fact.
And we kind of accepted that there would have to be trade-offs. We just didn’t know, and we still don’t know, what those trade-offs are going to be.
Today though it’s being proposed that NZ Super should be the Peter that pays Paul, and that we need to sort out the elephant in the room and make people wait longer before they get the pension. And I agree.
It’s come from economist Cameron Bagrie who has been trying to find out where the defence spend money is coming from. Without any detail forthcoming from the Government, he’s suggesting the Super scheme.
He’s saying: “We cannot continue to shy away from that rising expense if other priorities, such as defence, are going to be met.”
He’s not the only one talking about the pension scheme needing a reworking.
The NZ Herald’s head of business Fran O’Sullivan says it was a National Government that increased the entitlement age for NZ Super from 60 to 65.
But that the current National Party leadership is sticking with the idea of not doing anything about the eligibility age until 2044. The party’s current commitment is to keep the age at 65 for another 19 years.
Fran O’Sullivan describes that as “nonsense”. And I agree with her too. There is no way we can afford to keep paying the pension to anyone and everyone once they turn 65 for another 19 years.
National’s policy at the moment commits it to increasing the age of entitlement to 67 after 2044, which means no one born before 1979 will be affected. So someone who is 47 now, for example, would still get the pension when they turn 65. Crazy.
There’s also nothing in National’s policy about doing something about the other nonsensical part of all this – where people still get the pension if they keep working beyond 65.
Because the pension —when it comes down to it— is to help stop people falling into poverty after they retire. That’s what it’s designed for. It’s not there to pay for some joker’s beer on a Friday and Saturday night, who doesn’t need it for anything else because he’s still working and earning a salary or wages.
Or he might be someone who’s made a truckload of money running a business and still earns a dividend or maybe even still draws a salary.
Back to Cameron Bagrie. He’s saying today that health and NZ Super make up 37% of government operational expenses and that things are only going to get tighter with more defence spending.
He says: “We now have a new pressure in the mix: national security - which is being prioritised. No credible political party can ignore that.”
Referring to the pension, he says: “We cannot continue to shy away from that rising expense if other priorities, such as defence, are going to be met.”
It’s not something former National Prime Minister Jim Bolger shied away from.
Somehow, he managed to convince New Zealanders that increasing the qualifying age for was “plain common sense”, because people were living longer and receiving the pension for a lot longer.
Age eligibility went up to 61 within a year of that and it’s been 65 since 2001.
And just like it was looking less affordable then, it’s looking even less affordable now.
That's why we need to have the same fortitude - or our politicians do - and they need to bite the bullet, instead of ignoring it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Here’s a stat for you: 25 percent of cigarettes sold in New Zealand are from the black market.
They’re being smuggled into the country and criminals are making millions selling them on Facebook Marketplace and construction sites. All over the place. And you probably don’t have to go far to find a dairy selling them, either.
That figure has been put out by the tobacco industry in New Zealand. Although, there was an expert saying this morning that he reckons it’s not quite as bad as the tobacco companies are saying.
Either way - whatever the figure actually is - there are smokers balking at the cost of a packet of cigarettes and pouches of tobacco and they’re quite happy to buy the illegal stuff.
And I reckon the time has come to have a re-think about how we’re dealing with cigarette smoking.
Because the approach that’s been taken so far - aside from treatment programmes and all that - has largely been about punishing people in the pocket if they want to smoke.
More and more taxes, to the point where people are paying a small fortune. And, if we want to try and reduce the amount of illegal tobacco trading going on, then I think we need to think whether piling more tax on tobacco is worth it.
I don’t think it is. I’m not saying that we should make cigarettes cheaper - but I don’t think we should make them more expensive than they are now.
Because, if we do, then the illegal trade is going to grow even more and that will mean less tax revenue for the Government through the legitimate tobacco market.
The thing too about not adding more taxes to ciggies and tobacco, is that it would still keep the price out of the reach of people like teenagers. People who could become the next generation of smokers.
I was talking to someone who said their partner used to make a special trip into town to buy tobacco from a dairy in Christchurch that was selling pouches that were about $20 cheaper than what the legitimate stuff was going for.
And they were saying that their partner would go into the dairy, ask if they had any of the cheap stuff and, sure enough, reach into the drawer and out it would come.
It was worth the drive into the city to get it, apparently.
Customs is saying today that these groups are bringing truckloads of the stuff into the country - mainly by sea - using what customs describes as “sophisticated smuggling tactics similar to the tactics used by drug smugglers".
It says they are serious criminals. Not just opportunists having a go because they’re worried about the price of tobacco”.
The expert from Auckland University who was on Newstalk ZB this morning says the solution is getting more people off smoking.
I agree. But I also think that’s your ideal scenario kind of thing.
Which is why I think the time has come to stop piling more taxes on cigarettes and tobacco. It’s done its job. Making cigarettes more and more expensive is just going to feed demand for the illegal stuff.
Which is ripping us off. Because with every packet of illegal cigarettes sold, there’s no tax revenue. Money that we could all benefit from.
And why would we continue to let that happen?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I love the way David Seymour is describing the size of cabinet and the number of government departments.
He says the whole lot are "a big, complicated bureaucratic beast". And he is spot on.
Here are the numbers that say it all: we have 82 portfolios, 28 ministers, and 41 separate government departments and agencies. If that doesn’t sound like a complicated beast, I don’t what does.
So no argument from me.
No argument also from Oliver Hartwich, who is Executive Director at the NZ Initiative think tank. He says part of the problem is that we have created all of these different outfits that, pretty much, look after similar things.
Now Oliver Hartwich thinks we could get away with having as few as 15 cabinet ministers instead of the 28 we have at the moment. But he reckons maybe 20 is more realistic.
Although, he also told Mike Hosking that he heard Ruth Richardson say recently that she thinks we should have no more than 12 cabinet ministers.
Now, granted, I've never been a cabinet minister so I don’t have any inside expert knowledge, but I'm going to give it a go anyway. And I reckon we could go really hardcore and have a prime minister with two deputy prime ministers reporting to them.
Those two deputies would have all the other ministers reporting to them. And I would streamline the total number of ministers, generally within the areas of law and order, finance, defence and security, health and social services, education, and the arts.
That’s just a rough example of my streamlined cabinet.
But Seymour's not just having a go at the number of cabinet ministers, he’s also got the number of government departments and agencies in his line of sight, and I know a thing or two about them.
Because in previous lives I've worked at a few, and they are monsters.
David Seymour is describing them as "bureaucratic beasts". I’d describe government departments and agencies as “beastly spaghetti junctions”.
And that’s just what it’s like inside these departments, let alone what happens between them. Because, despite politicians talking about these departments being “all of government”, they’re not.
That’s this theoretical idea that all government departments get on swimmingly, and talk to each other about everything, and they're all best mates, and because of that us taxpayers get the best bang for our buck.
But it’s not like that at all. They work in silos. They compete with each other for funding. They don’t talk to each other.
One great thing the government has done to try and sort out this shambles is in the area of weather forecasting.
NIWA and MetService aren’t government departments exactly, but they are state-owned enterprises, and Simeon Brown announced a few weeks back that they’re going to be merged.
Which makes perfect sense. And that’s what we need to see more of.
Examples: do we need a Ministry of Education and an Education Review Office? I don’t think so. Do we need a Ministry of Justice and a Department of Corrections? Possibly not. Do we need a Department of Conservation and a Ministry for the Environment?
See what I mean?
So I'm right with David Seymour, and I think we would all be winners with less cabinet ministers and less government departments and agencies.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you think it’s expensive to travel around the country now, it’s about to get more expensive with KiwiRail ditching one of its ferries.
But even though flying isn’t cheap, KiwiRail can forget about me making any interisland ferry bookings. Because why would ya?
Two dungers —either of which can be out of service on any given day— no thanks.
This all goes back to the decision by the Government not long after it came to power to pull the plug on the mega ferry project that Labour seemed to have an open cheque book for.
Originally, the cost of getting the new mega ferries and bringing the portside infrastructure up-to-scratch was going to be around $1.5 billion.
But that blew out to $3 billion and Finance Minister Nicola Willis said “no” when KiwiRail came knocking asking for more money.
She said at the time that Cabinet wasn’t confident that there wouldn’t be further cost blow-outs. A bit further down the track, she washed her hands of the whole thing and handed-it over to Winston Peters who became the Minister for Rail with his number one job being to find cheaper ferries and fast.
And, as we now know, they're expected to be here in 2029. In fact, pretty much all we know. We don't know how much they're going to cost. We also don't know how much it has cost or is going to cost the Government to get out of the original ship building contract.
But this isn’t about the politics today. The conversation today is about KiwiRail running just two ferries on Cook Strait for the next four years, and what that’s going to mean.
What it’s going to mean for passengers, and what it’s going to mean for people shifting freight up and down the country.
Let’s start with passengers: there’s no doubt it’s going to get more expensive to cross the Strait. That’s just how business works.
The Aratere does two crossings a day and can carry up to 400 passengers. So there’s 800 passengers a day that won’t be crossing. To be fair to KiwiRail, they are saying that they think the most impact on passengers will happen during the peak season.
But, either way, it’s only going to lead to increased prices and decreased reliability.
Then there’s the freight issue. There’s already no shortage of people saying how unreliable the Interislander has become for them getting their products to and from the North and South Islands.
I see that road freight lobby group Transporting New Zealand is saying that the Aratere going out of service will create more risk for freight.
Chief Executive Dom Kalasih is saying today that it will be "fascinating” to see what happens with freight with no rail-enabled ferries.
But it’s not the lack of rail that’s going to be an issue, because guess how much freight in New Zealand is carried on trucks? Ninety percent. And a lot of them will be trucking operators that cross Cook Strait on the Interislander, competing for space paying higher prices.
And businesses paying more will mean everybody paying more.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Get ready for what we now know will be a winter of discontent after the announcement by Nicola Willis that she is slashing government spending.
Which shows us once and for all, that the income tax cuts were a dreadful mistake. Because it’s not just ideology driving these budget cuts - it’s need.
The Government has much less money coming in the door through taxation - which means it’s got much less to spend.
And, maybe conveniently, the Finance Minister’s announcement yesterday came 48 hours before 5,000+ senior doctors go on strike wanting more pay.
But if the Minister was watching the news last night, she would have seen people asked in the street what they thought she should focus her spending on in next month’s budget. And it was clear, hands down, that most people thought it was health. And I’m the same.
If there’s one thing that affects us all in some way, shape or form - it’s the state of the health system.
I think the Government needs to take holistic view of the world when it comes to health and not just pour money into hospitals. But I think health spending or increased health spending needs to go into things from treating people who are really crook, people who need treatment to live productive and happy lives, but also things that help prevent people from getting unwell in the first place.
The bigger issue for the Government though, aside from the state of the books, is maintaining public confidence. Winter is always the hardest time for us to keep our chin up and the Government will be aware of that.
And no amount of cheerleading or writing-off its political opponents as moaners with no ambition is going to cut it anymore. Nor is some of the patronising talk we’re hearing from the Finance Minister, who is at-risk of becoming as patronising as Jacinda Ardern was by the end of her tenure.
We don't need to be told about household budgets and credit cards being declined to understand that the country is in the shtook. Just like we don't need patronising talk about Toyota Corolla ferries instead of Ferrari ferries.
Even if you think Nicola Willis is the best thing since Ruth Richardson, you must be getting tired of some of the talk.
The other thing that gets me is that a lot of people bang on about us needing governments with business experience.
You know, successful people who know how to run a budget. But it always seems to me that when these so-called successful people do get into government, they do the complete opposite of what people expect them to do.
For example: when you run a successful business, yes, you do keep an eye on costs. But there’s another thing you do as well when you run a business: you try to get as much revenue in the door, as possible.
But this government has done the complete opposite of that with its tax cuts.
No one’s better off. And the Government has way less money to spend.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Labour Leader is pushing back against criticism of emergency housing motels amid an increase in reports of concern to Oranga Tamariki.
It estimates its seen a 45% increase in reports in the year to April, and data shows that as of March 31st, there were 1,391 children overdue to be given a social worker.
Chris Hipkins is rebuking the idea the situation is a legacy of the previous Labour Government, telling John MacDonald that economic circumstances often result in a rise in negative statistics, as families are under a lot of financial pressure.
He accepts this kind of thing builds over time, but an increase of this magnitude cannot solely be blamed on the previous government, and the current government has played a role.
"If we've got more kids living on the streets and living in cars because they've booted everyone out of emergency accommodation and they're being referred to Oranga Tamariki as a result of that, which the government was told would happen, with their emergency accommodation policy, then yes, that is the government's responsibility."
Motels were one of the Labour Party's emergency housing solutions, and Hipkins admits that it's not optimal, but it's better than having people living in cars or under bridges.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I reckon a lot of us in Canterbury won’t be as excited as people elsewhere in the country about the Government’s plan to let builders, plumbers and drainlayers sign-off their own work.
I say that because of the bare-faced lies a lot of us were told by builders after the quakes.
So this is going to apply to the construction of simple, standardised houses to try and reduce the need for so many council inspections and to speed-up building times.
The Government reckons there’s about 3,000 homes that will pop-up sooner through these changes.
But the only way I’d be happy to even consider going along with this, would be if the Government listens to what the NZ Certified Builders organisation is saying.
Malcolm Fleming heads it and while he thinks, overall, the Government is doing the right thing, he reckons the Government should go further and introduce a quality mark for builders. To give homeowners confidence that their builder is qualified to sign-off their own work.
I think it's a brilliant idea.
Before the earthquakes, we did quite a major renovation and I reckon, back then, I would have been quite happy for the builder to sign things off himself.
He was an ex-detective. A great guy. And we didn’t have any problems with him at all.
But that was back in the day when I was a bit more trusting. Not now, though.
Because from what we saw here in Canterbury, when there’s the lure of money and cashflow and a need to keep your people busy, it can be pretty tempting for tradespeople to cut corners.
And that’s what I see this new scheme being. A licence to cut corners.
There are very good and reliable and trustworthy builders, plumbers and drainlayers who probably think I need to get over it.
And maybe I do. But, when you get to the point of dreading seeing anyone in a high vis top coming down your driveway because you’ve been stung one too many times, then I can’t help feeling the way I do about this move by the Government.
I won't be the only person in Canterbury feeling this way. I won't be the only person in the whole country feeling this way.
Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk, though, thinks he’s onto a winner.
He’s saying: “Making it easier and more affordable to build would open the door to home ownership for more kiwis and support growth and job creation in the construction sector.”
He says: “We can’t achieve this vision while the building consent system remains slow and overloaded. Even simple, single-storey homes must go through around 12 inspections before they’re finished, with costly delays when demand is high.
“At a time when many kiwis are locked out of the housing market, that’s simply not good enough.”
But what I would say to that, is that failing to learn from past mistakes isn’t good enough, either.
And, surely, if we have learned anything from Canterbury's earthquake recovery experience it’s this. That, when it comes to building, more safeguards are needed - not less.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I reckon a lot of us in Canterbury won’t be as excited as people elsewhere in the country about the Government’s plan to let builders, plumbers and drainlayers sign-off their own work.
I say that because of the bare faced lies a lot of us were told by builders after the quakes.
So this is going to apply to the construction of simple, standardised houses to try and reduce the need for so many council inspections and to speed-up building times.
The Government reckons there’s about 3,000 homes that will pop-up sooner through these changes. But the only way I’d be happy to even consider going along with this, would be if the Government listens to what the NZ Certified Builders organisation is saying.
Malcolm Fleming heads it and while he thinks, overall, the Government is doing the right thing, he reckons the Government should go further and introduce a quality mark for builders. To give homeowners confidence that their builder is qualified to sign-off their own work.
I think it's a brilliant idea.
Before the earthquakes we did quite a major renovation and I reckon, back then, I would have been quite happy for the builder to sign things off himself. He was an ex-detective. A great guy. And we didn’t have any problems with him at all.
But that was back in the day when I was a bit more trusting. Not now, though.
Because from what we saw here in Canterbury, when there’s the lure of money and cashflow and a need to keep your people busy, it can be pretty tempting for tradespeople to cut corners.
And that’s what I see this new scheme being. A licence to cut corners.
There are very good and reliable and trustworthy builders, plumbers and drainlayers who probably think I need to get over it.
And maybe I do. But, when you get to the point of dreading seeing anyone in a high vis top coming down your driveway because you’ve been stung one too many times, then I can’t help feeling the way I do about this move by the Government.
I won't be the only person in Canterbury feeling this way. I won't be the only person in the whole country feeling this way.
Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk, though, thinks he’s onto a winner.
He’s saying: “Making it easier and more affordable to build would open the door to home ownership for more Kiwis and support growth and job creation in the construction sector.”
He says: “We can’t achieve this vision while the building consent system remains slow and overloaded. Even simple, single-storey homes must go through around 12 inspections before they’re finished, with costly delays when demand is high.
“At a time when many Kiwis are locked out of the housing market, that’s simply not good enough.”
But what I would say to that is that failing to learn from past mistakes isn’t good enough, either.
And, surely, if we have learned anything from Canterbury's earthquake recovery experience it’s this. That, when it comes to building, more safeguards are needed - not less.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’ve surprised myself with my reaction to this plan to open a bottle store right across the road from the bus interchange, in central Christchurch.
But I think it’s a terrible idea. And it’s a gut thing.
Seeing all the stuff that goes on in the central city, my gut tells me that that’s probably the last place you’d want a bottle store.
I’m surprised by the way that I feel about it because, normally, I’d probably look at this proposal and think that if people are going to buy booze, they'll buy booze.
And, normally, I’d probably say that there’s already booze available in town, so why have a problem with a bottle store?
But I’m different on this one. And I’m not alone. The police. Health bosses. They're all against it.
So is Liz Gordon, who is with the Communities Against Alcohol Harm group.
She says the bus interchange is one of the most crime-ridden areas in the country and it’s not an appropriate location for a bottle store. I don’t know about that claim about the interchange being one of the worst places in the country for crime. But I agree with her with that it’s not the area to have a bottle store.
She’s also opposing another proposed bottle store just down the road on the ground floor of an apartment block on the corner of Manchester and Cashel streets.
And I’m with her on that one too.
Where this has come from, is the owners of the Fresh Choice supermarket in The Crossing want to open-up a bottle store next door to their existing business.
I know the people who are pro the bottle store will say that there’s an alcohol ban in the centre of town so it's not as if people would be able to buy alcohol and start guzzling it outside.
My response to that would be, yes, there is an alcohol ban. But there’s also a ban on people having their dog in town with no lead - but people still do it. All sorts of things are banned - but people still do them. And it’s not as if there’s a dire shortage of places to buy alcohol in the centre of town.
Another person opposed to the new bottle shop is Medical Officer of Health Dr Cheryl Brunton.
She says there are already 10 other off-licence locations within one kilometre of the proposed site and 19 locations in close proximity where drinks can be bought over-the-bar.
The argument in favour of the bottle store is that there are way more people living in the central city these days and it makes sense to be able to buy the type of alcohol that you can’t get at the supermarkets.
So your spirits and your RTDs. And I get that argument. But there’s enough going on - particularly in that part of the central city - without needing to add a bottle shop into the mix.
It’s being reported today that, in their licence application, the supermarket owners say they don't anticipate any alcohol-related problems from the bottle store, if they get approval to open it.
But they would say that, wouldn’t they? As if they'd say anything different.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Is it ever-so-slightly ironic that, on the same day that the first highway in the South Island had its speed limit increased to 110 kph, we had the Government announce that it wants to make it easier for people to get their driver’s licence?
The highway is the main drag that runs between Christchurch and Rolleston. And the proposed driver licence changes are a range of things to make it easier and quicker for someone to get their full licence.
There’s some good stuff in there. But I’m not liking this idea of doing away with the second practical test.
We’ve got a few weeks to tell the Government what we think of its ideas through a consultation phase that starts today.
There are some good things in the plan. I like the idea of new drivers having to behave themselves if they want to graduate to their full licence. The Government wants to halve the number of demerit points new drivers can get before having their licence suspended. At the moment, it’s 100. The Government wants to reduce that down to 50 demerit points.
I like the idea of zero alcohol for all new drivers. At the moment, this only applies to new drivers under 20. The Government wants to apply that rule to new drivers - whatever their age.
So they’re some of the good ideas.
But this idea of only having one practical test, instead of two - it doesn’t get my tick.
And I know Transport Minister Chris Bishop is saying New Zealand is a bit isolated in that regard. But doing something just because it’s the way everyone else does it has never been a great justification for anything.
Just like it’s not a great justification in this case. Because when someone is starting out as a driver, surely that’s the time when you want every opportunity to iron out any bad habits.
Because, like any bad habit, the sooner you nip it in the bud - the better.
But under this proposal, a person would have one practical test to get their restricted licence and never be tested again until they’re well past retirement age.
Here’s Transport Minister Chris Bishop’s explanation as to why the Government is doing this. He’s saying today: "We've heard for a while now that the system just hasn't been working as efficiently as people would like, and that there are particularly young people out there who are really reluctant to go and get their full licence because it is stressful, it is anxiety-inducing, and it is costly as well.”
Stressful and anxiety-inducing? Don’t you think that, when it comes to something as important as a driver’s licence, feeling a bit stressed about it is a good thing?
That might just be me. But there’s probably a truckload of things we could do away with on the basis that they cause stress and anxiety for people.
And, surely, if someone does one practical driving test - they’re going to be just as stressed about that one. So I don’t see how reducing it from two is going to address that issue.
Remember too that, apparently, having a driver’s licence is a privilege - not an entitlement.
But, for me, the overarching reason why the two practical tests need to stay, comes down to bad habits.
Anyone who drives has bad habits. There is no perfect driver out there.
And, whether we’ve been driving for 12 months or 12 years, we all have bad habits.
I surprised a few people when I told them that I sat-in on the practical driving tests two of our kids did. You can do that - you sit in the back if you promise not to say anything.
And when I did that, I was amazed to find from the examiner some of the things that you can be failed for.
And there were some of those things that I do all the time. And that’s why the second practical test is so necessary.
Because it’s an opportunity for someone to have any bad habits they might have developed while on their restricted licence pointed out to them.
Especially if it’s a bad habit that leads to them failing their practical test.
If they fail, they’ll remember.
And I think we’d be making a serious mistake if we took away this backstop, if you like, from the driver licence system.
Just because it causes a bit of stress and anxiety. And just because it makes it a bit more expensive.
Unless, of course, you think a driver’s licence is nothing more than a rite of passage. Unless you think that a licence is an entitlement, not a privilege.
Making it easier for someone to get their full licence and doing away with the second practical test doesn’t sound like a privilege to me.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Treaty Principles Bill is history. Done and dusted. But ACT leader David Seymour, who came up with the bill in the first place, has no regrets.
And it’s not done and dusted, as far as he’s concerned.
He could bring it back again. But I think what he’s most likely to do is make it a campaign issue in next year’s general election, or try to get a more explicit equality provision in the Bill of Rights Act.
All he’s saying is: “I accepted that they've decided on this particular bill at this point in time.” Going on to say: “watch this space”.
But whatever happens in the future, the questions at this point are: was the whole thing worth it? And did we learn anything?
I tell you what I’ve learned – although, it’s probably something that I knew anyway. But what I’ve taken away from all this is that, wherever we are on the political spectrum, we are not as open to new ideas as much as we might like to think so.
The Treaty Principles Bill got those on the left extremely agitated and excited. Just like 3 Waters got those on the right extremely agitated and excited.
I was against it because I think any agreement shouldn’t be tinkered with – especially when you get Parliament poking its nose in and tinkering with it.
And that’s what the Treaty is. It’s an agreement.
The real problem is how the Treaty has been interpreted and used. For example: I’m against the Treaty being used to influence criminal sentences. I’m against the Treaty being used as a reason not to hire the best person for the job.
But that’s not the Treaty’s fault. That’s the fault of the institutions and the organisations and the individuals who have enabled that to happen.
Because let’s say the Treaty Principles Bill hadn’t been binned yesterday and it went through all the stages and ended up being law, do you really think it would have made things any better or any different?
Because the idea behind it —as David Seymour is still saying today— was to ensure everyone is treated equally. But what does “treated equally” mean?
I bet we’ve all got different ideas of what that is. For example, if the Treaty principles were changed in the way David Seymour wants them to be, what’s to stop a judge (for example) seeing this so-called “equal treatment” being a licence to give a lighter sentence to someone from a disadvantaged background? So for me, the focus needs to be much more on how the treaty principles are applied, not the principles themselves.
As to whether it’s been worth the effort and whether it’s been a waste of time – at this point, I think it has been a huge waste of time, energy, and money.
But it won’t have been a waste if we do learn from this and realise that it’s not the Treaty itself but the way that it’s applied that’s the real issue.
If we’re big enough —even those of us who opposed David Seymour’s bill— to see that we have learned something out of the process, then it won’t have been a waste.
But as I say, this whole thing has shown me again how incapable we are —as a country— of having the so-called “grown up conversations” David Seymour thinks we should be having.
And if we can’t get beyond that, then there’s no doubt this whole thing has been a complete waste of time.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There's a lack of enthusiasm for a ferry service between Wellington and Lyttelton.
According to Local Democracy Reporting, Waimakariri Mayor Dan Gordon believes the Government should consider reinstating the service, which ran from 1895 to 1976.
National Party's Vanessa Weenink told John MacDonald the idea is harking back to the old days.
She says she’s unsure what the business case would be, and is unsure if it would work out.
Labour's Tracey McLellan says it's a romanticised idea.
She told MacDonald she can’t see this one working, and it’s still taking three years to get the Cook Strait Ferries sorted.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There's a lack of enthusiasm for a ferry service between Wellington and Lyttelton.
According to Local Democracy Reporting, Waimakariri Mayor Dan Gordon believes the Government should consider reinstating the service, which ran from 1895 to 1976.
National Party's Vanessa Weenink told John MacDonald the idea is harking back to the old days.
She says she’s unsure what the business case would be, and is unsure if it would work out.
Labour's Tracey McLellan says it's a romanticised idea.
She told MacDonald she can’t see this one working, and it’s still taking three years to get the Cook Strait Ferries sorted.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I saw a brilliant cartoon the other day which had America’s founding fathers sitting around a table writing up the country’s constitution - and they had agreed that the US wouldn’t have a king, but they were thinking about having a drama queen instead.
And after what we saw overnight, I think it would be pretty hard to argue that the current US president is anything but a drama queen. He’s also an economic vandal.
Donald Trump has announced that he’s pausing his global trade tariffs for 90 days for most countries, but upping the ante with China. Increasing the tariff on Chinese goods going into the United States to 125%.
And as Chinese political scientist Shi Yihong is saying today, this is going to mean that trade between China and the US will be “mostly destroyed”.
American economist Arthur Kroeber agrees, saying that what’s happening right now shows that Trump is committed to ending US trade with China.
Which equates in my mind to one thing: economic vandalism.
And if you want proof, consider what America’s Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is saying. He says this flip-flop was Trump's plan all along
He says: “This was his strategy all along, and that you might even say that he goaded China into a bad position and they responded. They have shown themselves to the world to be the bad actors, and we are willing to cooperate with our allies and with our trading partners who did not retaliate. It wasn’t a hard message: don’t retaliate, things will turn out well.”
How chilling is that?
If Trump planned this all along, it shows how comfortable he is causing economic chaos around the world.
Maybe that shouldn’t surprise me. Which is why I mentioned that cartoon earlier. All this tariff stuff has been the work of a drama queen, but I reckon that this development overnight takes things next level.
When we’ve got the head of the Treasury in the States saying that this was Trump’s plan all along —to slap countries with tariffs, see which ones retaliate, and then give the countries which don't retaliate some sort of 90-day “get out of jail card”— it's economic vandalism.
It’s clear now too that Donald Trump wants the world to cower in fear of him.
And it’s working. Not that I expect or want our government to go ape at him and his administration, because I don’t think that would achieve anything, but the careful language we’re hearing from the likes of Nicola Willis shows that even our government is walking on eggshells.
Back in November, when Trump won the presidential election, political commentator Matthew Hooton said the US was entering “its most dangerous period since 1861, the start of the civil war” and that the world was entering its most dangerous phase since World War II.
He said back in November: “The world enters its most dangerous period since World War II, with Trump threatening to launch a global trade war and collapse the World Trade Organisation.”
Matthew Hooton said that during his last term, Trump had at least some people in his circle who could be relied on to keep his most extreme tendencies in check.
He said: “There are no such people around him this time. Nor is he constrained by the need to worry about re-election.” Hence, his conclusion that we were entering very dangerous times.
And I think maybe he’s turned out be right.
And I’m starting to think that maybe I was wrong. Because when I read his article in the NZ Herald I said that, on the basis of the world not falling apart last time he was president, I wasn’t going to buy into the hysteria.
I did say I could be proven wrong. And going by the way the world looks today, I may have just been proven wrong.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined today by Mayor Phil Mauger.
They discussed the potential for Christchurch to be home to the delayed Erebus Disaster memorial – is Christchurch an appropriate home?
The central city has been overrun by birds and their droppings, does the Council have a plan to deal with the mess? And what measures will the council take regarding the new build’s in the city’s east, given the recent findings that houses may sink in some areas?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If the MP for Ilam, Hamish Campbell, thinks he’s going to get away with not saying anything more about his involvement with this underground religious group, then he’s dreaming.
It doesn’t have an official name, but it’s known as the “Two By Twos” and it’s being investigated by the FBI and the police for child abuse.
One of its former ministers here in New Zealand has admitted 55 child sex abuse charges over three decades against young boys and, from what I’ve seen, there are about 2,500 members in New Zealand.
It’s being reported that Hamish Campbell has hosted study meetings at his home in Christchurch – but he’s neither confirming nor denying that.
The thing about the home meetings is that the group doesn’t have official buildings, and so they meet in people’s houses.
An interesting thing is this Christian organisation doesn’t celebrate Christmas and Easter. And it separates itself from other Christian denominations. It’s been around for a while too – it was founded in Ireland in 1897 and has been in New Zealand for about 120 years.
Hamish Campbell has put out a statement, but he’s going to need to do more than that. And then, once he’s at least confirmed that he’s involved and answers a few other basic questions, he should be left alone.
Because if we’re going to condemn Hamish Campbell for being involved with a religious group accused of abusing kids, then you may as well write off any politician connected to the Catholic Church, for example. Because I don’t think it matters what religious beliefs MPs hold.
I’ve never been bothered about Christopher Luxon being an Evangelical Protestant. I don’t care about Simeon Brown being Baptist. And I think my lack of concern about that has been shown to be pretty well-founded.
I haven’t seen any evidence that Luxon and Brown’s religious beliefs are determining their political decision-making.
So here’s what Hamish Campbell has said so far. You might have seen him on the news on TV being approached outside Parliament. He closed the door on the reporter, though, when she asked him about hosting study meetings at his home in Christchurch.
After that report on the news, he sent our newsroom a statement, pretty much reiterating what he said on TV, but still saying nothing about hosting gatherings at his place.
But he says he fully supports the guy who’s calling the group out for abusing kids and that the police are the best people to investigate it. But here’s the bit that shows that Hamish Campbell thinks he doesn’t need to say anything more about it.
In his statement, he says: “My wife and I are non-denominational Christians but my faith is separate from my role as a politician.”
Campbell is a regular guest on Newstalk ZB’s Politics Friday. He’s a very smart guy, worked for about 20 years as a scientist, and he’s a nice guy. He’s not going to set the political world on fire, but nothing about him comes across as particularly creepy or weird.
Getting a straight answer out of him can be a challenge. Which is why, when I saw him on the news last night, I thought he was true to form. But that’s not serving him well on this occasion.
He needs to front up, confirm he’s involved, confirm whether he has meetings at his place or not, and confirm how much he knows about the abuse allegations. Then the people of Ilam can decide how much of an issue this is.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It would be great if we didn’t have to spend $12 billion on our defence force. But we do, and I’m good with it.
To be honest though, while we’d known the Government had some sort of plan to increase defence spending, I was still blown away a bit by the scale of it when the announcement came through.
So, $12 billion over the next four years. There’ll be new helicopters, more missiles, autonomous vessels, the air force’s clapped-out 757s will be replaced. And that’s just the start, because it’s all part of a bigger 15-year plan to up the ante on the defence front.
The Government says it will boost defence spending to more than 2% of GDP within the next eight years, which we haven’t seen since the early 1990s. Defence Minister Judith Collins says defence personnel are excited, because under-investment over the last 35 years has left the force gutted.
Former NZ First defence minister Ron Mark is over the moon too. But he says the Government should sign contracts for the new gear ASAP, so any future government can't ditch the plans.
But he says it's not just about missiles and helicopters, there's an issue with people power, as well. And recruiting the people needed to deliver the Government's 15-year plan will be a big challenge.
Which Judith Collins acknowledges – you might have heard that the defence force has lowered some its academic requirements for people wanting to join the forces. Which I think makes sense. Judith Collins does too.
And she says what we pay our defence personnel —as opposed to this $12 billion that’s going to be spent on kit— will be covered in the Budget next month.
What this all brings us to is the question of what sort of operation you think our defence force should be.
Should it use this new capability that it will have to focus on peacekeeping? Should there be more of a focus on surveillance? Or do you think we need a defence force that is capable of attacking?
Professor Al Gillespie is an international law expert from Waikato University. He says this big investment in defence shows New Zealand has joined the arms race.
He's saying today: "We've avoided doing it for quite some time but there's been a lot of pressure on us to increase the amount of money that we spend.”
So the Government is responding to that pressure. And I think it’s great. Yes, the money could be spent on health and education, but our defence force is in such bad shape that the Government has no choice.
And, in terms of what sort of capability I want our military to have, I think we need to cover all of the bases. We have to be equipped to keep the peace. Surveillance is another critical role. But if we think we can do either of those things without some sort firepower to back it up, then we’re dreaming.
And the government knows that, which is why it wants our ships to be combat-capable. I’m not saying that I want our defence force going in all guns blazing, but it needs to be capable. Way more capable than it is now.
Which is why I think this $12 billion —and everything else that comes on top of that— is going to be money well spent.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m liking what Sir Ron Young is saying about prison sentences today.
He’s really challenging us, saying that we need to re-think what we do with people given sentences of two-to-three years.
He’s talking about not sending them to conventional prisons and giving them conjugal rights.
This is how they deal with things in Scandinavian countries. He thinks we should do the same here. And I reckon we should too.
He’s the outgoing head of the Parole Board and he’s saying that short prison sentences aren’t working and we need to have a re-think.
He’s saying that offenders who are sent to prison for this amount of time are more likely to re-offend, compared to people who go inside for longer. For say, eight years.
And there are stats to back it up. Sir Ron says the re-offending rate for people locked up on shorter prison sentences is 40 percent. And for those who do longer sentences, the reoffending rate is about 10 percent.
So you can’t argue with that.
What we can argue about, though, is whether Sir Ron’s ideas have any merit. And I think they do.
He reckons a much better thing to do with people who commit crimes that get them a two or three year sentence, would be not to send them to the jails we have now - and, instead, house them within communities in facilities that are less like prisons, where they’d be allowed to vote, and also entitled to conjugal visits from their partners.
Which is the approach they take in Scandinavian countries.
Sir Ron’s coming at this from the aspect of re-offending. But, in particular, rehabilitating someone who commits a crime.
And he says that with the offenders who only have two or three years inside, they have way less opportunities to get rehabilitated and end-up spending a lot of their time hanging out with serious crims.
He describes IT as “a university of crime”. And he thinks it would be way better if these offenders went somewhere else, where it felt less like a prison and more like normal life.
He admits, though, that it could be hard thing for some people to swallow.
Especially, given the political and public interest in tougher prison sentences.
But, as a society, what’s more important? Punishing offenders or trying to make sure they don’t offend again?
As Sir Ron says, once a crime has been committed - you can’t change that. But the thing you can try to do, is to try and stop them offending again.
And, if this alternative way being suggested by Sir Ron today could do a better job of preventing crimes from happening, then why not give it a go?
If most of the offenders doing these short sentences spend most of their time inside learning how to become a better criminal, then why would we stick with the way we’re doing things?
Sir Ron is saying today that these people on two-or-three year sentences are being “educated in the way of crime”.
So, of course, they should be in different environments. And, of course, they should be prepared as much as possible for life beyond prison.
I was reading about the “open prisons” in some Scandinavian countries - where Sir Ron is drawing his inspiration for doing things differently here in New Zealand.
One of them, in Sweden, lets inmates hold down jobs. They head out for the day to work and come back at night. There’s even a car park for them and, if they work late, a meal is left out for them.
Essentially, what it comes down to, is these Scandinavian countries don’t shut prisoners out of society completely. Which is what Sir Ron thinks we should do here in New Zealand offenders sentenced for two-to-three years. If it would mean less re-offending, it's worth trying, isn't it?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reckons people in Australia are going to feel dumped-on by the United States after yesterday’s trade tariffs announcement. And he thinks that Australians will feel differently about Australia's relationship with America.
Like us, imports into the United States from Australia are going to be hit with a 10% tariff.
And Albanese —who is on the campaign trail— is talking tough, saying that the tariffs are “not the act of a friend” and Aussies won't be taking kindly to it.
I’m not going to speak on behalf of Australians, but I don’t feel that way at all. We knew these tariffs were likely. We knew they were coming. I don't like them, but it's not going to change how I feel about our relationship with America.
One political commentator across the Tasman is describing the tariffs this way, saying they are “unprecedented hostility from an ally”.
Brad Setser —a former Department of Treasury economist in the States— described them on Newstalk ZB as "shockingly radical".
They also show that, when it comes to Donald Trump, you can do as much sucking-up as you want but it won’t make any difference.
Trump doesn’t do special relationships. Look at British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s recent visit to the White House and all the cosying up and handing-over of the letter from the King.
That came to nothing. Britain’s been hit with a 10% tariff. It’s even worse for Europe, which has been hit with a blanket 20% tariff – despite France's president and Poland’s president having fireside chats with Trump at the White House in recent weeks.
Israel dropped its tariffs on US goods the day before yesterday’s announcement, but still got hit with a 17% tariff.
Although, our Trade Minister Todd McClay reckons there might be some wriggle room for countries facing tariffs higher than the 10% minimum.
As for Australia’s PM, he’s condemned the tariffs, saying they are totally unwarranted. Going on to say that he thinks they will have an impact on the way Australians view Australia’s relationship with America.
He didn’t go into any great detail on that - but I don’t feel any differently. And I suspect most Kiwis won’t feel any differently.
I don’t think we are suddenly going to go all anti-America on it just because the products we export to the United States are going to be more expensive over there because of the tariffs.
I think if anyone is anti-America, they’ll be anti-America already.
Like the guy who won’t let Americans stay at his Airbnb. Mario Schmidt hasn’t been letting Americans make bookings with him since the scene with Ukraine’s President in the White House. So he’s anti-Trump and anti-America already.
Anyone who is going to be anti-Trump and anti-America will be already, and everyone else will see the tariffs for what they are: a fact of life that we can’t do anything about.
We have to like it or lump it, and they will make no difference to the way Kiwis feel about America.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined in studio by Vanessa Weenink and Reuben Davidson to delve into some of the biggest political stories of the week.
The US President has rolled out tariffs of at least 10% on almost all imported goods – what will this mean for our export market?
Is the need for housing in Canterbury so great that intensification is inevitable? And will the supermarket announcement make a tangible difference for Kiwis at the till any time soon?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
We were all standing up and cheering the Christchurch City Council three years ago, when it flipped the bird at the Government over housing intensification. Because there was no way we were going to agree to three, three-story houses being built on one section.
But I’ve changed my thinking.
Eventually, the city council kind-of pulled its head in. But it’s still dragging the chain a bit and wants more time before agreeing to what the Government wants.
But one city councillor, at least, thinks we should stop dragging the chain, that we should get with the programme and allow this intensification to happen. And I agree with him. I think he’s making a very good point.
Maybe it’s because my stance on intensification has eased since 2022, when the council told the Government in no uncertain terms that it wasn’t interested in having three, three-story houses on one section.
And I think Christchurch city councillor Andrei Moore is making a very good argument in favour of greater housing density. Saying that, if we don’t let it happen, more and more houses will be built in places like Rolleston and Prebbleton. Which are not in Christchurch, they’re in the Selwyn District, and that will mean more and more people travelling into the city every day, using Christchurch’s roading infrastructure and not paying a bean towards it. Because they don't live in Christchurch city - they live in Selwyn.
And he’s saying we should stop kicking the can down the road and just get on with it. Instead of spending another year resisting it, we need to accept that greater housing density is here whether we like it or not.
He says: “It’s high time we wake up and deal with the reality of city growth.”
And I couldn’t agree more. And yes, that does mean that my stance on intensification has changed, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
The plan originally was to let developments with three, three-storey properties to be built on one section pretty much anywhere. But it was modified a bit.
Modified to restrict this level of intensification to the central city, around shopping centres and what's described as "walkable distances" from core public transport routes.
Which is still pretty carte blanche when you think about shopping malls and areas on core public transport routes.
As far as shopping malls go, we’ve got the likes of the Hub Hornby, Riccarton Mall, Bush Inn, the Tannery, Barrington Mall, Tower Junction, Eastgate Mall, Merivale Mall, Northlands Mall, Fendalton Mall, the Palms, Homebase, and the Colombo.
Which means intensification getting the green light in Hornby, Riccarton, Opawa, Barrington, Linwood, Merivale all the way up to Northlands, Fendalton, Shirley, Sydenham and Beckenham.
And, if that’s how it has to be, then I’m with Andrei Moore and I agree with him that we need to bite the bullet and get on with it.
Because A: we’ve got a housing affordability problem in this country, and the quarter-acre section is a thing of the past.
So, if you want your kids to be able to afford to buy their own place, it’s not going to be somewhere with a big backyard. So we need more apartments and townhouses - the places you get with greater housing density.
And B: population growth is real. The numbers aren’t massive, but they’re real and expected to continue in the upwards direction.
The city’s population is around 396,000. Last year it was 1.2% up on the year before. Over the last five years, population growth in Christchurch has averaged 1.3% annually.
Before the quakes, it was declining. There was an especially large jump in 2023, when the population in Christchurch city increased by 2.7%.
And city councillors pushing back on greater housing density in Christchurch are ignoring the obvious. That, yes, backyards are great. Yes, Christchurch is supposed to be the garden city. And yes, the people against intensification are most likely to be the people who can be bothered to vote.
But, if they put all that aside, they'd see that their colleague Andrei Moore is being realistic. And I agree with him that it’s time for Christchurch to stop pushing back on greater housing intensification.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Prime Minister has lived up to his talk of being a great negotiator, saying “thanks but no thanks” to Team New Zealand.
Because a great negotiator is always prepared to walk away if the negotiations aren’t going their way, and that’s what the Government has done. Telling Grant Dalton and Team NZ that putting $75 million of taxpayer money into hosting the next America’s Cup would be a nice-to-have, not a must-have.
I think the Government has done the right thing and the wrong thing.
It’s done the wrong thing because no one can argue that the economic spinoff from hosting something like the America's Cup is huge.
Everyone’s talking about Barcelona getting truckloads out of hosting the event. Although, they did have the option of hosting it again but decided not to. So maybe the benefits are being talked up a bit.
But either way, there are economic benefits that come from hosting something like the America's Cup and, because of that, the Government’s done the wrong thing turning its back on it
But my overriding feeling is that it’s done the right thing because we just can’t afford it.
Whether we will ever be able to afford it, who knows? But it highlights how we really need to get our act together when it comes to attracting big events here.
And we won’t do that, unless we all stop competing with each other.
When I say “we”, I’m talking about Christchurch and Wellington and Auckland and Dunedin. Everywhere.
At the moment, all cities and towns compete with each other to get big events. In Christchurch, when the stadium is open, we’ll be trying to get concerts away from Dunedin and get them happening here instead.
At the moment, we have ChristchurchNZ in Christchurch, DunedinNZ in Dunedin, WellingtonNZ in Wellington, and Auckland Unlimited in Auckland, all doing the same thing —not to mention all the other agencies around the country— all fighting it out to get events to their areas.
And I think this is crazy. Because what’s happening is we have all these different agencies taking a very parochial view of the world.
ChristchurchNZ, for example, only goes into bat for Christchurch - or Canterbury. When what all of these agencies should doing is working together on a joint approach.
Not only because it would mean they weren’t all chasing the same thing, it would also mean more money to spend on getting these events here. And it’s not just money to get events here, it’s money for facilities too. And the parochial ideas blinding our thinking on that.
Perfect example being the stadium saga in Auckland and the council deciding last week to redevelop Eden Park instead of building something new on the waterfront. They’re still wanting more than $100 million from the Government for Eden Park, when we already have stadiums coming out of our ears in New Zealand.
There’s Dunedin stadium - with a roof. The new Christchurch stadium - with a roof. The Cake Tin, in Wellington. And Eden Park.
And the only reason money is being poured into Eden Park is parochialism. Just like Christchurch wanted a 30,000 seat stadium because of parochialism.
And if the country keeps going like this, we’ll never have the money to get big events here. We’ll have the stadiums - but there’ll be nothing happening inside them.
Which is why we need to take the job of chasing these big events away from all these regional agencies and have one central agency deciding what events we’re going to go for and where they’re going to be held.
Because what’s good for Christchurch is good for Auckland. And what’s good for Dunedin is good for Wellington.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Four more years. That's how long we’re going to have to wait for KiwiRail's new interisland ferries. But I reckon it will turn out being longer than that.
The Government says it will be December 2029. By then, we will have had two elections.
But I don’t think it will happen in that timeframe, because I listened this morning to someone who knows a bit about this. Mark Thompson’s his name. He was in charge of the Government’s ferry ministerial advisory group.
He reckons the Government is a bit on the optimistic side, thinking the ferries can be here in four years’ time.
He was talking this morning about decarbonisation within the maritime sector creating huge, worldwide demand for new ships. As he puts it, he thinks the Government will need its spinnaker up and calm seas to meet the deadline, because of what's happening internationally.
Spinnaker up and a calm sea. A wing and a prayer. Fingers crossed. Sounds exactly like the way we do infrastructure here in New Zealand, doesn’t it?
I thought Mark Thompson sounded pretty unimpressed with the announcement. That will be because the Government has ignored his committee’s advice to not go with ferries capable of carrying rail wagons.
His advice was that ferries that could only carry trucks would be cheaper. But Winston, of course, was all-for ferries that can carry rail wagons from the get-go.
So maybe Mark Thompson’s nose is out of joint a bit. But I’m listening to what he has to say. Because he’s the guy who looked into this whole ferry thing after Finance Minister Nicola Willis pulled the plug on the former Labour government’s iReX project.
Winston Peters isn’t buying any talk about delays though and says the new ferries will be here by the end of 2029.
But when you dig further into his announcement yesterday, you see that he’s talking about the ferries being no frills, on one hand, but also saying that many of the costs he’s cutting will need to be paid for somehow in the future.
And these are the costs for the on-land facilities at Picton and Wellington – which he’s suggesting will have to be covered by the ports themselves.
He’s saying that investment is needed at Picton, but he reckons the facilities in Wellington have got another 30 years in them.
Again, doesn’t that sound so familiar when it comes to infrastructure in this country? “We can get away with what we’ve got for a bit longer” – the same for the ferries themselves. The ones that keep clapping out.
As for the new ships - if we do end up competing with the rest of the world for new vessels because of a global influx of orders, we could end up waiting more than four years.
That's why I’ll believe it when I see it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Where's the grocery commissioner? Wasn’t he going to get cheaper groceries for all of us?
That was the idea. But he hasn’t.
So is Nicola Willis going to do it? My prediction, is she won’t.
Because, no matter how much we would all like to pay less at the supermarket, the two ideas she announced yesterday are duds.
And I’m picking that, if you did a grocery shop yesterday afternoon, the Government’s announcement-of-an-announcement yesterday morning did nothing to soften the blow when you went through the checkout.
So the Government wants to see a foreign operator coming here. Which is never going to happen. For the simple reason that foreign operators have bigger fish to fry elsewhere.
German supermarket company Aldi is often touted as a potential foreign outfit that could come here and create more competition.
It’s kind-of here already, because it's been registered with the New Zealand Companies Office since 2000. But it hasn’t bothered doing anything more - focusing on Australia, instead.
But, despite Aldi operating across the Tasman, Australians are still paying through the nose.
Just over a week ago, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission put-out a report saying that Coles, Woolworths and Aldi are among the most profitable supermarket chains in the world.
Prices there have risen sharply over the past five years. With the supermarkets increasing profit margins during that time, as well. Sound familiar?
And just like here, politicians in Australia are all promising to do something about it.
But, like here, it will be all talk and won’t amount to anything. And, in five years time, shoppers on both sides of the Tasman will still be paying through the nose and politicians will be floating go-nowhere ideas.
But if you forced me to pick one of the ideas Nicola Willis announced yesterday that I think could actually work, it would be this threat she made yesterday to force the two big companies to sell some of their supermarket brands, to create more competition and reduce their dominance.
If you forced me to choose one, I’d chose that one. But it's a terrible idea.
David Seymour doesn’t like it, either. Saying that, if the Government poked its nose in this way into Foodstuffs and Woolworths operations, it would put businesses off investing in New Zealand.
Which I agree with. I think it could. And it’s a weird thing for the Government to be proposing just two weeks after it had all the money people over here from around the world trying to get them to invest in New Zealand.
Looking at the rules the Commerce Commission uses to decide whether to allow things like mergers to go ahead, they're all about preventing situations like we have with supermarkets in New Zealand. Not enough competition - all that stuff. Which is fine when you’re deciding whether-or-not to allow a merger. But for the Government to try and do that retrospectively, which is what it would effectively be doing, would be a terrible thing.
It would be a terrible thing for the supermarket companies. It would also be a terrible thing for the Government’s sale pitch to the world. That New Zealand is open for business; that we want businesses to come here; and that we’re getting rid of some of the red tape to make it easier come here.
It would say 'we’re doing all that but, if you do come here, we might tell you what to do with your business if we think there are a few votes in it for us'.
But the ideas Nicola Willis announced yesterday won’t win votes. Because they won’t go anywhere.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Some people think a 90-day trial for new workers is tough, but what about a two-day trial? Which is what’s happened with Liam Lawson.
And like his Red Bull teammate, world champion Max Verstappen, I think it stinks. Verstappen thinks Lawson should have been given more than two races to prove himself, and I couldn’t agree more.
Red Bull are dressing it up, saying that they’re dumping Lawson as part of their “duty of care” obligations.
Red Bull boss Christian Horner said overnight: “We have a duty of care to protect and develop Liam and together we see that, after such a difficult start, it makes sense to act quickly so Liam can gain experience, as he continues his Formula 1 career with Racing Bulls.”
But BBC Formula 1 correspondent Andrew Benson isn’t buying it.
He pretty much said on Newstalk ZB that Red Bull are trying to put lipstick on a pig. They're dressing it up, trying to make it sound better than it is. Which is nothing short of an unceremonious dumping.
Andrew Benson says: "This is not a duty of care by any stretch of the imagination, getting rid of someone after two races.
"Duty of care is to give him a chance to try and perform a bit better. Put your arm around his shoulder and talk to him about what’s going wrong.”
So the “duty of care” line is hogwash.
But even Andrew Benson, who’s a Formula 1 correspondent and follows the sport all the time, is scratching his head trying to work out what’s happened.
He did say though, that he thought Lawson looked like a bit like a rabbit caught in the headlights at his two races this year. He said looking at Liam off the track, while he was waiting to do interviews and things, he looked completely shellshocked.
But, like Max Verstappen, he thinks Lawson deserved to be given more of a chance to prove himself.
Verstappen isn't the only Formula I driver to think that way. He's one of several current drivers who have “liked” a post on Instagram criticising Red Bull’s treatment of Liam Lawson.
It’s a post by former F1 driver Giedo van der Garde which says: "Yes, you gotta perform. Yes, the pressure is insane. But, in my opinion, this comes closer to bullying or a panic move than actual high athlete achievements."
He says: "They made a decision - fully aware - gave Liam two races only to crush his spirit. Don't forget the dedication, hard work and success Liam has put in his career so far to achieve the level where he is now. Yes, he underperformed the first two races - but, if anyone's aware of that, it's himself."
Liam Lawson deserved more support, encouragement and time. And what's happened stinks.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National’s Matt Doocey and Labour’s Megan Woods joined John MacDonald in studio to discuss some of the biggest political stories of the week.
Green MP Tamatha Paul has been under fire for her comments about beat police – does their presence really make people feel less safe? And how do her comments bode for Labour, given they’re potentially coalition partners?
Is it fair the new Christchurch stadium could have a levy for ‘out-of-towners', since ratepayers funded the build?
And will the proposed changes to the RMA really deliver what’s promised?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m sure you’ll tell me if you think I’m stuck in the past, but I reckon that with the police now being expected to do roadside drug tests —as well as everything else— I think we should bring back the old MOT. The old traffic cops.
Officially, it was known as the traffic safety service, but we all knew it as the MOT.
And, yes, I know the police are struggling as it is to get the 500 new cops by the end of the year that the government has promised. But if they are now going to be expected to do thousands of roadside drug tests —as well as the alcohol tests and writing out tickets for speeding drivers— then I think they should create a separate, dedicated traffic division.
The way the roadside drug testing is going to work is that drivers will do a saliva test. If it’s positive, it’ll be sent to the lab for further testing. As well as that, an extra test will be done on the spot and, if that’s positive as well, the police will order them to stay off the road for 12 hours.
As someone who thinks we should have a zero alcohol limit for drivers, anything to try and catch the clowns who drive stoned is a good thing in my book. Especially when you consider the carnage that has been caused by drivers high on drugs.
Here’s a stat that proves it: in 2022 alone, 112 people died in crashes where drugs were involved. That was about 30% of all road deaths that year.
So the MOT was merged with the police in 1992 and, considering the fact that police are going to be expected to do 50,000 roadside drug tests each year as well as more roadside alcohol tests, change is needed.
The Government’s told them that instead of doing 3 million alcohol tests a year, they’re going to be expected to do 3.3 million – so an extra 300,000.
So 300,000 more alcohol tests, plus the 50,000 roadside drug tests.
I imagine Police Minister Mark Mitchell would say that the police already have a highway patrol, but I don’t think that’s going to be sufficient long-term.
And it’s why I think we should have a genuine, dedicated traffic policing service.
The other aspect of this too is that the Government has told the police that if they don’t meet these roadside testing targets —for the alcohol and for the drugs— they won't get all their funding.
So, full marks to the political parties that voted this drug-testing legislation through, but I think we’re setting the police up to fail if we don't have a re-think about how all this testing is going to be done.
And, for me, the best way to ensure this new law lives up to its promise is to have a dedicated traffic policing service. Like we used to.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
British comedian Ben Elton is returning to Christchurch this May, in what will be his final show in his Authentic Stupidity tour.
He joined John MacDonald for a chat about his outlook on life after years of writing comedy and how he feels about performing in Christchurch – plus, an exclusive reveal about his upcoming autobiography.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch's Mayor says he was shocked by the $400 thousand bill to restore Cathedral Square's Chalice.
The City Council's investigating ways to reduce the cost for work, including a complete re-paint and corrosion repairs.
It's the first maintenance work to the Chalice since installation in 2001.
Phil Mauger told John MacDonald options include touching up the Chalice leaves but leaving the actual structure as-is.
“The person that we’re dealing with, we’re working with them to see if we can lower it down.”
“It is far too much.”
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Even though I live in Christchurch and pay rates in Christchurch, you’re not going to hear me saying that I should pay less to get into the new One NZ Stadium when it opens next year.
But I bet there’ll be no shortage of Christchurch people thinking that’s a brilliant idea, but I don’t.
It’s something that the council-owned company that will run the stadium says could happen. People who live in Christchurch city could pay less than people from anywhere else.
The reason being —or the theory being— that those of us who live in the Christchurch city area have put money into the stadium through our rates and maybe that could or should be recognised by charging us Christchurch lot less for tickets.
On average, every Christchurch city ratepayer pays $144 a year to go towards the cost of building the stadium. All up —at this stage— the cost to build it is $683 million, and it’s expected to be open by April next year.
There’s already a precedent for locals paying less with the hot pools at New Brighton. Locals get cheapie deals there. And locals in Hurunui pay less to get into the hot pools in Hanmer Springs.
But I don’t think we should go down that track with the stadium. One reason being that we will all benefit once the thing is up-and-running. The money coming into town will be brilliant, which is enough of a pay-off for me. The forecasts say it’ll put $21 million into the local economy every year.
That’s enough of a return for my investment. I don’t want cheaper tickets, as well.
What’s more, it would be extremely hypocritical of people who are anti-stadium and have been banging-on for years that it’s just a nice-to-have and their rates money shouldn’t be going into it, to put their hand out for cheaper tickets.
The reason the levy for out-of-towners is being talked about is because it’s the promoters and the people behind the concerts and the sporting matches who set the ticket prices. So the stadium operator couldn’t give Christchurch people a discount because they don’t set the prices, but they could put an out-of-towner levy on tickets bought by people outside Christchurch city.
Which would, effectively, mean Christchurch locals paying less and people elsewhere paying more. But I don’t think that would be fair. Because what about people living right on the doorstep of Christchurch city?
How fair would it be to make people in Selwyn and Waimakariri, for example, pay more? It wouldn’t be fair at all.
Because what we would be doing is punishing them because Christchurch City Council couldn’t get its act together on the stadium funding in the first place. It didn’t even bother —right at the outset— to try and negotiate a deal where those areas did have some skin in the game, where they did make some sort of financial contribution towards the stadium.
It would also be punishing people in Selwyn and Waimakariri for their councils not being proactive. For not picking up the phone and calling Christchurch and saying they wanted to do some of the heavy lifting.
Fifty percent of people in Selwyn travel into Christchurch every day for work and school. And I’ve said all along that people in Selwyn and people in Waimakariri should be contributing to the stadium through their rates.
But that horse has bolted. The people who could have made that happen —the councils— didn’t. And so I’m not going to turn around now and say that us Christchurch locals should get preferential treatment.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’ve never used meth. And I hope I never do.
I say “hope” because I think that’s as certain as you can be about a drug like that.
Because none of us know what’s going to happen in the future and whether we might just find ourselves in a position where we might just feel a bit differently about using it.
I don't know how many times I’ve read stories about people saying they had no idea they'd end up using meth. And there’s no shortage of them, with use of the drug in New Zealand increasing by 96% in the past two years – nearly doubled.
Which proves to me that we are losing the battle against this drug and, if we don't do things differently, we’ll lose the war against it as well.
Which is why I agree with the Labour Party, which is saying today that it’s all well and good for the Prime Minister to be calling on his Police and Justice Ministers to look into the situation.
Quite rightly, Chris Hipkins is saying that the PM needs to bring the Health Minister into the conversation, as well. Because, whether we like it or not —however we feel about drugs of any sort— if we only keep on treating meth users as criminals, then what are we going to achieve?
Absolutely nothing. And we’ll have more and more people on the path to meth misery.
So these latest stats about how much meth is being used are quite something.
A 96% increase over two years – which is being described as unprecedented. They're saying the social harm caused by meth has a $1.5 billion cost attached to it.
And the Prime Minister says he is “quite concerned”. In fact, he’s so concerned that he’s getting his Police Minister and his Justice Minister to “look into it”.
Isn’t it brilliant? When you’re in opposition you’d talk about these numbers and describe it as it a crisis and go on about not enough being done. When you’re in government though, you’re quite concerned, and you get a couple of people to look into it.
But here’s where I struggle. You see, I'm someone who voted “no” in the cannabis referendum a few years back. And I did that because of the information void there seems to be about the mental health consequences of smoking weed.
So I said no to weed, but I seem to be a bit more liberal when it comes to meth.
I can’t explain why, because if there was another cannabis referendum today, I’d probably vote the same way. But, when it comes to meth, I'm convinced that you can’t just treat it as a crime thing.
Yes, the dealers who trade the stuff are scumbags. Which is where the Prime Minister and the Government seem to be focused – with Christopher Luxon saying it’s why they're cracking down on gangs. And why he's asked Ministers Goldsmith and Mitchell to see what else can be done.
But don't stop at those two, Prime Minister. You should also be getting Health Minister Simeon Brown and Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey involved too. Because Mitchell and Goldsmith can thump the table as much as they like. They can do all the tough guy talk, but that won't change a thing.
Because, Prime Minister, this huge increase in meth use has happened under your watch —as well as the last government's— and the strongest thing you can say about it is you’re “quite concerned”?
And the strongest thing you can do is to get your two guys in charge of catching people and locking them up to look into it?
Don’t get me wrong. The low-lifes who peddle this stuff need targeting. But, most people, when they start using meth —from what I’ve read and heard— there’s a reason.
Sure, some will give it a go for the thrill, but I reckon most people are using it to block stuff out. And, unless we do something truly meaningful which gets to the nub of what’s going with these people, treating them as criminals won’t solve it.
And by not treating meth use as a health issue, it just leaves the problem in the laps of parents, and brothers and sisters, and friends who not only have to watch someone they love get lost in addiction – they also have to try and save them, on their own.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
At the same time as Winston Peters is declaring war on wokeism, we’ve got a Christchurch community board member saying we are too scared to say things these days in case we offend people.
Ali Jones is the community board member and she’s firing back at criticisms that comments she made online about mobility car parks were "shocking".
I’ll get to her comments and the reaction but, let me say first, that I don’t agree with her that we are too scared to say things these days.
I would say the only thing that has changed is the way we say things. The language we use. Which has to be a good thing. I know some people think that being anti-hate speech is being anti-free speech, but that’s not how I see it.
It does seem to me that the people who are anti-woke or anti-pc tend to jump to conclusions about what you can or can’t say, and they use that to back-up their argument.
But if you think about how much more open people are when it comes to speaking out about all sorts of stuff, then you can’t buy into the argument that people are scared to speak.
People are speaking out way more than they used to.
So what’s happened is Ali Jones put a post on social media asking people if they thought it was weird that there are so many mobility parks on Rolleston Ave, in central Christchurch.
She said it seemed crazy to have so many mobility parks —four of them— sitting empty, while other people struggle to find somewhere to park.
And is she getting a roasting for it from a disability support group which is saying today that her comments were “shocking”.
CCS Disability Action is the group and one of its access co-ordinators, Raewyn Hailes, says it’s not-on for someone in public office to say what Ali Jones said about the mobility car parks.
She’s saying today that if a public toilet was unoccupied at times, you wouldn’t close it or remove it.
She says: “It’s extremely disappointing that someone who holds public office would make such a comment because it does have a negative impact on people. Who knows, she might need one some time.”
Ali Jones has fired back at that. She says she’s angry about it and that it shows that we are “too bloody risk averse” when it comes to saying things.
She says the criticisms are “a load of rubbish” and she asked a “straight-forward question” because she has never seen the mobility car parks used and wanted to know if anyone else had.
Ali says she isn't anti-mobility park. She just wanted to find out if other people have the same impression that she does – that they don’t get used that much. But she’s not having any of the criticism she’s getting for her comments and the questions she asked in her social media post.
She thinks the reaction from the disability support group shows why people are too scared to say anything these days. That we’re too scared to say things in case we offend people or upset them.
But I disagree. Yes, we’ve changed the way we say certain things and, maybe, Ali could have chosen another way to find out what she wanted to find out about the mobility parks. Maybe she could have worded it differently.
But just because you might disagree with what another person says, telling them you disagree isn’t shutting them down. It isn’t cancelling them.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Here's an idea that I’m quite excited about.
It’s quite raw – it only occurred to me at about 5:30 this morning. But I reckon it could be a solution to something that has gone on for way too long, with no sign of it ending.
There is a one-day exhibition being held inside the Christchurch Cathedral today, of miniature models of buildings that went in the earthquakes.
It’s happening today-only at the cathedral and will move to the Arts Centre next week.
But I reckon this is what we should be doing with the cathedral permanently. Instead of ploughing more money into restoring it any further, I think it should be kept as it is and used as a public space for things like exhibitions, events, and indoor markets.
Which would also free-up the rest of Cathedral Square for re-development and potentially open the door for government funding to smooth out any rough edges because it would be a truly public facility.
Because when the Government said no to putting more taxpayer money into the restoration, it said so because Finance Minister Nicola Willis didn’t see it as a truly public facility.
But this would be, wouldn’t it?
Some money would be needed to do things like reinstate the rose window at the front. Tidy up the roof tiles if they need to be. The sort of stuff that would make it tidy enough and safe enough to be a permanent fixture, but not the complete restoration and everything that goes with that.
The exhibition happening there today, by the way, is called “Ghosts on Every Corner”. Thirteen miniatures of places such as the old Smith's bookstore, Echo Records, Java Café, the police kiosk and the Deans Ave salesyard building.
As I’ve said before, social licence for the cathedral restoration is disappearing fast. And that’s because as time goes on, a whole generation has come through with no connection to the place. And that’s going to continue.
So we need to face that fact and come up with a different way of honouring the past - than just sticking to this pipedream that one day, somehow, we’ll have the money needed to finish the full restoration.
I’m not saying we could do this overnight, but if the city and the church committed to this idea, then we’d have way more certainty than we have now.
And not just certainty about the cathedral building, we’d also have certainty about Cathedral Square. Because once all the fencing around the site goes and the place is being used as an indoor events centre or indoor market, then the rest of the area can be developed.
It would also keep the cathedral story alive. Because, at the moment, the cathedral story is at a standstill.
Having the shell and using it in different ways would visually preserve a piece of the Square’s history without it being a handbrake on anything else happening in the area.
So the sorts of things I see happening there would be exhibitions, like what’s happening there today, musical performances, and an indoor market.
On the money side of things, the cathedral project people went to the Government because they don't have the $85 million they reckon they need to finish it. Nicola Willis told them they were dreaming because “public use would be limited due to the cathedral being a private, religious space."
And not long after that, I asked her if Canterbury Museum —which is also short of money for its redevelopment— would have a better chance of getting money from the Government.
She said it would, because it’s a public facility.
Which is what the cathedral would be if —instead of a church— it was effectively a central city events centre bringing locals and visitors together in a building that honours the past but isn’t stuck in the past.
I think it's a no-brainer.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The future of Christchurch’s beleaguered cathedral is on the radar again – is there a chance it could be turned into a public use venue, or will it be lost to the city entirely?
Will a free trade deal with India really be as quick and straight forward as the Prime Minister believes? And does party politics have a place in local body government?
This and more are discussed by Labour’s Duncan Webb and Hamish Campbell on Politics Friday.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I always have and always will be a huge fan of on-the-job training. Which is why I think it’s brilliant that we’ve got an education expert saying today that the apprenticeship system needs an overhaul.
And not only that, he wants to see schools doing more, and is suggesting they could offer a trades preparation qualification to create a pipeline of new apprentices - but also to remove the stigma that an apprenticeship is second fiddle to a university degree.
Michael Johnston from the NZ Initiative think-tank says in Germany, 50% of school-leavers end up in working in the trades. But here in New Zealand, a university education is given much higher status than apprenticeship training.
He says we need a more coherent apprenticeship system connecting schools, the trades and the training organisations.
Michael Johnston is saying that part of the problem is that trades historically have been seen or have been promoted as the thing kids do if they’re not bright enough to go to university or not interested in going to university.
Which is crazy for a number of reasons – for starters, I marvel all the time at what tradespeople know and what they can do.
He says maybe we also need some sort of bonding system that would keep require tradespeople once they’ve finished their apprenticeship to stick around and not bugger off somewhere else.
He says that would probably encourage more employers to take someone on in the first place. He might have a point there, but I suspect that businesses look at apprentices and just see extra work.
I don't think they’re necessarily concerned whether the apprentice is going to stick around once they’ve got their qualification.
But the idea of his that I really like, is this bit where he says schools need to up their game when it comes to promoting trades and getting kids ready to move into a trade.
Because I think, over the years, schools —but, in particular, school careers advisors— have pointed kids in the wrong direction, making them think that a university degree is the be-all and end-all.
Another reason why I’m so excited at the ideas Michael Johnston is pushing today, is that on-the-job training is how I started my working life. So maybe I’m biased.
I wanted to be a journalist, so I did a cadetship at the local newspaper.
And, since then, I have been dismayed at how so many people have been sucked in by this idea that a university degree is way better than an apprenticeship or any other form of on-the-job training.
Of course, there are some professions where people have to go to university – law, medicine, engineering are examples.
But I have never understood why a degree makes someone a better journalist, for example.
The other great thing about apprenticeships is that someone can start one, realise they're not actually cut out for that particular trade, and move on to something else without racking up huge debt and then, after three or four years, realising they’re not cut out for the career they studied for.
A guy I went to school with took on a plumbing apprenticeship when he left. Realised pretty quickly it wasn’t him, then moved an electrical apprenticeship and flourished.
The other thing about all of this is that it seems we’ve been saying forever that we need more apprenticeships, and we need to take the trades more seriously, but nothing seems to have changed.
Maybe it’s because —if we’re really honest— we’ve been so brainwashed over the years and still believe that that you only do a trade if you’re not bright enough to go to university.
Hopefully, there aren’t any careers advisors who still hold on to that view. Because I agree completely that the apprenticeship system needs an overhaul and the stigma that an apprenticeship is second-best to a university degree needs to go.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
David Seymour says the ACT Party wants to put up candidates in this year’s local body elections because “it’s time for a clean-out”.
Whatever his motivation is, I think his plan to get ACT involved in local councils is a good thing.
Some people think political parties shouldn’t be involved in local councils, but what would you prefer?
If someone’s wearing a party badge, at least you know what they stand for. Anyone else, and it can be a guessing game. And I agree with Seymour when he says it would be way better to know where people stand when you vote for them for your local council.
I’d go further than what he says. He reckons that people end up voting for people they have no idea about, but I actually think that people don’t bother voting in the first place because they’ve got no idea about the candidates.
Or more to the point, they’ve got no real idea what the candidates stand for.
Yes, every candidate trots out the usual lines, but you never really know them. Which is why you seem to see so many ex-media people in local government.
They have a profile and people end up voting for them just because they recognise their name, which is a terrible thing to base your vote on.
Which is why I think it would be great if, not just ACT, but more political parties were upfront, selected candidates, gave them a party t-shirt, and said “this is our person. Vote for them”.
The reason I say “upfront" is because we all know that one of the local government groupings in Christchurch is the Labour Party in plain clothing. This is People’s Choice.
There are other groupings too, but everyone knows that People’s Choice is Labour.
If you have a look at their website, it looks pretty similar to Labour’s website. But the most obvious thing is right at the bottom of the People’s Choice homepage, where it says: “Authorised by Reuben Davidson”. Who, of course, is Labour’s Christchurch East MP.
So David Seymour says his reason for wanting to get ACT involved in local body politics is that he doesn’t think councils have read the room and haven’t taken it on board that people are sick of councils blowing money left, right, and centre.
On the money side of it, Seymour says ACT won’t be financing the campaigns of their local body candidates. They’ll have to do their own fundraising to pay for their campaigns.
Which I think is good. As he puts it: “You’re not going to see helicopter candidates funded from outside your town. If you can’t fundraise money for your campaign, maybe people are trying to tell you something.”
So, for me, it’s a win-win and I’d like to see more political parties doing the same.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Isn't it crazy that schools don't have to report how much bullying is going on?
The Chief Children's Commissioner thinks so too, which is why she’s saying that it should be mandatory for schools to provide regular, publicly-available numbers.
No wonder some parents feel their school isn’t doing enough about bullying. Because, if you don’t have to report it, it's much easier to sweep under the carpet, isn’t it?
Thankfully, our kids never had any serious problems with bullying. And I'm pretty sure I didn’t, either, when I was at school.
I had a few run-ins and there were probably some kids I knew to avoid. And one of the two high schools I went to in Dunedin was pretty violent. But I'm pretty sure I wasn’t the victim of bullying. Unlike a lot of other people who were or are.
Although, maybe I can't say that, because we don’t know the numbers. And I don’t think we have a hope in hell of doing anything meaningful about school bullying until we do.
Because, at the moment, we only hear about individual cases.
A couple of years back, I remember Ashburton College being in the news on a regular basis, with parents and students talking about bullying being bad there.
And I remember, of course, the school trotting out the usual lines about how it takes bullying seriously. Which, to be fair, it probably did. I haven’t come across a school yet that turns a completely blind eye to it. But, because they don't have to keep records and numbers and share them with the Ministry of Education and make them publicly-available, we don't how seriously schools really take it.
Claire Achmad, the Chief Children’s Commissioner, is saying today: “I am keen to see regular, publicly reported data about bullying in schools, so we can continue to understand the scale and nature of the problem for children and young people.”
She’s being polite and is saying she’d “like” to see it. I’m saying that we have to see it.
Because, imagine if you could access this kind of data. Do you think schools would make sure they did everything possible about bullying? Of course they would. They would probably do a lot more than some do at the moment. Some schools will be better than others.
I see that the secondary school teachers union is acknowledging that it’s a bit of a “blind spot”.
Chris Abercrombie of the Post-Primary Teachers Association, says doing more about bullying could be part of the answer to the problem we’ve got with so many kids not turning up at school. Which makes sense. Because, if you’re being bullied at school, that’s the last place you going to want to be, isn’t it?
He says there's no national plan for dealing with bullying. And that, for me, is the gap that needs filling. As well as mandatory reporting of bullying, which is what the Chief Children's Commissioner is calling for.
Because this lack of a national plan means individual school boards have the job of dealing with it. I know. I served on a school board for about six years and it was on us to decide what to do when a case of bullying came up.
So every school board in the country is doing its own thing and they are under no compulsion to share any intel with the Ministry of Education and parents.
And, until they do, we will be in the dark as to how much of a problem bullying actually is.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by National’s Matt Doocey and Labour’s Reuben Davidson.
Christchurch City Council is considering allowing unleashed dogs to run free in two central city parks – neither were fond of the idea.
With the Investment Summit underway in Auckland, is Davidson disagreeing with his own party on the future of public-private partnerships?
And Doocey believes there’s no reason to change the voting system for local body elections – do we just have too many councils?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Road rage is getting worse according to survey results out today, and I think it’s time we made road rage a specific criminal offence.
I’ll come back to that but, first, how about this for a story? A guy’s driving around Governor’s Bay when this boy racer starts tailgating him, then stops in front of him, pulls out a baseball bat and starts smashing the guy’s windscreen.
That was a week ago.
Then we had someone else sent to prison last week after stabbing someone in an apparent road rage incident in Riccarton. It happened back in September on the corner of Blenheim Road and Clarence Street when two guys got into an argument.
The guy who was sent to prison last week got out of his car with a pair of scissors and stabbed this other guy before taking off.
He turned himself into the police sometime after that, and he was sentenced last week.
So you consider cases like that and the incident in Governors Bay the weekend before last, and you think no wonder we’ve got new stats out today saying nearly 50% of Canterbury people think road rage has got worse here in the past year. It's 60% in Auckland.
So, surely, the time has come for us to make road rage an actual criminal offence?
At the moment, no one can be charged with road rage. It can lead to people being charged with things like assault, intent to injure, and reckless driving. But I think road rage needs to be made a specific offence.
I see it in the same light as the stalking laws the Government wants to introduce. Like road rage, stalking can lead to people being charged with other offences.
So why not do the same with road rage?
AA Insurance has found that, broadly, 1-in-10 Kiwis have been involved in a road rage incident of some sort in the past year.
They’ve experienced things like tailgating, being cut off by another driver, being tooted at excessively, and being yelled or screamed at by another driver.
Exactly the sort of thing this guy on Banks Peninsula went through. According to his post on Facebook last night, it was 12:10am and this boy racer was tailgating him when he, obviously, at some point overtook this guy, stopped in front of him, got out with a baseball bat and started smashing up the guy’s car.
And he’s now on Facebook asking people who live in the area if they’ve got any security footage that might help identify the vehicle involved.
He’s trying to track-down a Rego number so the police can, maybe, do something about it. Because, according to his post, the police didn’t do anything on the night.
Although the police have told our newsroom this morning that he was “unable to make a statement at the time” and was provided with information to help him report the incident online. The police did confirm that it was reported to them just after midnight on Sunday March 2.
The guy who was attacked has posted a photo online showing the windscreen smashed on the driver’s side. It must have been absolutely terrifying for him.
As Beau Paparoa, who is one of the bosses at AA Insurance, is saying today - things like tailgating not only increases the risk of rear-end collisions. It’s also distressing and dangerous for the people being tailgated.
But it goes next level when you’ve got some muppet not only tailgating you, then passing you, and stopping right in front of you, and getting out of their car and taking to yours with a baseball bat.
I don't think leaving things as they are and only charging people with other offences, and not charging them specifically with road rage, is going to do anything to fix the problem.
From my experience, I would say road rage has been a major problem for a long time now. Whether I can say that I think it’s got worse here in the past 12 months, I don’t know, but a lot of people think it has.
So surely the time has come to up the ante and make road rage a criminal offence.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I don’t like this idea of dangling bigger carrots in front of people who own land that the government or your local council might want for big infrastructure projects.
But I'm more concerned about denying people who object access to the Environment Court. Instead of the court, if someone isn’t happy about compulsory sale of their land, they’ll have to complain to the Land Information Minister or their local council – depending on who it is that wants their land.
And we know who’s going to win that argument every time, don’t we?
“Dear Minister, I want to hold on to my land. Yours, so-and-so.”
“Dear so-and-so. Tough. You’ve got no choice.”
Or "Dear council, I want to hold on to my land. Yours, so-and-so.”
“Dear so-and-so. Tough. You’ve got no choice.”
The changes are being promoted as a cost-saving exercise and a way of getting big infrastructure projects happening sooner. The Government wants these changes so that big projects don’t get bogged down.
And the way it’s going to do that is by paying people more money to get their land if it’s needed for a big infrastructure project.
That’s if they agree up front. Because, if a landowner agrees upfront and doesn’t challenge it then there will, of course, be less expense involved.
The Government wants these changes to get cracking on its roads of national significance and its other fast-track projects.
It's all to do with the Public Works Act. Which is the legislation that means if your house is sitting somewhere where the Government or your local council wants to build something like a new motorway, they can knock on your door and tell you that they’re buying your house.
It’s a compulsory acquisition of a property that isn't on the market but is needed for public works.
At the moment, if people don’t want to sell, they can go to the Environment Court. But the Government wants to do-away with that and I don’t agree with that at all.
I suspect that if you’re not affected, this sounds like a great idea. But if it’s your land that the Government or your local council wants to get its hands on, you might feel a bit differently.
I don't even need to be in the position of owning land the Government wants to take off me to know that taking away the right to go to the Environment Court is a bad idea.
Tell that to Land Information Minister Chris Penk, though. He says: "Public infrastructure projects up and down the country are often held up for years by overly complex, drawn-out processes for purchasing the land needed."
He goes on to say: “This has meant that projects which would provide massive benefits for communities end up stalled, with the only action happening in courtrooms.”
Pretty much every time you talk to someone who is anti-the environment court, they start going on about snails on the West Coast.
You’ll remember this one: about 20 years ago, Solid Energy wanted to build a mine where there were these giant snails and Forest & Bird went to the Environment Court trying to stop it.
What seems to have got lost over time is that the Environment Court agreed with Forest & Bird but didn’t have authority to intervene. It was then that Forest & Bird went to the High Court. Which led to Solid Energy paying for 6,000 of these snails to be relocated from the Stockton Plateau, so it could access $400 million worth of coal.
People who think the Environment Court is a handbrake on progress often refer to that case, and see it as good reason for getting the Environment Court out of the picture.
But I don’t see it that way. The Environment Court is a backstop. A backstop people should not be denied access to if they don't want to sell their land to the government or their local council.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Winston Peters had no option when it came to sacking Phil Goff from his job as High Commissioner in London, but that doesn’t mean I’m happy with it.
I think he’s done the right thing. But he’s done the wrong thing, as well.
Because it just shows how scaredy-cat the world is of Donald Trump. But we better get used to it – this is how it’s going to be for the next four years.
That’s why I accept that it needed to be done, but it’s still pretty cruddy that we are running scared of him like this.
What Goff did was he let the political nerd in him come out when he was at an event at Chatham House, in London, earlier this week. And it looked like it was some sort of Q&A session involving Finland’s Foreign Affairs Minister.
The significance of Finland, of course, is that it shares a border with Russia.
So Phil Goff had the roving microphone, and he asked Elina Valtonen whether she thought Donald Trump understood the history of the second world war.
That’s because people are likening what Trump is doing with Ukraine to what happened in 1938, when Nazi Germany was allowed to get its hands on land in Czechoslovakia in a bid to avoid war.
It was a deal signed in 1938, but, as we know, a year later Germany still went to war.
Phil Goff isn’t the first person to say it. And on the face of it, it doesn’t seem that outrageous, but in diplomatic circles, it was probably enough to have them spilling their G&Ts.
And it was certainly enough for Foreign Minister Winston Peters to tell his people in London to give Phil Goff the flick.
Winston Peters says the reason he did it was because Goff’s comments “do not represent the views of the New Zealand government and make his position as High Commissioner to London untenable.”
And former High Commissioner Sir Lockwood Smith agrees. He’s in no doubt that Winston Peters has done the right thing to minimise any damage.
Phil Goff was due to finish his posting later this year, but that could have been extended, of course. But he’s over there right now and all the diplomatic crew will be chattering.
So it will be very embarrassing for Goff. Not the way he would’ve wanted to go out.
Especially, given that as far as I’m aware, it’s the first time New Zealand has sacked a High Commissioner.
Yes, he was being a bit of a smart-alec, something you’re not supposed to be when you move around in diplomatic circles. Which is a tension that Sir Lockwood talked about when he was on Newstalk ZB this morning.
He was saying that when you’ve been a politician, it can sometimes be difficult to take your political hat off. But he reckons that his time as speaker before being a High Commissioner helped prepare him for that.
Maybe that’s why we’re not hearing about former speaker Trevor Mallard putting his foot in it over in Ireland, where he’s High Commissioner.
But perhaps Phil Goff can take some comfort from Dr Stephen Winter, who is an international relations expert at Auckland University. He’s says if things weren’t so on edge around the world, Goff might have got away with it.
He says: "Goff can take comfort from the fact that he is right, even though he was not diplomatic.”
But things are on edge, and Goff is off.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I'm neither happy or unhappy that Adrian Orr is no longer Reserve Bank Governor, but I do have a piece of advice for whoever ends up taking over from him.
Just be the complete opposite.
Because I reckon he fell into a trap that ended up with him getting too big for his boots. Which, maybe, is very hard to avoid when you’re in a job like his, but the next person needs to make sure they stay in their lane and keeps themselves in check.
When you’re the Reserve Bank Governor, your job is to work on creating a rock star economy - you’re not the rock star yourself.
No one can argue that his tenure coincided with a time when what you would consider to be the most grey and dull jobs in the world, took on a whole new meaning.
Ashley Bloomfield, for example. Because of COVID, everyone knew who he was.
And Adrian Orr. Because of COVID, he was elevated to a level no other reserve bank governor got to in terms of profile and recognition.
If you ask me to name another Reserve Bank Governor, the only name that comes to my head straight away is Don Brash. That’s because of his political career that he got into after he left the bank.
And if I think a little bit more, there’s Alan Bollard. But that's it.
But everyone pretty much knows who Adrian Orr is and I think it went to his head. I think he loved the limelight, and, in the process, he got a bit too cocky. I think he lost sight of what his job was actually all about.
Nevertheless, I don’t think he personally is to blame for everything when it comes to us feeling more hard up than ever.
And, if he hadn’t fallen into the trap of letting the job go to his head, he might not be copping as much criticism as he has and is.
I’m with economist Tony Alexander who is saying today that business people and homeowners who blame Orr for their cashflow problems are both right and wrong.
He’s saying that they're right in that he oversaw the continuation of excessively loose spending during 2021 and into 2022, which over-stimulated the economy and pushed inflation up to 7.3%.
He also was boss of the Reserve Bank when the official cash rate reached 5.5%. And then got it down to 2.2% by what Tony Alexander describes as Orr “crunching the economy”.
But he also says, let’s not forget Labour’s Grant Robertson’s role in all of this.
He was the guy who kept fiscal policy loose.
My understanding is that staff at the Reserve Bank had no idea this was coming until after it was announced to the media. Which is a shocker. And, apparently, staff at the bank have no idea what’s behind it.
I’m picking that he’s thrown his toys out of the cot because the Government wants to cut the budgets at the Reserve Bank. And a lot of that will have to do with what the Government probably sees as the former Governor’s obsession with things outside what it considers core business for the central bank.
But, from the very limited things that have been said since the announcement yesterday afternoon, it’s obvious that he’s quit.
Because when the chair of the bank Neil Quigley said it was “a personal decision” by Adrian Orr, that says he’s quit. It doesn't say he’s leaving for personal reasons, it says he’s walking away.
He’s going to be on the payroll until the end of the month, but he’s not Governor of the bank anymore. An acting Governor took over at midday yesterday.
The other thing too about all this secrecy, is that I don't think it’s acceptable when you’ve got a senior public servant who earns more than $800,000 a year quitting like this.
On the basis of what we kind-of know, I think we deserve more of an explanation.
If the guy’s thrown a hissy fit - tell us. Because, for someone who seemed to love the limelight as much as he did, disappearing the way he has is not only very strange, it’s also somewhat disrespectful.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m still getting over the Prime Minister saying if people don't like the food provided by the school lunch programme, they should make a marmite sandwich.
And quite rightly, his comments are being described by the principal of a school in Kaiapoi as “absolutely disgraceful”. And I couldn’t agree more.
Jason Miles is the principal of Kaiapoi North School and he’s bang on – that talk from the PM was disgraceful.
And he says it just shows that Christopher Luxon has had a gutsful of the school lunches thing. He says: "He (the PM) is out of touch with the current inequities that didn't exist in his time."
Jason Miles is saying what we all know – that kids can’t learn when they're hungry because they are easily distracted, and they get restless.
He says: “A healthy, nutritious, tasty lunch could be the only substantial meal that child gets for the whole day and a marmite sandwich and an apple is probably ok some days, but we want to know we are going to get a consistently, healthy nutritious meal for our children so they can learn."
And that’s the point here. We can bang on all we like about us going to school when we were kids with just a marmite sandwich - maybe a bit fancy on it some days with a piece of lettuce as well. Or sandwiches with luncheon in them.
And yes, we did just fine. Just like Christopher Luxon did. But here’s the difference - we went to school in the morning with some breakfast in our belly and we went home at night to an evening meal.
But that seems to be lost on the Prime Minister. Which is why this principal from Kaiapoi North School is saying today that Christopher Luxon’s appalling comments show just how out of touch he is.
Last night, this thing came through on my social media feed and it was a video the “How to Dad” guy, Jordan Watson was fronting. It was promoting KidsCan and he was reading letters that teachers had sent-in talking about poverty in their schools.
One of them talked about two siblings at the school and how each of them only turned up every second day, and the teacher got a bit sick of that and went to have a word with one of them. And the kid explained that they had to share shoes, and it was his turn to wear the shoes that day and that’s why he was at school and his sibling wasn’t.
That’s the world that people like this Kaiapoi North School principal knows about. And I know the Prime Minister will say he knows about it too, but I don't think he does.
He’s out of touch.
Maybe he hasn’t heard what happened at that school in Murchison last week. The lunches arrived and they were so hot that the plastic had melted, and it wasn’t until the kids had been eating for a bit that they realised they'd been eating plastic.
How can he tell those kids to eat a marmite sandwich if they don't like it?
No wonder Education Minister Erica Stanford wants and explanation from Associate Minister David Seymour.
She must have had her head in her hands when she heard the boss banging on about marmite sandwiches on Newstalk ZB yesterday morning and then coming out with the same nonsense in parliament.
It was disgraceful and shows that, when it comes down to it, the PM has no idea what life is really like for some kids in our country.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour Leader Chris Hipkins joined John MacDonald this morning to dig into the latest.
They discussed the latest from Ukraine and the potential for Trump to introduce agricultural tariffs in the wake of his over 20% tariffs on key trade partners.
Is talking to an overseas GP on the phone really a good solution to our lacking services?
And what on earth has gone wrong with the school lunch system? Is a marmite sandwich really sufficient?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In the first of their regular catch ups, Business Canterbury’s Leeann Watson joined John MacDonald in studio to dig into what’s happening on the business front.
They discussed how business owners are feeling, and what can be done to help them continue to gain confidence and grow in the region.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I am so glad that I’m not a member of the local rainbow community. Because if I was, I would be despairing at the weasel words the Christchurch mayor and the city council are trotting out about the Destiny Church's despicable disruption of the pride month opening event in Christchurch on Saturday.
And it just tells me that people are either scared of taking on the Destiny Church or they somehow think their hatred is okay.
So what happened at the weekend is the annual “walk for support” for LGBTQIA+ people wound up at the Bridge of Remembrance, and these muppets from the Destiny Church were there protesting against them.
They were carrying signs saying things about puberty blockers and child abuse and telling the people there to “repent”.
They also had a speaker system there, which they shouldn't have. But no one did anything about it.
Which is why a local rainbow campaigner is saying that the city council should apologise for not shutting down this illegal protest driven by nothing more than hatred.
And I agree. But I don't think that’s going to be coming anytime soon, considering the weasel words being trotted out by mayor Phil Mauger and the council's chief executive.
Phil Mauger is saying that everyone has the right to protest but it was “not polite” of the Destiny Church to set up their loudspeakers right beside the event.
He says it was “quite disappointing”, but he’s pleased things didn't get out of control like they did when the Destiny Church went awol at that pride event in Auckland the other week.
So that’s the mayor. But it gets even worse with what the council’s chief executive is saying.
Mary Richardson says: “We have to respect other people’s democratic right to protest, even if we don’t agree with their views.”
And the strongest action the council took was to send out a noise control officer - who found that there weren’t any noise limit breaches. Do me a favour.
That’s not all. There’s some classic passing-of-the-buck going on, with the council saying that it’s the job of the police to deal with public disturbances and the police saying permission to set-up loudspeakers is the job of the council and so the council has to deal with it, which is why the noise control officer was sent out.
But could you get a more lame response if you tried? But remember that this isn’t the first time that the Christchurch City Council has turned a blind eye to the Destiny Church.
You’ll remember how it waived $50,000 in fines that it had sent the church for the disruption caused by its anti-vax mandate protests during covid. That was all to do with Destiny Church not following the rules, not working with the council so it could make sure that traffic management was sorted.
But the council ripped those tickets up. Derek Tait from Destiny had a cup of tea with former mayor Lianne Dalziell and all was forgiven.
And it’s doing the exact same thing with these weasel words about the Destiny crew's behaviour on Saturday.
This is the council, let me remind you, that was all in favour of putting a rainbow crossing somewhere in town. Which, when it comes down to it, doesn't take much fortitude.
Yes, paint the crossing. I’m all for it.
But, when it comes down to it, painting a road crossing is nothing like staring down those clowns from the Destiny Church and telling them that their messages of hatred are not welcome.
And telling them that we’ve had a gutsful of them not giving a damn about the rules.
Rules that you and I would be expected to follow. And, if we didn't, there’d be consequences. Not if you're the Destiny Church, though, it seems.
So I’m with the pride campaigners who are saying today that the council could’ve and should’ve done a lot more on Saturday when the Destiny muppets turned up at this event. But the council didn’t - and, for that, it should apologise.
But that’s not all. The mayor and his council need to condemn Destiny Church for their messages of hatred.
If the strongest thing Phil Mauger can say is that “wasn’t polite” of them to do what they did, then don’t expect them to pull their heads in anytime soon.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What we saw at the White House at the weekend was nothing short of vile. But we shouldn’t be surprised.
Watching it, I was blown away. But I wasn’t surprised. And I reckon that, despite all the talk coming from European countries since Saturday, I reckon that Ukraine’s president will realise he has no option but to give Trump what he wants.
But let’s go back to what happened in the Oval Office on Saturday.
And it wasn’t just Donald Trump and JD Vance. There was that clown reporter who asked Volodymyr Zelensky why he wasn’t wearing a suit.
As for Trump and Vance, though, I thought they were like a couple of parents losing their rag with one of the kids.
Have you said thank you? After all we've done for you, you can’t even say thank you.
Talk about cringe. Here were these two guys berating someone who doesn’t even have English as his first language.
And while I thought it was vile. And while I was blown away by it all. I still wasn’t surprised.
Because what better way to tell European countries that they better get their head around the idea of giving more support for Ukraine’s war with Russia?
Trump’s been telling Europe this. At the weekend he was yelling it. And it seems to have worked. European countries are already making noises about standing firm with Ukraine.
But, as vice-president JD Vance said on Saturday - and this is the one thing I thought he was right on - he said you don’t win wars just thumping your chest. Actions win wars.
So I’ll give him that one. But it was kind of odd that, as soon as he’d said that, he started going on about diplomacy being the answer and when Zelensky asked him what he meant by diplomacy, the vice-president suddenly became very undiplomatic in front of the cameras.
And then Trump joined in and it was a shouting match. At one point Trump did an Andrew Bailey and touched Zelenskyy on the arm during their “animated discussion”.
The question now is, what will happen next?
My pick is that Zelensky, even though he must have felt completely under attack, will lick his wounds and he’ll be back at the White House. Mark my words.
Because, even though he knows Russia has form and that Russia could keep attacking Ukraine, even with the minerals deal in place, Zelensky knows that Europe has form too when it comes to supporting Ukraine.
He knows that European countries talk a lot, but their contribution to the war effort doesn't always match the talk.
So Ukraine still needs America. And Zelensky, if he hasn’t admitted it to himself already, he will eventually.
But Trump is still going to have to tread carefully. As a headline in the New York Times says: “Trump is rootin’ for Putin”.
And while he might think that Russia’s Vladimir Putin is a good guy, most Americans don’t.
But that won’t be enough to stop him. Because, as he said in the Oval Office on Saturday, he and Putin went through a lot together when there was all that talk about Russia interfering in the US elections.
And, as we know, that is one grudge the president will never let go of.
So even if Americans aren’t happy with their president being mates with Putin, he won’t care.
Zelensky will realise that. And I think he’ll be back at the White House to sign that deal sooner rather than later.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When the Government announced yesterday that it wants to have a binding referendum on a four-year parliamentary term here in New Zealand, I was all for it.
I've been all for it for a while now.
But I’m totally against the idea that we do the same with local councils. In fact, I’m so against it, that it could be enough to put me off voting in favour of a four-year parliamentary term.
That’s how strongly I feel about it.
Four-year local government terms is something the outfit representing most councils, Local Government New Zealand, has been wanting for a while now.
Christchurch mayor Phil Mauger has jumped on the bandwagon too. He also thinks that a four-year term would be great for councils.
He might feel that way, and Local Government New Zealand might feel that way, but it’s the last thing we want for our local councils.
There are a couple of reasons why I’m comfortable with central government getting a four-year term. First and foremost, I don’t think three years is enough time for governments to get stuff done.
The other reason why I’m good with central governments getting an extra year in power is that governments, generally, are pretty functional.
That's because if you’re in government, you have to toe the party line. I know David Seymour and Winston Peters test that a bit, but that’s MMP and it’s what coalition governments are all about. But generally, governments keep it together and stick together for the full term.
Councils though – completely different story. Just the other day we had a councillor in Christchurch accusing the mayor of lacking leadership.
We’ve got factions around that table, and I don’t imagine other councils are any different. Why on earth would you want to drag that out for an extra year?
How often do you hear Phil Mauger and his supporters lamenting the fact that he doesn’t have enough like-minded councillors around the table with him and how that impedes him from making any meaningful change? You hear it all the time.
Why would you want to give that lot an extra year? The answer is you wouldn’t.
With central government ministers, for example, if they do a hopeless job they either lose their portfolios or they resign.
A mayor can’t do that. A mayor of any council is stuck with whoever we vote and put into council alongside them.
Wellington is another brilliant example of a dysfunctional council. Why would people there want to lumber their city with that line-up for another year? They wouldn’t.
Aside from the fact that most councillors in most councils find it hard to get on with each other, the other thing that makes local government in less need of a four-year term than central government, is that councils are actually much better than central government when it comes to long-term planning.
Not to get too bogged down in council-speak, but councils have these 10-year plans. Governments don’t. With councils, you don’t have the holus-bolus cancelling of stuff that you can get when there’s a change of government, either.
At the council, there’s a plan in place and after an election you just have a new lot overseeing it. So this argument that councils need more time to get stuff done doesn’t wash with me. Unlike governments. Which do.
Because governments come in and change policies and do things like cancel ferry contracts. The disruption can be huge.
And they need more time, if anything, to clean up the mess they can create when they’re first elected.
So for me, the differences between central government and local government are huge and thinking they both need to four-year terms is nonsense.
And as I say, if councils getting four-year terms is the by-product of central government getting four-year terms, then I’ll be voting “no” in the referendum.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by Labour’s Megan Woods and National’s Matt Doocey to delve into some of the biggest topics of the week.
Four-year parliamentary terms could be on the table – what are the benefits of an extra year? What would be the potential downfalls for councils?
Would either of them make a citizen’s arrest?
And is it true Labour cut the budget for the defence force?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Don’t you get it?
I’m not saying this to you – I’m saying it to the Christchurch City Council, which thinks there is no need to have locals on this new committee its setting up to oversee the red zone on the east side of Christchurch.
This is the 600-hectare Ōtākaro/Avon River Corridor which has attracted all sorts of controversy since the government took it over after the earthquakes.
Tens of thousands of people used to live in the area before 2011. Not anymore.
There is a plan to do something with it. It’s a long-term plan, but this committee is being set-up to look after things for the time being. And the council is demonstrating classic council arrogance, thinking it doesn’t need to include any of the people who have put their hearts and souls into the area.
And instead, it’s setting up a committee involving people from the local iwi and the council itself.
People who will sit around the table, make decisions, and it will all be very convenient because they won’t have to deal with those pesky locals.
Pesky locals who used to live in the area, went through the trauma of being turfed out after the quakes, but didn't turn their back on it.
They stayed involved. Stayed committed to the future of this 11-kilometre stretch of land that goes from pretty much the centre of town out to the east.
But they don't need to be involved in any of the official stuff – that’s what the council thinks. And I completely disagree with what it’s doing.
And I know exactly why the council is doing this. It’s excluding the locals from this new committee because people who aren’t part of the local government machine are a pain in the backside.
Again, I’m not saying that, but that’s how councils and government agencies see it.
They like to keep people at arm's reach. Fobbing us off with the old line about consultation and having an opportunity to have our say at some point.
But what these outfits miss is that we are over being fobbed off in that way. In fact, most people are over being consulted. So why wouldn't you let the people who are actually passionate about the area get involved in a more official capacity? It makes absolutely no sense to me.
So what’s happened is 32 people representing most groups working in the river corridor have written an open letter to the mayor, the deputy mayor, and local iwi, telling them that there needs to be a local on this committee.
And the really important thing to note here, is that no one knows how long this committee is going to be in place.
The regeneration plan for the red zone will take decades and this committee could be around for yonks. Which is why there has to be more than just council and iwi reps on it.
Surely we know by now that, when it comes to anything to do with post-earthquake recovery, nothing happens on time. Things take years and we often look up and realise that some short-term temporary thing is going on for ever.
Which this committee could end up doing. Let's face it, it probably will.
And, let’s face it, anything that has been happening in the area so far has been led by the community.
For them to be shut out by the council at this point is a slap in the face and the council must confirm that a member of the local community will be on this committee from day one.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger joined John MacDonald live in studio for their regular catch up.
Community members of Christchurch’s red zone are outraged over their exclusion from a governance group overseeing the future development of the area – why have they been left out?
The age-old question of who has the right to a quiet night has reared its head once again. Inner city noise limits are being reviewed, but if the bars came first, should residents have to deal?
And Mauger has come under fire for voting against a roading plan around the new recreation centre – can he defend his thinking despite the project still going ahead?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m 50/50 on this idea the Government’s got of letting people do citizens arrests.
For security guards? Yes. For every other member of the public? It’s a definite no for me.
Let’s start with security guards and why I think these powers would be good for them.
How long have we been saying that they need more teeth to do their job? Ages.
And what we’ve meant by that, is the ability or the right to actually provide security as opposed to standing at the door and pretty much doing nothing when someone nicks stuff from a shop or assaults someone.
I think it's fair to say that at the moment, security guards only really come to life at sports matches. Everywhere else, they're about as threatening as the person who stands at the door at Bunnings. Or parent help at the Year 8 disco.
So, yes, change the law to the extent where security guards are enabled to be more effective than they are now.
There is one proviso, though: we will have to make sure that security guards are screened and trained even better than they are now.
I think too, security firms will have to consider the type of people they employ. Because if the law changes and security guards have the right to detain people, then we’re going to have to have security guards who are physically capable of doing it.
When I look around now at some of the security guards outside places like banks, for example, I can’t imagine some of them being capable of dragging someone to the ground and sitting on them until the cops arrive.
But as for the rest of us being allowed to make citizens arrests – forget about it. For many reasons.
For me, it’s not a particular line in the Crimes Act that stops me from intervening when I see someone breaking the law. I have never, and never will, make a citizen's arrest because I’ve got no idea what I’m taking on.
I’m not the largest person in the world, but even if I was, you’d never get me intervening. Because you just don't know what someone is on, what they’re capable of, and what weapon they might be carrying.
I had an experience recently where a guy, completely off his face on something, was assaulting another guy.
And straight away I thought ‘I’m not getting involved here’. And when I say not getting involved, I mean physically.
It wasn’t the law stopping me - it was my own personal safety that stopped me.
I did stick around though, and I called the cops. But there was no way I was going to take him on, and there is no way I’d attempt any sort of citizen's arrest.
But I reckon the really dangerous aspect of this is the licence it would give muppets out there to take the law into their own hands.
You’ll know as much as me, that there are people who would just love to have the law on their side. Thinking they're Bodie and Doyle from The Professionals TV show.
And while I’m not one to stick up for criminals, I wouldn’t want them getting roughed up unnecessarily by the vigilante types who would see this law change as a licence to do whatever they wanted to detain someone.
What’s more, this law change would go completely against everything the police tell us about not intervening and putting ourselves in danger.
For the same reasons why I will never do it: you have no idea what someone is capable of doing, especially if they’re high on drugs, and you don’t know what weapons they might be carrying.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Who would want to be Andrew Bayly today?
The disgraced, now former minister, resigned because he touched a staff member during what he’s describing as an “animated discussion”.
And now his political career is toast. As it should be, because in 2025, you just don’t touch people in the workplace.
You don't touch people in the workplace when you’re happy with them, and you certainly don't touch people in the workplace when you’re angry with them. You just don’t do it.
He’s staying on as the MP for Port Waikato, but he’ll be gone by the next election. National won’t want a bar of him.
Some will think there's nothing wrong with touching someone on the arm. What's so bad about that?
I’ll tell you what’s wrong with that. When you touch someone on the arm during a so-called “animated discussion", that’s intimidating behaviour. That’s threatening. In some circumstances, it could be considered assault.
So you just don’t do it. But he did and he’s gone. Not completely —he’s lurking in the backbenches— but quite a downfall.
And you might think he had it coming anyway after that incident at the vineyard where he called one of the workers a loser for still being at work after hours.
So he’s a bit free-and-loose on it.
And that could be a generational thing as much as anything. Because I know even in the course of my career, how much things have changed when it comes to what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace.
I think, having started my working life in a newspaper newsroom, I’m probably a bit more lenient in my thinking.
I certainly know that when I came back to the media after being away from newsrooms for about 14 years, I noticed how different it was, and the media certainly isn't as brutal as it used to be.
This is in terms of people being treated with respect, and I think it's brilliant.
I remember my first newspaper boss was what we probably called a “colourful character” back in those days.
He called me boy. He called all the other blokes boy. He even called the women working there boy.
Andrew Bayly is in his early-60s. So he’s from an era where people really did speak their mind the workplace, especially if they were under pressure.
Just as Andrew Bayly and every other cabinet minister is under pressure. Because, with our three-year election cycle, this is the year of delivery for any government.
The second year of your three-year term, time for some results. And Bayly said as much yesterday, talking about his eagerness for progress and change in his portfolio areas.
And I know as much as anyone that working with people can be frustrating at times. That’s because we’re all different.
But that is never an excuse for being a bully. For losing your rag. But especially it is never an excuse for grabbing someone’s arm during an “animated discussion”.
Remembering too that, in recent years, Parliament has been exposed for bullying behaviour.
Which is what Andrew Bayly was doing when he grabbed that staff member’s arm last week. And I don't feel sorry for him at all.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Spend up large. That’s my message to the Government. Go large, spend up big and drag our military into the 21st century.
That’s not me having a go at the military, by the way. Anyone reading this at Burnham Camp, for example, might feel like I’m having a go at them. But I’m not.
But, what I am saying, is that we need to be spending more on defence - and I’m not saying that just because of what’s going on out in the Tasman, with those three warships from China.
A situation that went next level on Friday and over the weekend, with the live firing exercises.
I say next level - but we also need to remember that China isn't breaking any laws. It’s fully entitled to have those ships there because they’re in international waters.
My view last week was that we needed to calm the farm about the ships being out there. It wasn’t time for us to start banging on the table and getting on the blower to Beijing and giving China’s president what-for.
And I’m not saying this just because of what’s been happening over the weekend - but I agree with Defence Minister Judith Collins when she says we have no choice but to to invest heavily in our defence forces.
And she says it won’t just be a one-off investment, either.
Over time, it will be billions of dollars. As she pointed out on Newstalk ZB today, successive government over the last 30 years have underinvested in the military.
And Judith Collins says defence personnel are up for it. But are you up for it?
Because it’s very easy to say ‘oh yeah, buy more planes, buy more ships etc", but when you ask people where the money's going to come from, they don’t have an easy answer to that question.
Reason being: there isn’t an easy answer.
What do you spend less on So more money can go into the army, navy and air force?
Finance minister Nicola Willis will give us a bit of an answer to that when she delivers this year’s Budget in a few months.
But, right now, the bigger question is whether we support the idea of the government pouring a truckload more money into our military. I do.
There will be people who don’t. But, according to one defence expert, what happened on Friday and over the weekend might actually it an easier sell for the Government.
This is Professor David Capie from the Centre for Strategic Studies at Victoria University.
He’s saying that the live firing exercises forcing commercial airlines to divert to avoid the area makes the situation much more significant than it was last week.
And he’s going as far as saying that the warships are “a gift from Beijing” to our government, to help it convince us of the need to spend more on defence.
I’m convinced already. But what about you?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Do you know why the Government has failed to meet all of its child poverty targets?
The overarching reason I’m talking about here. Because this is really complex and there are all sorts of reasons why kids end-up living in poverty and why politicians, generally, fail to fix the problem.
So the main reason why nothing seems to be achieved in this area. Why do you think that is?
It’s because of us. Those of us who aren’t living in poverty and aren’t one of those invisible people who feature in these latest stats which show we’re going nowhere on this front.
We’re the reason. Because, if we’re honest, we don’t really give a damn. Unless we're in that boat, we don’t really care as much as we might think we do.
If we did, we’d be demanding to know at election time what politicians are going to actually do for the 156,000 Kiwi kids living in hardship. They’re the latest numbers. If we really cared, we’d be grilling politicians on how they’re going to get them out of hardship.
But we don’t. Every piece of policy we look at it and want to know what’s in it for us.
We listen to the Prime Minister’s state of the nation speech, and we don’t flinch when we realise that he hasn’t mentioned child poverty once.
There was nothing in there about child poverty. There’s a lot of talk about fixing the economy —as there should be— but, as the Children's Commissioner is saying today, kids can’t wait while the Government tries to fix the economy and action is needed now.
She’s right. But it won’t happen because we’re not demanding that it happens.
Although, depending where people are on the political spectrum, some will be hearing this news today and some might be ripping into the government for not doing enough and others will be ripping into parents for not doing enough.
One of the most depressing examples recently of how we don’t actually care about kids in poverty is the debate over the school lunches programme.
Because, every time it comes up, there’s no shortage of people banging on about it being the responsibility of parents to make sure their kids are fed and why should us taxpayers pay for their kids to eat lunch?
It’s depressing because what someone is saying when they say that, is it’s the kids fault that they’ve got no-hoper parents.
In fact, that always seems to be the assumption, doesn’t it? A kid goes hungry because they've got hopeless parents.
Just like a kid who goes to school without shoes has got hopeless parents.
A kid who gets bronchitis every winter because they live in a freezing house. Bloody parents.
And, as long as the majority of people think like that, nothing’s going to change.
And, as long as the majority of people think like that, politicians know that they won’t be grilled by voters wanting to know how they’re going to get kids out of poverty and governments will know that they won’t be taken to task for not meeting child poverty reduction targets.
Sure, the coalition is feeling a bit of heat about it today with headlines and the usual talking heads out there saying they can do and should so better. But, after today, the government —in fact, every politician— knows that most people will be back to focusing on themselves, getting on with their weekend and not giving a damn about those 156,000 kids that, apparently, are growing up in the best country in the world.
And I’ll include myself as one of the guilty parties in all of this too. Well semi-guilty.
You won't hear me saying that a cruddy school lunch programme is okay because it should be those no-hoper parents feeding those kids, not us taxpayers. You won't hear me saying that. Ever.
But where I am guilty is that I’ve never asked a politician what they’re going to do for child poverty. I’m just as capable as the next person of turning a blind eye to all this.
Because, you know, gotta get on with life. Can’t take on all the world’s problems. And maybe it’ll sort itself out.
Thing is, though, child poverty won’t sort itself out. Criticising parents or punishing parents won’t sort it out. And politicians certainly won’t sort it out - because they know that, deep down, we don’t actually care whether they do or not.
It’s a terrible thing to say. But that’s where I think the problem lies.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by Matt Doocey and Duncan Webb to delve into some of the topics listeners are most interested in.
They mark the anniversary of the Christchurch Earthquake, which occurred 14 years ago tomorrow.
Rangiora’s after-hours clinic is still not underway, but some certainty has been gained after the Waimakariri District Council has offered to bankroll the project.
Child poverty statistics have not shifted – is this a problem governments can’t solve?
And what do they make about the Chinese Navy sightings in the Pacific?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Adrian Orr. Champion of the people.
Well, that might be going a bit too far. But the Reserve Bank Governor was speaking my language when he says that dropping the Official Cash Rate, like he did yesterday, is just the start and that the banks have to do their bit too. And I couldn’t agree more.
He was having a dig at their profit margins. But for me generally, I don't give two hoots how much profits the banks make. Because profitable business are a good thing. Even profitable foreign-owned business.
But where bank profits do seem obscene is when you consider the way they treat their customers. In particular, existing customers.
They fall over themselves trying to get new customers, but if you're an existing bank customer - nah, you don't deserve any special treatment.
Which is crazy, because everyone knows that generally it's easier to hold onto your current customers than get new ones through the door.
Tell that to the banks, though.
And, if you’ve got a mortgage with them —if you're an existing customer, like I am— it’s people like us who get ripped-off while the banks try desperately to get new people signed-up.
Case in point: I don’t know how many times I’ve seen my bank of nearly 25 years running ads for loan rates for new customers way better than what I've been paying.
And I go into a branch and say, “I've been with them for ages, can I get that same rate please?”
And every time, it’s been, “oh nah, that’s for new customers only”.
It’s like they think they've got you over a barrel. Which they have, because most of us don't do anything about it, do we?
I know we make threats that we’re going to move to another bank, but I think the banks have done a very good job over the years of making us think that it costs too much to change banks.
And that’s what most of us end up doing.
In my case, I walk out of the branch thinking all sort of things in my head, writing all sorts of letters in my head telling the bank where to go… but then, you know, suck it up and watch the new customers get the welcome mat at my expense.
And it shouldn't be that way. If the banks were as really interested in being our partner in life and all that warm fuzzy nonsense they trot out, they wouldn't treat existing customers with such indifference.
Which is why I think the Reserve Bank Governor is spot-on with his comments.
To their credit, all the major banks did cut their interest rates after the announcement yesterday that the Official Cash Rate was going down.
But again, not all customers benefit from that. If you’re on a floating mortgage - yep you’ll benefit. But if you’re on a fixed rate - no change until it’s up for renewal.
So I’ll give them some credit, but I think the banks still have a long way to go.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I reckon most of us, when we fill out the census papers, assume that the information we’re providing won’t end up in the wrong hands.
I know there are some people who don't feel like that. People who just don't want to give personal information to anyone - especially the government. Or the state.
The Wizard of Christchurch was known over the years for refusing to take part in the census. And, in more recent years, we’ve had people who just can’t be bothered. They’re the ones who ended up getting things like Warriors tickets and pressie cards to do what the rest of us just do anyway.
But I reckon after these revelations that have come out over the last 24 hours, it’s going to take more than tickets to sports matches and shopping vouchers to get people involved next time the census comes around.
What’s more, I think the public service has got a major job on its hands to restore public trust. In fact, that may turn out to be the biggest job the recently new head of the public service —Sir Brian Roche— has on is plate.
Because once you lose trust, it’s very hard to restore it.
I haven’t lost trust (not yet anyway), but I’m certainly losing confidence in the public service when it comes to keeping my information secure.
And this latest example could actually be the tipping point for me.
But essentially, an inquiry has found multiple flaws in the way public service agencies protected personal information provided to third party contractors hired to help with the 2023 Census and a Covid vaccination drive.
We don't know whether any of this personal information was “misused”, but what we do know is that, as Sir Brian puts it, “the gate was left open” for it to be misused.
And what Sir Brian calls “very sobering reading” could be about to get worse.
That’s because there are other investigations into how other government agencies including the police, the Serious Fraud Office and the privacy commissioner use our personal information.
So what impact is going to have an impact on your trust in the public service and is it going to have an impact on your willingness to share personal information with the state?
Let me quote Sir Brian directly, because there are two words that I think are the focus for us.
He says: "The report makes for very sobering reading. It raises a number of issues that go to the core of the confidence and trust required to maintain the integrity and sanctity of information entrusted to government agencies.”
The two key words there are trust and confidence.
Here’s where I’m at with that. Sir Brian says the public service has pretty much failed to keep up with technological changes. And what he's getting at is that it is so much easier these days to share information.
For example, if someone working in the public service can access someone’s information, what is there to stop them sending that around a few people?
Not much.
And when I heard Sir Brian talking about that, that is when I decided that the public service still has my trust. If I said to you that I didn’t trust them, that would be because I believed that there were public sector workers helping themselves to my personal information en masse and doing what they want with it. Intentionally.
But I don’t think that, even after the revelations of the past 24 hours.
But what I do think is that it has become so much easier for information to be passed on at the click of a mouse at lightning speed and that’s where I think the public service has been found to be pretty hopeless.
So for me, I still trust the public sector, but my confidence in it is another story.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour Leader Chris Hipkins joined John MacDonald this morning to give his thoughts on some of the biggest stories of the week.
The integrity of the public service is being called into question after Census data was allegedly misused – how will this impact trust in the future?
Hipkins believes the GP shortage is the biggest factor impacting demand at Christchurch Hospital ED, so what would he do differently if he was Health Minister now?
And he expands on his statement condemning the actions of Destiny Church protestors over the weekend.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Already, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is looking ahead to whenever a ceasefire might happen in Ukraine and has said that, if or when it does, he’d be happy to send troops in to keep the peace.
It was too early for PM Christopher Luxon to confirm the Government's interest in sending troops to Ukraine once there’s a ceasefire during his regular appearance on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning.
Christopher Luxon says he'd be open to it. But, despite the New Zealand military’s record of peacekeeping around the world, I hope we don’t get involved in Ukraine.
I know that with Britain talking about peacekeeping already, they’ll be on the blower to Wellington at some point wanting us to join in.
Just like they were last year about sending military personnel to help protect freight shipping in the Red Sea. You’ll remember how we said, “yep no problem” and six of our soldiers went off to try and put the Houthi militia in its place.
And, as I said at the time, I got what the Prime Minister, the Foreign Affairs Minister, and the Defence Minister meant when they said it was about New Zealand doing its bit. I still didn’t agree with it, though.
Which was based on previous experience.
Essentially, when you get involved in a major military undertaking, you have no idea when it’s going to end.
The patrols in the Red Sea. Who knows when they’re going to end? And who knows when any peacekeeping commitment in Ukraine would end?
What’s more, Europe is flooded with military capacity. There is no shortage. And there will be no shortage of countries willing to join Britain in Ukraine when the war ends and when peacekeeping support is needed.
Since 1948, New Zealand troops and personnel have been involved in more than 40 peacekeeping missions in places like the Middle East, the former Yugoslavia, Somalia and Iraq.
But our brilliant peacekeeping record doesn’t mean we have to go running into Ukraine when the time comes.
We need to be more picky about what peacekeeping work we get involved in because our military resources have become so depleted that we have to be realistic about what we can and can’t do.
I also think —and I’m not being alarmist or anything here— but I think we should narrow our focus and look at pretty much limiting our military’s offshore activities to the Pacific region.
I can’t imagine the government —which likes to talk about New Zealand doing its bit globally— being too fussed with that idea.
But I think we need to refine our approach and stop saying ‘yes’ to requests from other countries every time the phone rings.
Which is why if British prime minister Keir Starmer or US president Donald Trump or whoever is running Australia by the time a ceasefire in Ukraine happens, phones Wellington, I hope we have the fortitude to say we’d like to, but we can’t.
We can’t because we don't have the military capacity. We can’t because we’ve learned from past experience that, once you’re involved in these things, it can be very hard to get out. And we can’t, because our military needs to focus on stuff closer to home.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When I saw Brian Tamaki on the news last night, he looked more pompous than ever.
Pompous - not pious.
Because he was the one who instructed his so-called followers to disrupt that drag artist’s kids show and protest at the Auckland Rainbow Parade at the weekend.
From the pictures I’ve seen, both of those events looked pretty ugly. His idea. Under his instructions. And I’ve had a gutsful of this guy. And we need to be condemning him in the strongest way possible.
Because, it seems that’s all we can do. Sadly.
They were doing a particularly vigourous haka at the end of the parade. That wasn’t free speech. That was hate.
I saw one person saying on the news that Tamaki’s Man Up crew is nothing more than a gang and should be treated that way.
This person made particular mention of the gang patch legislation - saying that these guys ride around on motorbikes wearing patches, So why aren’t they included in the gang patch ban?
The organiser of the rainbow parade says there is a difference between freedom of speech and hate speech - and what we saw at the weekend was hate. And I completely agree.
The parade organiser says it was clear that they had set-out to intimidate, to bully, and get their message of misinformation across.
I agree they wanted to intimidate. And I agree they were a bunch of bullies. But I don't know about the misinformation bit, because you never get any information from these clowns (misinformation or otherwise).
And, as per usual, we had weasel words from the Prime Minister when he was asked about it yesterday.
He said he respects peoples right to free speech and he respects people's right to protest, but he said Tamaki’s puppets “went too far”.
You're damn right they went too far. Even by turning up, they went too far. What the PM should have done yesterday was condemn Brian Tamaki and his deluded followers in the strongest way possible.
He should have done what Auckland mayor Wayne Brown did. He said it was nothing short of “thuggery”. Which is a great way to describe it.
I thought Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick was a bit light on it when she said that the rainbow community needs love and support, not hateful rhetoric.
I know what she’s saying, but I want her to condemn these people too.
Because, for me, this wasn’t free speech - it was hate speech.
And remember that this kind of thing isn’t new for this Destiny lot. You’ll remember they got all excited about an event at the library in christchurch that time when there was an event with people in drag reading stories to kids.
And there’s no stopping them.
Last night Tamaki was saying that he doesn’t think they’ve gone far enough yet. And he challenged the Prime Minister to get show some fortitude and to do a Donald Trump, and declare that only two genders will be recognised in New Zealand. Male and female.
So these guys are dangerous. Not because of their mickey mouse beliefs, but because of the way they express them.
If someone doesn’t like the idea of same sex people being in relationships - they’re allowed to feel that way. If someone thinks we should go back to the way it used to be, with just boys and girls and men and women, they can think that too. Good luck to them.
But when people take it to the next level - like we saw at the weekend - that’s not ok by me.
I tell you what else isn’t ok. The fact that this outfit is out there bullying people - dishing out their hatred - and because they call themselves a church, they enjoy all the tax benefits that come with that.
A few years back, some Destiny Church charities were removed from the charities register for not filing their annual tax returns.
Before that happened, more than 70,000 people signed a petition calling for Charities Services to strip the church of its tax-exempt status.
I’ve had a look at the register today and the Destiny Church New Zealand Trust is still there. There are still some regional branches registered as a charity too. Which is a rort.
And, until the government delivers on its promise to crackdown on so-called “charities” not paying tax, we just have to accept that it is what it is.
But that doesn’t mean we have to sit back and let these people do what they want. We can’t make them pay tax. We can’t tell them to take their patches off - because they’re not a gang.
But we can stand up and tell them to pull their heads in.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m starting to wonder whether it was just a fluke that we managed to build things like the big hydro dams back in the day without them falling over. Without them falling apart. Cracking under the pressure.
Because, when you consider achievements like that, it makes it laughable that we don’t seem to be capable anymore of really simple stuff like fixing roads.
An example is Halswell Junction Road, in Christchurch. Three repairs in the past 12 months and now it needs to be done a fourth time. The local councillor has had a gutsful, and I don’t blame him.
What are some other examples that show just how average we’ve become? What about that time they flooded Cromwell and created the new lake? Was it just a fluke that we pulled that off without it leaking all over the place?
The Lyttelton tunnel. How on earth did we do that without it caving in?
We used to be able to do all those things. These days, we can’t even fix a road properly.
We can build rockets and send them into space. We can build boats that win the America’s Cup.
In fact, we’re better at those things than we are at fixing roads. Which is crazy, isn’t it?
City councillor Andrei Moore is saying today that the repair work on Halswell Junction Road has been sub-standard and parts of it still aren’t level.
What’s more, people are telling him that their houses are being shaken by traffic more than ever.
So why’s that, do you reckon? I’ll tell you what I think but, first, here’s the council’s explanation.
Its head of transport has told our newsroom that the problem with Halswell Junction Road is that it isn’t strong enough for them to use asphalt, and so they have to use chip seal.
And, obviously, chip seal is hopeless on that particular road - which is a major route.
The thing is, it’s not just Halswell Junction Road, is it? It seems to be everywhere. All over the place - so-called repairs are being done, over-and-over again.
Maybe calling them “repairs” is generous, because something is only repaired once it doesn’t need fixing again.
And do you know why this is happening? It’s easy. She’ll be right.
This “she’ll be right” attitude is rife everywhere. It’s rife in councils, where the processes they use to hire contractors has become so complex, that once a roading outfit is in the system, they’re pretty much there for life.
Even if they do cruddy work - they’re in the system, they’ve got a purchase order number, invoicing is all set-up and it's way too much work for the council to find someone who might do the job better.
And hey, we can still tick things off the to-do list - even if we have to get them back to do it all over again in three months time.
She’ll be right. The companies that do the actual work. If it doesn’t work first time, we’ll come back and sort it out. Don’t bother telling the council that chip seal is hopeless and we should be using asphalt. Don’t upset the apple cart. She’ll be right. Job for life.
And you and I, we’re part of the problem too.
Because, generally, we just shrug our shoulders and put up with this lame she’ll be right attitude when, what we should be doing, is making more of a noise about it.
And when I say noise, I mean actually putting people into these councils who are prepared to push back when they hear nonsense such as Halswell Junction Road not being strong enough to take the weight of asphalt.
I’m talking about putting people into councils who will push back at that and say, do something about that. Don’t just keep pouring chipseal. Make the road stronger.
People who will challenge the way their council monitors performance and quality.
People who will do there everything to get rid of “she’ll be right”.
Because, until that happens —until everyone ups their game— nothing is going to change. And the same repairs are going to continue to be done over and over again.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday John MacDonald was joined in studio by National’s Matt Doocey and Labour’s Tracey McLellan.
They discussed yesterday’s supermarket announcement: does the Government really believe another player will enter the scene, or is it all just talk?
Why has some mental health funding been redistributed when New Zealand continues to suffer through a mental health crisis?
A bit closer to home, the price for our police to hire helicopters is blowing out each year, will Christchurch ever get its chopper?
And is a pie really a healthy option for a school lunch?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger for a chat about the biggest issues concerning residents.
Christchurch City Councillors have adopted their Draft Annual Plan.
It now proposes a 7.58% overall rates increase, down from the originally-drafted 8.93%. They achieved this not by cost cutting, as well as paying off less debt, resulting in next year’s rates increasing significantly.
Is the Mayor doing the right thing, or is he just thinking of the next election?
Does he support the proposed ‘user-pays’ water system being introduced for ratepayers?
And Mauger reflects on the response to the second big Port Hills fire now twelve months on from blaze.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Let me give a shout out to Christchurch City Councillor Melanie Coker, who has told her council colleagues that what they are doing by not paying-off debt to keep the rates rise this year lower and then stinging us with an even bigger increase next year, is misleading.
That’s how she’s describing this smoke and mirrors way councillors are trimming-back this year’s rates increase with one thing in mind - getting votes.
She says the council is showing “poor leadership, poor financial management and is misleading the public”. And she’s bang on.
They’re being short-sighted. Reckless. And if any of the ones who voted for this try to tell you over the next few months that you should vote for them because they’ve done everything they can to keep rates and down and they’ll do everything they can to keep them down again if you vote for them, call them out on these shenanigans. Because that’s what it is.
Which is being generous. Councillor Coker puts it better, when she says it’s misleading. In fact, that’s being generous too, because what it really is, is a sham.
I’m not going to get bogged down in numbers because that’s not what this is primarily about.
When it comes down to it, this is about councillors trying to protect their backsides and get re-elected when the local body elections happen later in the year.
But we need a few numbers for context.
So the council was proposing a 9.93% increase. It was going to put that out for public consultation yesterday.
But, at the last minute, councillor Sam Macdonald cooked up this idea that they could pay-off less debt and get the increase down to 7.5%.
And what do you think happened? Enough of them around that council table thought “ooh, that’s a good idea. That’s a much easier sell when I’m out trying to get re-elected later in the year.”
So when it went to the vote, that’s what they decided.
It was close, though. Nine voted in favour of it —including mayor Phil Mauger— and eight were against it.
Which is going to mean several things. The increase this year will be lower but, at this point it looks like next year’s increase will be over 10 percent%.
What’s more, it’s going to contribute to the council’s books being in worse shape than they were going to be by $12 million.
Before yesterday, the budget was going to be unbalanced by $48 million. This smoke and mirrors stuff is part of the reason why the council’s books will be unbalanced by $60 million.
Going by the report I’ve read, councillor Kelly Barber takes the cake - saying this yesterday: "At the moment, our ratepayers are suffering. Next year is another year. Let’s deal with the problem of next year, next year.”
In that one statement, councillor Barber demonstrated perfectly the problem with politicians in this country. Central government. Local government. They’re all the same. All they care about is the next election.
And by saying “let’s deal with the problem of next year, next year”, Kelly Barber has shown us that all he cares about is getting another three years around the council table.
And when it comes to dealing with “next year, next year” and that rates increase is looking like being more than 10 percent, and the council’s books are even more out of whack, it won’t matter, because the election will be history.
Deputy Mayor Pauline Cotter’s another one.
She says reducing rates artificially instead of paying off debt makes her uncomfortable, but "this is a good year to be easing financial pressure on people”. And she’s hopeful the economy will improve next year.
But is that really the approach to take when you’re overseeing a $1.5 billion annual budget? Hoping things will get better.
Of course it’s not.
It seems that in an election year, it’s perfectly fine to not cut costs. It's perfectly fine to pay-off less debt. It's perfectly fine to kick high rates increases for touch and worry about them next year. It’s also perfectly fine to put the books $12 million more in the red than they would have been.
It’s perfectly fine - if you’re trying to win votes.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you thought Three Waters was a dog, how are you feeling now, with the news out today that the Christchurch City Council is looking at going all user pays on it when it comes to water?
And this isn’t strictly a conversation about Christchurch. It’s a conversation about your philosophical position when it comes to water – something essential to all of us. And I’d be dead against charging people on the basis of how many litres of water they use.
So the council is considering changing the way it charges those of us who live in Christchurch for water from being part of our rates bill to it being completely user pays. The more water you use, the more you pay.
And I’m not a fan because, when it comes to something as basic as water, I think it’s unfair to go completely user pays.
Just because you might use a lot of water, it doesn’t mean you can afford to pay more for it.
And you might be thinking ‘well, what about electricity? What you pay for power is based on how much you use?’ And I’d say fair point, but the horse has already bolted when it comes to electricity. It doesn't mean we should do the same with water.
So the council's thinking about making this change as a result of the Government’s water reforms – which it calls “Local Water Done Well”. And is its alternative to Labour’s ill-fated three waters reforms, which were all about taking responsibility for water off the councils. It wanted to take the water assets off council hands too.
So the Government’s told councils that it’s not taking over but it’s still going to tell them what to do. Which means Christchurch is grappling with how it’s going to deliver what the government wants. Which is essentially deciding whether it’s going to keep running water services in-house, or whether it's going to set up a whole new entity to run water.
The other question facing the council is how it charges for water.
And it’s a simple decision the council has to make. Does it keep doing it the way its always done it? Where water is part of your rates bill. Or does it go all user-pays on it and charge people for water depending on how much they use.
Now before we go any further, let’s forget about the fact that not every property in Christchurch has its own water meter. Because what we’re talking about here is the philosophical debate as to whether water should be an outright transaction, where we pay for what we use, or whether we should all be sharing the load a bit more.
Sure, if you live on your own in an expensive part of town, then you’re going to effectively pay more for your water than someone in another part of town who’s property might not be worth as much as yours.
But that seems fair to me.
Because why should someone who doesn’t live in an expensive part of town but has, say, three or four kids and, because of that, uses a truckload more water than the person living on their own in Fendalton, be forced to pay more?
The answer is, they shouldn’t.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A man of many stage names, Mark Lizotte, better known as Diesel, joined John MacDonald live from Australia for a chat.
He’ll be taking to the stage in a couple of week’s time as a part of the line up for Selwyn Sounds.
He and John talked about his career and it continuing to flourish with the release of new music and his pre-show habit of weather forecasting. Plus, John learned about his famous musical family connection!
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Whenever people used to bang on about Christopher Luxon being the next John Key —which, I think we all agree now, he isn’t— but whenever I used to hear that talk, I pooed-pooed it.
All because of what the two of them did before they got into politics.
And the fact that Luxon isn’t another John Key is why we’ve got two new political polls telling us that, if an election was held now, the left-wing parties would have enough votes and enough seats to form a government.
Because his political leadership is invisible. Particularly, in relation to his handling of ACT leader David Seymour.
Seymour is running rings around the Prime Minister and voters are seeing it a mile off.
Which is why last night’s 1News-Verian poll had National down 3% to a 34% share of the vote and Labour up 4% to 33%.
Overall, the National/ACT/NZ First coalition would have 60 seats (not enough to form a government) and Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori would have 61 seats (enough to form a government).
And Seymour is the reason. Or more to the point, Luxon’s reluctance to thump the table publicly is the reason.
Before Sir John Key got into politics, he’d been a financial trader. Christopher Luxon, before he got into politics, was a chief executive.
So, what’s the significance of that? Traders thrive on chaos and chief executives avoid chaos at all cost.
Chief executives are like ducks on the water. They like it to look as if everything’s going smoothly, nothing to see here, but underneath the water their legs are going flat out.
And being a former chief executive, that’s how Christopher Luxon is handling David Seymour —“nothing to see hear, nothing to see here”— and that’s why we have two poll results telling us that, if an election was held now, the National/ACT/NZ First coalition would be out the door.
And he was treading water again on Newstalk ZB this morning when Mike Hosking asked him what he could do about Seymour – whether he could actually sack him from Cabinet.
For trying to drive the land rover up the steps at parliament yesterday but, more significantly, doing that stupid thing where he wrote a letter to the police on behalf of Philip Polkinghorne before he was accused of killing his wife and, subsequently, found not guilty.
The PM was saying he didn’t have time to think about David Seymour and it’s natural for minor coalition partners to seek media attention, despite the fact that Seymour has got into a public spat with the Prime Minister over the letter he wrote to the police.
When the PM was asked yesterday about Seymour writing to the police, he said it was “ill advised”. Straight away, Seymour fired back in a media interview saying, “before criticising a local MP for doing their job, you should know all the facts”.
I reckon more and more people are looking at Luxon and thinking “when are you going to tell him to pull his head in?”
Especially when you consider that, in a few months time, Seymour will be Deputy Prime Minister.
Luxon’s approach might be appropriate for the corporate world, but, as the numbers are showing, it’s not the way to handle things in the political world.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
So the Government's doing all sorts of things to try and get rich migrants into the country - except one thing. Which it should be doing.
Former immigration minister Stuart Nash was on Newstalk ZB this morning saying it's time to lift the ban on foreigners buying houses. And I agree with him.
The so-called 'golden visa' the Government announced yesterday is going to mean an end to the English language test for rich migrants. It will also give people residency if they invest $5 million over three years in a growth-type project or $10 million over five years in a more conservative operation.
We’re largely talking here about investing into a business, managed fund, commercial property or new property development.
But if they want to live here - they have to rent. They’re not allowed to buy.
Which is a rule Winston Peters likes. But according to Stuart Nash earlier, it's a rule he might be prepared to see go.
So too would the immigration lawyer saying today that, if these wealthy types can’t buy a place here, then they’re just not going to bother.
Nick Mason’s his name. And he’s saying that if the Government’s really serious about getting these people over here, then the ban on foreigners buying houses needs to be ditched.
It came-in back in 2018. Remember that was around the time that Phil Twyford went through the phone book, noted down all the foreign-sounding names and claimed the place was being overrun by aliens. Which it wasn’t.
So eight or nine years down the track, this immigration lawyer is saying that it’s a real sticking point and it will continue to be a sticking point if the Government doesn’t get rid of it.
He’s saying: "Let’s say we all have $15 million and I choose to invest that in New Zealand and I can get permanent residency. That’s great, I can stay in New Zealand as long as I like but I can’t own my own house until I’ve spent at least six months of a 12-month period here.”
Now we might be thinking, what’s wrong with waiting six months?. But that’s the tricky bit.
Nick Mason says people with this kind of money don't necessarily spend six months anywhere and he thinks if they can’t buy a house on day one, then it will continue to be “a considerable barrier for many investors”.
And let’s get real. If a millionaire or a billionaire is coming here, they're not going to be buying the weatherboard and tile place or the brick and tile place from the 50s. They're not going to be denying first-home buyers their chance to own a place.
So this thing about foreigners pricing New Zealanders out of the market - I don’t actually believe that it’s a thing.
I reckon this ban is like something from the dark ages. It’s based on paranoia and not much else.
And it’s not just Stuart Nash who thinks Winston Peters might not be as paranoid as he used to be about foreigners buying up all our houses and spoiling the quarter-acre dream.
Nicola Willis was dropping similar hints on Newstalk ZB today as well.
You can imagine what’s going on behind the scenes though, can’t you? Because this is something National and NZ First haven’t agreed on in the past.
NZ First has wanted it to stay and National has wanted it to go.
I think it should go too.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
After all his talk about asset sales, David Seymour has obviously been scratching his head like the rest of us, wondering what we’ve actually got left to sell. And he’s got Christchurch Airport in his sights.
The Government —or the Crown— owns a 25% stake in the airport (which is the second largest in the country) and the ACT Party leader is saying today that he doesn’t think it should. And I agree.
Remember, 75% is owned by the Christchurch City Council, and it’s the other 25% that Seymour thinks should be sold because he doesn't think owning an airport is core business for the Government.
I think it’s a great idea, but not for exactly the same reason as David Seymour.
He thinks an airport shouldn’t be a government activity. I don't care too much about that side of it, because the Government —or the Crown— has its fingers in all sorts of pies, doesn’t it?
My support for this comes down to numbers. And whether you and I would be better off if the Government stayed involved in the airport company or not.
So David Seymour is saying today: “ACT believes that owning an airport isn’t part of the Government’s core business and would support selling its share so the money can better be used elsewhere.”
He says: “Whether that means better infrastructure, better healthcare, better education services or homes for the next generation.”
And the reason I think this idea is a winner has nothing to do with me saying “yeah open the doors to anyone with money”. It’s not me agreeing with Seymour that governments shouldn't be involved in things like airports.
It’s got nothing to do with those things.
And if you’re familiar with my views on assets, you might think it’s a bit weird that I’m supporting Seymour on this one. Because, generally, I don’t consider anything to be an asset unless it’s making money - and the airport is making money.
It’s making money for the Crown and it’s making money for its majority owner, the city council.
But if you dig a little deeper into the numbers - that’s where the argument in favour of the crown selling its 25% share lies.
In the 12 months until June last year, the airport company reported an underlying net profit after tax of $41.8 million. That was from revenue in the 12-month period of $233.1 million - a 15% increase on the year before.
And, once they’d done things like taking into account changes to depreciation rules, the actual result for the year was $22.7 million.
Here are some more numbers:
All up, the airport company is worth more than $2.3 billion.
So, if we do some really raw mathematics, let’s say the crown’s 25% share is worth $575 million.
And if we take the crown’s 25% share of last year’s actual profit, that comes to about $5.7 million.
So, what would you prefer? $5.7 million in a year or $575 million in a one-off transaction?
The Crown could sign a deal and get $575 million. Or, based on last year’s profit level, it could wait 100 years to get the same sort of return.
Based on those numbers, I think it’s a no-brainer. And I don't expect to be the only one thinking this is a good idea.
Just a few days ago, Mark Lister from Craigs Investment Partners said Christchurch City Council missed a trick when it decided against asset sales. He reckons Christchurch Airport is an attractive asset, which is all the more reason for the Crown to sell-off its 25% share.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined in studio by Hamish Campbell and Reuben Davidson.
David Seymour thinks the Crown should sell its share in the Christchurch City Airport – is it wise to sell off a profit-making asset?
Eastgate Mall has made headlines for its crime this week, as MP for Christchurch East, will Rueben be asking for more police?
And should we be nervous about the Cook Islands making deals with China?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Be very nervous.
That’s my advice regarding the Government’s big re-set for state housing provider Kāinga Ora.
Don’t get me wrong. Some of the stuff it’s doing makes perfect sense. But, overall, there’s potential for it to be a real cluster.
Let’s start with the positives, though. It seemed to me that, under Labour, Kāinga Ora had become some sort of urban development agency.
In fact, I’m pretty sure that was the pipedream old Phil Twyford had back in the day.
Which, when you think about it, is somewhat ironic given it was Labour that came up with the plan in the first place to have the state provide a roof over the heads of people who can’t afford their own place.
You would think that Labour, of all parties, would have the basic gist of the state housing programme embedded in its DNA.
So, tick: I’m all for housing minster Chris Bishop’s plan to get Kāinga Ora to focus on its knitting - which is to provide houses and be a good landlord.
The Government’s also going to sell 800 or 900 state houses a year and demolish about 700. These will, generally, be the old-school weatherboard and tile jobs. The places that people talk about having “good bones”.
Two hundred of the ones that are going to be sold are worth around $2 million each - which has more to do with their locations. Some of them are in places like Remuera.
And that makes sense to me. Although, to be fair, Kāinga Ora has already been doing this. The Government’s just getting it to do more sell-offs.
And it’s going to replace them with new builds. It’s also going to do some alterations to other existing properties.
And the upshot is - according to the Government, anyway - is the number of state houses will stay the same as it is now.
Woohoo! Big deal!
Because, when you think about the fact that there is a social housing waiting list with 20,000 people on it; plus 1,000 households living in emergency housing; the Government crowing about keeping the number of state houses the same is a pretty hollow.
On top of that.. According to the last census, there are also 5,000 people living “without shelter”.
So you take all of those numbers and, surely, it tells you that we should have more state houses than we do now.
In fact, not should - we need to have more state houses than we have now.
You’d think so. Well I would, anyway. Not Chris Bishop, though.
Labour, of course, is ripping into the Government. Saying that this plan shows it’s more interested in cost-cutting then housing people. Which I agree with.
And it’s one reason why I’m saying we should be very nervous about what the Government is doing.
The other reason - in fact, the main reason why I’m saying we should be nervous about the Government’s new plan for state housing - comes down to 14 seconds from the minister’s interview with Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB this morning.
I heard him and thought 'hang on a minute'.
He said: "Fifty percent of people on the register, they just need a one-bedroom unit. They don't need a three or four-bedroom unit, they just need a one-bedroom unit. And, actually, we can build that really cheaply and some of the stuff we're doing on the granny flats, for example, making it easier to build one or two-bedroom granny flats on properties will make a real difference there."
He’s right when he talks about what types of properties people need.
This has been known for quite a while. Which is why we've seen Kāinga Ora demolish some of those big houses and replace them with more smaller homes on the same site.
And the reason more and more people only need one bedroom is because we do not have as many large families anymore. Society is way different from back in the day when Michael Joseph Savage turned up at 12 Fife Street in Miramar in 1937 to open the very first state house.
So yep I get all that.
But when we get the housing minister talking about granny flats and state houses in the same breath, that’s when we need to start getting nervous.
Especially when you join the dots to the minister’s announcement yesterday where he said: “Ministers are clear that Kāinga Ora should be building or acquiring simple, functional, warm and dry houses, as quickly and efficiently as possible.”
Which, for me, is code for a whole bunch of one-bedroom granny flats built in a rip, shit and bust fashion.
And we should be very nervous about that prospect.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I tell you what, I am almost torn on this talk today about New Zealand pulling out of the Paris climate agreement.
The one we’re signed up to along with a truckload of other countries - and which US president Donald Trump has just exited.
In fact, here are the numbers: we are one of out of 193 countries that are signed up members. That’s 193 out of the 197 countries that there are in the world.
But Donald Trump is not having any more of it. And talk about winds of change in the White House, there could be winds of change here too, with David Seymour sniffing an opportunity and saying that the ACT Party could very well go into the next election with a policy to get us out of the Paris agreement too.
Here’s what he’s saying: "There is a wider question of whether the government of New Zealand should be committed to the Paris Accord when half of the world appears to be pulling out of it, anyway.”
Which isn’t really correct, but that’s politics.
Speaking of, maybe David Seymour is just doing what Sir John Key used to do all the time: put an idea out there as if we are one big focus group.
Somehow, I suspect there might be a bit more to what David Seymour is saying. And I bet there will be no shortage of people who would actually vote for this kind of approach.
And this is where I get to the bit about me being torn.
I reckon —in fact I know— there would be no shortage of people who would vote for this kind of policy. I know there would be no shortage, because I can actually understand their thinking.
It is very easy to understand their way of thinking that New Zealand is a tiny cog in the climate change machine and, really, what difference can we actually make?
And then there's the belief that the big polluting nations aren't doing their bit. So if they’re not, why should we bother? Which I get.
The other side of the coin, though, for me, is that the United States isn’t necessarily the be-all and end-all. Which is what former climate change minister Nick Smith was getting at when he spoke on Newstalk ZB this morning.
He says when it comes to climate change you have to take a long-term view, and you can't have politicians flip-flopping on policy.
He says our free trade agreement with the European Union has specific references to climate change and we would be nuts to pull out of the Paris agreement.
He says China and Australia are part of it and, if we did pull out, there could be serious trade and economic consequences for New Zealand.
And this is the point where I stop being torn and come to the conclusion that we have to stay signed up to it. Whether or not we think we can make much of a difference.
You might think ‘well that’s a lot of time and money and effort to make little or no difference’. But is it worth jeopardising trade relationships for?
I don’t think it is.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
“There are dropkicks everywhere”.
That's what someone said to me when we were talking about this situation around Eastgate Mall.
This person I was talking to goes to Eastgate all the time and they were saying that they feel more nervous going to Riccarton Mall.
And I agreed with them. Sometimes the atmosphere outside Riccarton Mall can be pretty threatening.
Which is why I think there is a strong argument for police to have a permanent presence not just around Eastgate - but all the big malls.
Riccarton’s one of them where I think there is a definite need. That might be because, of all the malls, that would be the one I go to most often.
So why Eastgate is in the news today, is that the owner of five shops in the area around the mall has had a gutsful after having to call the police 70 times during the last three months.
He’s called them for all sorts of things - assaults, drug use, attempted break-ins, vandalism and loitering - but they haven’t always turned up. And that’s got local community leaders saying the police need to be stationed in the area permanently.
Which they used to be. But it seems they've been diverted to the foot patrols in the central city.
Which are great - and very noticeable.
Just the other day, I was in the centre of town and a couple of cops walked past me. I turned the corner and there were two more walking towards me.
So that’s brilliant. But it seems that it may have come at the expense of places like around Eastgate Mall - going by what this landlord is saying today and what the local community board leader and local city councillor are saying.
City councillor Yani Johanson and the head of the local community board, Paul McMahon, both reckon that the strife around Eastgate could have something to do with officers being reassigned to the CBD.
“We need the community policing team back”. That’s what McMahon is saying.
He’s saying: “There was a Phillipstown policing team, which included Eastgate, and the community constables were a regular presence.”
He goes on to say: “But the new government re-prioritised police to beat policing, and that means more police in the central city and fewer police for places like Eastgate.”
City councillor Yani Johanson is singing from the same song sheet. He says he goes to Eastgate often and he's aware and concerned about the anti-social behaviour going on there.
He says more needs to be done and having more of a police presence is something people would welcome.
I bet it would. But, like I say, if you’re going to have more cops at Eastgate - you need to do it elsewhere too.
Problem is, though, police resourcing.
As Inspector Glenda Barnaby puts it - she’s the metro area prevention manager - she's saying today that police can’t be everywhere, all the time.
Which is a fair point. She’s also saying today that what she calls “vigilant reporting” from the public is key to the police being able to respond and do something about bad behaviour.
But tell that to the guy in the news today who has called them 70 times in the last three months
The thing is - whether we like it or not - malls have become central meeting points in communities.
Back in the day, people would congregate in places like your old town squares.
These days, people go to malls to congregate as much as anything. And wherever people congregate in large numbers - you're going to get all sorts, aren't you?
Which is why I agree with these two council guys who want a heavier police presence at Eastgate. But I’m saying don’t stop there and do the same around all the big malls in Christchurch.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A mate was telling me last night how surprised he was that he was breath-tested by the police yesterday afternoon.
If he’d been riding an e-scooter, though, he would have been waived straight through.
If he’d been riding an e-scooter he also wouldn’t have been drug-tested. He also wouldn’t have had to have the thing registered like any other vehicle.
Which the AA is saying today is nuts and needs to change. Because even though the number of e-scooter injuries is going through the roof, e-scooter riders and e-scooter companies don't pay any ACC levies. And I agree with the AA.
Because when a vehicle is registered, it enables all sorts of things. One of which, is to charge ACC levies.
Which is way overdue for e-scooters, especially when you consider these new stats which show that ACC paid-out nearly $15 million for e-scooter injuries last year. Which was a 50% increase on the year before.
The number of injuries were up across all age groups. Although, one-in-four people injured were in their 20s. About half of the claims were for soft-tissue injuries. More than 1-in-20 were for fractures and dislocations.
People bang on all the time, don’t they, about people coming here from overseas and getting free ACC cover. The reason for that being that you can’t sue in this country and so we have to provide cover for people from overseas.
But the exact same thing is happening with e-scooter riders. Because they don’t have to pay ACC levies, they’re getting free ACC cover.
And if you don't like the fact that tourists get ACC for free, then you should be just as brassed-off about e-scooter companies and e-scooter riders getting the same.
There have been numerous efforts over the years to have e-scooters recognised as vehicles. None have been successful.
So the Automobile Association is trying again. Writing to the outgoing Transport Minister and the incoming Transport Minister, as well as the minister for ACC, telling them that the time has come for e-scooters to be registered.
The particular point that the AA is making is that the number of privately-owned e-scooters has reached the point where these things are not novelties anymore.
It’s not unusual for someone to own their own e-scooter and the laws need to catch up with that. They need to reflect that.
And it’s not as if the people who do own their own e-scooters don’t recognise the dangers. Most of the time they’re dressed up like Darth Vadar, aren’t they?
Full-face helmets and all of that. Plus, the protective clothing. And the speeds these things can get up to still blows me away.
Then you get the muppets on the Lime scooters and all those other rental scooters, riding as if there's no tomorrow. The one thing I’ll say about the people who own their own e-scooters is at least they put some effort into keeping themselves safe with the helmets and all that.
Another thing the AA wants to see is e-scooters being allowed in cycleways. It also wants e-scooter riders to be tested for alcohol and drugs. It wants them banned from using mobile phones, as well.
The Government has said it’s “open to changes”. As it should be. In fact, it should more than open to them, it should be getting on with it.
You’ll remember how, at the end of last year, motorcyclists were fired up about their ACC levies going up.
Motorcycle Advocacy Group New Zealand was even going to the Human Rights Commission about it, because motorcyclists are facing an 80% in ACC levies over three years.
And, at the time, I said if that’s what needs to happen —given that motorcyclists are at much greater risk and potentially more likely to need ACC cover— then why shouldn't they pay more cover?
As far as I’m concerned, the same goes for e-scooter riders. And the e-scooter rental companies too.
Because, like motorbikes and anything else on two wheels, they are inherently more dangerous than something on four wheels, and our transport laws need to recognise this.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In the first Politics Friday of 2025, John MacDonald was joined by Matt Doocey and Megan Woods to dig into some of the biggest political stories of the week.
New data reveals that ACC paid out almost $15 million for e-scooter injuries last year, a nearly 50% increase on the year before – is it time for the businesses operating them to pay levies?
What does Megan make of Shane Jones honing in on the banks and their dealings —or lack thereof— with fossil fuel companies? Is it wise to sell off the country’s state-owned assets? And the new school lunch programme has seen some criticism – would Matt eat the meals?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I like to think that I care about the climate and climate change. Well, I know I care.
But, like most of us —if I’m really honest— I’m all a bit token on it.
Which might be why I’ve got absolutely no problem with Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones taking on the big banks for refusing to lend money to the fossil fuel industry.
I’m not like some people who I actually know —friends of mine— who are deeply committed to trying to do something about climate change. And it shows through the way they live their lives. I go along with the recycling and all that, but that’s about it.
If I was more of an eco-warrior, maybe I’d be ripping into Shane Jones for threatening the banks with a private members bill which —I’ll admit— could set quite a precedent. Because if Parliament forces banks to do business with the fossil fuel industry, what could be next?
And if I was more of an eco-warrior, maybe I’d be jumping to the defence of the banks and saying that they have every right to decide who they do and don’t do business with. Which, technically, they do.
But, despite all the things the fossil fuel industry gets accused of, it is not an illegal operation.
Which is why Shane Jones is planning this intervention to force banks to drop their “woke” approach and to stop treating people who own petrol stations, for example, like second-class citizens.
There’s similar talk across the Tasman. Peter Dutton —the opposition leader who could very well be prime minister in a few months in Australia— is saying the exact same thing as Shane Jones.
Which I agree with. If you’re running a perfectly legitimate business, then banks shouldn’t be allowed to close their doors to you.
Where this has all come from is a thing called the Net Zero Banking Alliance, which is a global thing that banks around the world have signed up to.
It’s voluntary, but a pretty good sell job has been done on it, obviously. Because all up, there are 136 banks around the world involved.
136 banks in 44 countries with assets worth about $NZD100 trillion.
The purpose of the alliance is to get banks to lend money to businesses and industries that align with the idea or the goal of having net zero emissions by 2050.
So you can see why the banks here have been pulling the pin on lending money to petrol stations. Because petrol is "bad" and doesn’t do much for achieving your net zero emissions by 2050.
And I’m perfectly happy if the banks want to be part of this. Good on them.
I’m perfectly happy if they want all their mobile mortgage managers to run around the place in EVs because that would align with zero emissions. Go for it.
I’m perfectly happy too for the banks to give all their staff free bus passes – although it would be us customers who would end up paying for it.
What else? Solar panels at all branches? Yep, go for that too.
But turn your nose up at petrol station owners and the general fossil fuel industry? No thanks.
Because, whether the banks like it or not, they are legitimate businesses - just as legitimate as any other sector. And what the banks are doing is wrong.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger is in campaign mode after confirmation he's seeking a second term in October's elections.
He'll battle Councillor Sara Templeton for the top job, the only other contender so far.
In his first catch up of 2025, he discussed his motivations with John MacDonald, as well as thoughts on alcohol bylaws, changing speed limits, and the lack of GPs in the area.
He’s prepared to talk to the new Health Minister about Canterbury's GP shortage.
Victoria University research has found half of family doctors in the region have no room for new patients.
It's worse in south Canterbury, and 59% of GPs have closed their books.
Phil Mauger told MacDonald he'll talk with Simeon Brown about potential solutions.
He says there's more people in Christchurch than ever, meaning the load is greater on general practices.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Generally speaking, when something isn’t making you any money, you try to get rid of it.
That’s in business, especially. And it looks like that’s the approach National might want to take with state assets too.
Christopher Luxon says he’s open to it, and I am too. To a point. And maybe not in the way Christopher Luxon is thinking.
The Prime Minister is saying that state asset sales are not on the agenda this term - but he’s willing to take it to the next election.
But let’s be honest, he’s more than just open to it. Especially when you hear him saying things about “recycling” assets making good sense if you’re not getting an adequate return on your capital.
But when I say I’m open to the Government selling-off some of its assets —or our assets— the approach I would want to see taken is a bit different from what most people think of when they hear talk about governments selling assets.
Anyone who opposes selling public assets —and these can be assets that are owned by the government but also owned by other outfits like local councils— argue that once something is sold you can’t get it back.
Which I get. It’s like finding yourself in a bit of financial strife and selling an old heirloom or something precious to you because you need the money. And then, down the track, you really regret it. Once something’s gone, it’s gone.
Which is how some people will be feeling about the PM saying that state asset sales are not on the agenda this term - but he’s open to it and willing to take it to the next election.
And he seems to be up for asset sale - like his predecessor, Sir John Key, who said on Newstalk ZB this morning that, if he needed urgent health care today, he wouldn't give two hoots about who owned the bricks and mortar.
And maybe that’s an easy thing for someone with plenty of money behind them to say.
But if you put that aside, he’s actually spot on. If something happened to you today, all you would care about is getting the treatment you needed.
And, if the government is going to down the track of selling assets, this is what it should focus on.
It should be trying to find buyers for all of our hospital buildings. It should be trying to find buyers for all of our state school buildings.
It should be selling all of the things that actually suck money away from the key public services that are provided inside those buildings.
Because the challenge when it comes to selling anything, is finding buyers.
The Christchurch City Council discovered that a few years back when it wanted to sell City Care because it wasn’t making it any money.
But I bet that if we put all of our hospitals and schools up for sale —I’m talking here about the bricks and mortar— I reckon the Government would have no problem finding buyers.
As former Labour and ACT party politician Richard Prebble puts it in the NZ Herald today: "If we want to be a first world country, then are we making the best use of the Government’s half a trillion dollars plus worth of assets?”
And I would argue that owning the bricks and mortar that Sir John Key talked about isn’t the best use of government capital. Owning hospital buildings isn't, nor is owning school buildings.
Because who cares who owns the buildings?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What do you think someone in their 40s is thinking about right now?
I can think of a few things, and I bet it’s not retirement. Even though we’re being told today that that’s what someone in their 40s should be thinking about.
But I bet they’re not.
I reckon if someone is in their 40s and they’re a parent with kids at school, they’ll be cursing about all the back-to-school costs. But they’ll probably also be loving the fact that the holidays are pretty much over.
What else might people in their 40s be thinking about right now?
Maybe, with it being January, they might be thinking about trying to get a new job this year. Some of them will be thinking about getting a job full-stop.
If they’re in their 40s and they run a business, they’ll probably be hoping they can get through this year just like they got through last year. They might even be looking at their mates who have a job and get paid a salary and be thinking that working for someone else doesn’t actually look that bad after all.
There will be people in their 40s dealing with relationship break-ups. Some will be moving on to the next one, blending families and all of that.
They’re just some of the things that a person in their 40s might be thinking about right now.
But do you think anyone in their 40s is thinking about their retirement? In fact, not just thinking about it, actually planning for it. How likely do you reckon that is? Very unlikely.
But apparently they should be.
That’s according to the author of a new report out today which says “oh you know how we’ve been telling you that you need to have a million bucks in the bank if you want to have a comfortable retirement? Well, you might not need that much after all.”
In fact, you might even get away with having just $120,000 in the bank.
That’s the “no frills” version of retirement, by the way. If you want the frills, you’re going to need a million.
So where’s this thing today about young people proactively planning and preparing for their golden years coming from?
It’s coming from Massey University’s financial education and research centre, which has looked at spending by people who are retired now, and they've worked out that $120,000 in the bank could be enough for a comfortable “no frills” retirement.
They’ve found that retirees in urban areas spend less than retirees in provincial areas. But they pretty much put that down to things being more expensive in provincial areas and people having to drive more in provincial areas.
But even though they’re saying that $120,000 might do it instead of a million, they say that some other form of income after the age of 65 is needed for a really comfortable retirement.
And this is what Associate Professor Claire Matthews wants people in their 40s to be thinking about right now.
She says the standard of living most people hope to have when they retire requires more than just NZ Super, and that requires long-term thinking and planning.
But I think that kind of talk is unrealistic for the reasons I mentioned earlier. People in their 40s have got enough on their plate without thinking about retirement.
Granted, we are light years ahead from where we were when I began my working life, now that we have KiwiSaver.
In fact, I reckon people closer to my age —I’m 56— I reckon a lot of us are pretty distracted with life too and retirement isn’t really on our radar.
Sure, I’m doing the KiwiSaver contributions each fortnight, but that’s it.
And I’ll be totally honest with you, when it comes to my retirement, I’m probably preferring not to think about it.
Which I know is pretty reckless.
But it’s for the exact same reasons why I think someone in their 40s today won’t be giving too much thought to how life is going to be once they hit 65.
It’s called life. And doing what you have to do in the here and now.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Do you know what the most pointless piece of road safety advice is? Drive to the conditions.
I get it and it’s well-meaning. But it’s pointless. A waste of breath. Because some people are incapable of doing it.
And it would seem from some of the reports in the past 24 hours about those two buses which went off the road yesterday on the Twizel-Tekapo highway after hitting black ice, that perhaps the drivers of those buses knew nothing about how you should be driving in sub-zero temperatures.
So they either didn’t know how to drive to the conditions - or just didn’t care.
This isn’t a one-off, either, by the way, and, I reckon the time has come for us to stop mucking around with this “drive to the conditions” nonsense and do one of two things.
We either follow the lead of some European countries and make winter tyres mandatory on all vehicles. Or, as soon as we know temperatures are going to be sub-zero where there’s a state highway, we close the road. We don’t wait around until the road is frozen over and it’s too late.
I see the guy in charge of the bus company involved in yesterday’s crashes is disputing any suggestion that they were going too fast. He would say that, though, wouldn’t he?
It’s not like he’s going to come out and say ‘oh yeah, those muppets I pay to drive my buses have got no idea about driving to the conditions’.
So, instead of relying on some bus company owner in Auckland, I’m going to give more credence to the eyewitness account of a chap by the name of Tony McClelland, who was on the road at the time. I bet he isn’t buying what the bus company guy is saying, either.
He was driving from Christchurch to Omarama. And he’s been in the news saying that the road conditions on that highway yesterday morning were the worst he’s ever seen.
He hit black ice himself near Tekapo Airport, nearly lost control of his van and almost ended up in a ditch. So he called the police and asked them to close the road.
Here’s a quote from what he’s saying: “You're looking at minus-5, minus-4 degrees, foggy conditions - that State Highway should have been closed. No doubt and it wasn't. There's just a big black sign up by the airfield saying 'dangerous conditions, black ice'. That's how people die."
Thankfully, no one did die. One person has serious injuries and two others have moderate injuries. And thank goodness those buses ended-up where they did - off the road and not in the middle of it.
But back to Tony McLelland. Once he’d called the cops, asking them to close the road, he thought about turning back but decided to press-on. But he stuck to 60kph. And it wasn’t long after that that he saw these two buses “flying out of the fog”. That’s what he’s saying.
And here’s how he describes what he saw. "They were not doing 60. They were not doing 80. They were doing at least 100, probably a little bit more."
And he obviously drives that road quite a bit, because he says it’s not uncommon to see drivers hoofing along at 100 kph during winter, when there’s black ice on the road.
But this sort of nutbar driving happens everywhere. Less than two weeks ago, police caught a driver doing 134 kph in icy, foggy conditions on the road to Aoraki/Mt Cook - with the whole family on board.
This was on State Highway 80. It was around minus-3.
The day after that, the police came out with a warning, saying the number of people driving at “horrendous” speeds in winter conditions is appalling.
Over a two-week period, 26 people had been caught doing speeds over 120 kph in icy conditions.
So what happened yesterday isn’t an isolated one-off. It’s happening on an all-too-regular basis and just telling people to “drive to the conditions” is worthy, but lame.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you think the violence action plan announced by the Government yesterday has no relevance to your life - think again.
It’s one of many plans that are part of this overall 25-year strategy to eliminate family violence and sexual violence. The big strategy was launched in 2021, which means it’s got about 22 years to run.
It’s got a big price tag too, the long-term strategy that is. $1.3 billion. And, as part of this latest action plan, the Government’s going to review how the money is being spent to make sure it’s focused and streamlined to make sure that every dollar being spent is making a difference.
As for the goal of eliminating family violence and sexual violence by 2046, I think the harsh reality is that we’ll never eliminate it. But I’m not saying that we shouldn’t bother trying.
I’m sure that if we spoke to someone involved in trying to end violence, they would say that the 25-year strategy is “aspirational”. They’d tell us that it’s something to aim for - which is better than the alternative. Which is doing nothing.
And I’d agree with that. The question, though, is what you do to try and get somewhere towards eliminating violence.
Which is why I said before, if you think the violence action plan announced by the Government yesterday has no relevance to your life - or nothing to do with you - then you need to think again.
The obvious thing you can take from that is that we are all potential victims but also instigators of violence.
You’ll know as well as I do that it’s not just people in certain parts of town who are at risk. Violence is everywhere. There’s violence in houses with kids' bikes and toys outside. There’s violence in houses where the cops turn up every now and then to have a word. But there’s also violence in houses with beautiful hedging and front gates that only open when someone presses a button.
Physical violence, sexual violence, verbal violence, psychological violence.
And if it isn’t you who has experienced some or all of those things. There’s a pretty good chance that someone you know has.
It might be a friend, a relative, or that really friendly neighbour down the street who always seems to be smiling.
That friend, relative, or really friendly neighbour down the street who always seems to be smiling could also be the one being violent behind those closed doors.
Which is why this plan announced yesterday - and the bigger picture strategy that it's part of - will only achieve something if we do our bit.
And when it comes down to it, doing our bit is pretty easy. It isn’t necessarily comfortable or pleasant or convenient. Because, doing our bit to reduce all kinds of violence, requires us to give a damn.
It requires us to listen out for those raised voices across the fence. It requires us to do more than just shrug our shoulders and say “oh they’re at it again”.
It requires us to run the risk of losing friendships or straining family relationships. Because if someone is picked up for acting violently or aggressively, I bet it must be damn embarrassing.
Not to mention the fact that it can be very easy sometimes to convince ourselves that doing something or intervening will only make things worse for the person suffering the violent abuse.
You know: “If I go over there now or if I ring the cops, he’ll just get more fired and up and then she’ll really wear it.”
Or: “If I go over there now or if I ring the cops, there’ll be a rock through our window tonight.”
See what I mean? But I genuinely believe that, if this stuff the Government’s going to do has any chance of succeeding, then we need to stop being a nation of scaredy cats.
And I’m including myself there. Because there have probably been countless times where I’ve turned a blind eye or considered myself too busy - or any of the millions of excuses we can be very good at coming up with to avoid “getting involved”.
“That yelling next door’s been going on for quite some time now - maybe I should poke my head in. But if I don’t get to the supermarket, there’ll be nothing for the lunches.”
Driving home late at night. “That young woman back there looked pretty drunk - she probably shouldn’t be out on her own like that. Maybe I should go back and check on her. But I’ve got an early start. Need to get some sleep.”
Time and time and time again we come up with excuses not to do anything. And that is what needs to change.
For me, that is the one big thing we could all do to really make a difference and to give this 25-year plan to eliminate family violence and sexual violence by 2046 some chance of success.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Even as a scooter rider, I think these motorcyclists who are kicking up a fuss about their ACC levies going through the roof don’t have a leg to stand on.
It’s quite possible too that the motorbike guys will think that someone who rides a 2-stroke Vespa isn’t even a real motorcyclist.
And they’re free to think that, but even though the ACC levy is going to increase by almost 80% over the next three years, you won’t find me running off to the Human Rights Commission.
I’m not joking there either, because that’s exactly what Motorcycle Advocacy Group New Zealand has done.
So here are the numbers: in three years’ time the ACC levy for anyone who registers a motorbike will be $532. At the moment, it’s $297. So, yes, a truckload more money. It’s an increase of nearly 80%.
And the motorbike people think they’re being unfairly targeted when you consider that the ACC levy for car drivers in that same three-year time period is going to go from $42 a year to $64 for drivers of petrol cars. For EV drivers, the levy will go from $42 a year to $122 a year.
So the motorbike people have lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, saying it isn’t fair that they’ll be paying more than $800 a year when car drivers will only be paying a maximum of $122 a year.
They say it would be much fairer if everyone just paid a flat rate of $140, but I disagree.
In their complaint to the Human Rights Commission, they say that as a minority group of New Zealand citizens, motorcyclists are being unfairly singled-out and the increases will particularly affect people on low incomes who rely on motorbikes as an affordable form of transport.
Here’s a quote from their submission: “Although motorcyclists only account for only 0.26 percent of all ACC accident claims, they bear a disproportionately high financial burden.”
So you look at that stat, and it could be very easy to think that they have a good point. If so few ACC claims are being made by motorcyclists, why are they paying way more than other people on the road? But it’s not about the number of crashes - it’s about the severity of the injuries.
For me, it comes down to the fact that —when you’re on the road on two wheels— you are at so much more risk. And I don’t have a stat to back this up but I bet you that when a motorcyclist is involved in a crash, chances are they require a lot more medical care than someone in a car.
That’s what ACC itself says too – it says the cost to the country of motorcycle accidents is extremely expensive.
This is because of the kinds of injuries someone can get if they’re on a motorbike and get involved in a crash.
And, unfortunately, a lot of the time those crashes aren’t caused by the motorcyclists themselves, they’re caused by muppets in cars and other vehicles.
If you’ve ever ridden a motorbike or a scooter, you’ll know how key it is to make sure that other drivers have seen you. Example: when you’re heading down the road on your motorbike and there’s a car approaching an intersection on your left.
You can never be sure they’ve seen you unless you catch their eye. I do it every time, try to make sure I catch their eye. Always have. Because, quite often, what I find is that the car driver at the intersection is actually looking beyond you.
They’re looking out for larger vehicles and they can completely miss you.
Not that us motorbike and scooter riders are completely innocent, either. I don’t know how many times I’ve given into the temptation —when traffic’s at a standstill— to undertake, and ride through the space to the left of the built-up traffic.
I don’t know how many times I’ve said to myself I’m never doing that again and I have done it again.
Nevertheless, riding a motorbike or a motor scooter is not compulsory. It is a choice. It is a choice that motorcyclists make knowing full well that riding on two-wheels is way riskier than riding on two wheels.
And, because we acknowledge that risk, we also need to accept that if we come to grief, chances are we’re going to need more support from the health system.
And, because of that, we have no reason to complain about paying higher ACC levies than other road users.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A regular weekly contributor to the show up until last year, Gerry Brownlee is finishing his first full year as Speaker of the House.
Brownlee joined John MacDonald to reflect on his year amid the continuing drama in Parliament.
He says has been a very democratic year in the chamber.
When elected to the position this time last year, Brownlee said it was his job to protect MPs rights to speak freely.
He says he feels he's done this job well, ensuring debate in the house was well facilitated.
Brownlee says he's been particularly liberal in allowing MPs to express themselves –particularly in a parliament where there is a balanced opposition and Government.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When Finance Minister Nicola Willis said “I have delivered” yesterday —after announcing the Government’s so-called plan for the Cook Strait ferries— what she really meant was: “I’ve had a gutsful of this lot fighting over it and I’m out.”
She was throwing her arms in the air because she’s had enough of NZ First and ACT squabbling over what should happen with the ferries, and so she went to the Prime Minister and said, “I’m done”. She said to Christopher Luxon, “if Winston thinks he can do better, then let him do it”.
And, as of yesterday, he is apparently going to do it in his new role as Minister of Rail.
That’s my theory on how things have played out behind the scenes in the lead-up to yesterday, but the evidence is there.
Because it’s obvious, isn’t it, that there’s been a spat in Cabinet. Which is why they’ve managed to do absolutely nothing over the past 12 months.
They’ve been squabbling over whether they should get ferries capable of transporting trains. And they’ve been squabbling over whether the ferry service should continue to be a government-run thing or whether it should be handed over to the private sector, which is what David Seymour wants.
He thinks Bluebridge runs a pretty good operation, so why couldn't another private operator do the same?
But, either way, I reckon even died-in-the-wool National supporters can’t deny that this ferry thing has turned into a real cluster, and what happened yesterday was a circus.
And everyone sitting around that Cabinet table should be hanging their heads in shame.
The big negotiators. The big talkers. It’s come to nothing and it’s going to be the second half of next year before we have any idea what’s going to happen, and 2029 before we see any new ferries. And that’s probably being pretty optimistic.
It was Winston Peters who got the iRex project underway in the first place when he was in government with Labour between 2017 and 2020.
On Newstalk this morning he admitted that he’s even embarrassed by how it’s all played out, but he's the guy who's going to fix, apparently.
There was no information forthcoming yesterday about the trains being capable of carrying trains or not. Nothing about the cost. And Winston Peters wasn’t budging on that when he spoke on radio today, either.
"Help is on its way," is all he would say.
All this bravado a year after Nicola Willis pulled the plug on the iRex project, saying it had gone way over budget and she was going to come up with a cheaper alternative.
Remember her banging on about getting a Toyota Corolla inter-island ferry service, instead of the Ferrari service she said the iRex project had become?
Well, it was all talk. We don’t even have a Toyota Corolla. We’ve got a Hillman Hunter - and that’s being kind to the clapped out ferries that are servicing Cook Strait at the moment. It’s also being unkind to Hillman Hunters.
And we will be using the Hillman Hunters until at least 2029 because of the Government's inaction.
What a circus.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A firm answer from Christchurch's mayor on whether the Cathedral restoration levy should go into reducing a rates increase.
Households have paid $6.52 each year since 2018.
Halswell councillor Andrei Moore wants it used to help a reduce a 8.4% rates increase, while the rebuild is indefinitely paused.
Mayor Phil Mauger told John MacDonald he believes the money should stay where it is.
He says interest will accrue and be ready for when the Cathedral restoration continues.
People can submit feedback on the draft annual plan in February.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I have never had a problem with greyhound racing so you’re not going to hear me singing the Government’s praises for banning the sport.
But I am scratching my head. Because there are so many things about this move by the coalition that just don’t make sense to me.
On one hand, the Government wants more people working, but it’s happy to see about 1,000 private sector jobs go down the gurgler within two years.
It wants to grow the economy, but it’s happy to say goodbye to the $160 million the sport generates every year.
The Government wants to rescue the greyhounds, but it’s happy for livestock to be stuck in a crate and shipped overseas.
Not to mention the fact that horse racing and rodeos are fine, but dogs chasing a lure around the racetrack is a no-no.
Here’s another one: the Government wants to rescue the dogs, but is happy to spend less on school lunches.
See what I mean? It makes absolutely no sense to me. And that’s not just because I’ve never been concerned about greyhound racing.
What this is, is a left-field move by a right-leaning government which I thought Winston Peters did a pretty good job of announcing yesterday. Considering he’s like me and doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with the sport.
Here’s what he said to a select committee earlier this year: "Dogs love racing. Just like horses. Three o'clock in the morning, everybody's quiet and they're out there having a race in the paddock.
"So before we rush off, there are certain instinctive things that animals like, and one of them they will do whether you're going to organise the race or not."
So with so many unanswered questions, this is when the conspiracy theories start to emerge. Especially when you consider that the greyhound racing people themselves had just one hour’s notice before yesterday’s announcement.
So here are a couple of my theories: Winston Peters has done a deal with Cabinet to get more government money pumped into the horse racing industry, in exchange for banning dog racing.
The only potential fly in the ointment with that theory is that some people think this greyhound thing is the so-called thin edge of the wedge and horse racing will be next on the chopping block.
But as long as Winston Peters is breathing, I don’t think we’ll see that happening. And that could be a long time because Winston is the Keith Richards of New Zealand politics, isn’t he?
Another theory of mine as to why this all came so quickly and out of the blue, is that the Government wanted something to keep the greenies happy when it looks like its new ferries aren’t going to be capable of carrying trains.
That might be stretching it a bit, but see what I mean? When a government does something like this, which doesn’t really marry-up to its general way of thinking, we all start to wonder what’s really behind it.
The reaction so far has been at both ends of the spectrum, as you would expect. The greyhound racing people say they are devastated. The SPCA people say they’re ecstatic.
Edward Rennell is chief executive of Greyhound Racing New Zealand. He got the phone call 45 minutes before yesterday’s announcement.
He says the greyhound racing of today is different to the greyhound racing of yesterday.
Yes, 13 dogs died last race season from injuries, but, according to the saving animals people themselves, more racing horses die each year.
And yes, greyhounds probably do have a much more comfortable life when they’re re-homed with humans than they do when they’re racing.
But their animals for goodness sake. And I can’t help feeling that the Government has taken its eye off the ball with this decision.
Especially a government that bangs-on all the time about dealing with the cost-of-living crisis, growing the economy, getting more people into work and sorting out the education system.
It makes absolutely no sense to me.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Surely this is the final straw for Gloriavale. Or, more to the point, surely it’s the final straw for the Government.
Because it is absolutely shameful that it still exists.
This final straw, by the way, is the Court of Appeal ruling announced yesterday that the BNZ has every right to close the community’s bank accounts. For the simple reason that it doesn’t want to do business with them anymore.
And good on the Court of Appeal. More to the point, good on BNZ, which could turn out to be the outfit which does the most for those poor sods stuck there.
It will probably also force the hand of all those businesses on the West Coast that have been quite happy to turn a blind eye, as long as they get to do business with them and make a crust.
Because aside from being a place where kids are treated like slaves, where women are treated like sex slaves and lord knows what else, it is also a large business. A large financial entity which includes two trusts and 13 companies.
And there are many people who have done alright out of Gloriavale. They’ve made money servicing their property and everything else that needs doing at a place like that.
But for how much longer? The lawyer representing the people who have escaped the place and who took Gloriavale to court for ripping them off with all the crazy work hours is saying today that Gloriavale should be shut down.
He’s putting responsibility for that on the Government.
I would like nothing more than for that to happen, but I’m not sure whether the Government actually has any powers to do that.
But either way, this has to be one of this country’s greatest embarrassments. That, for years now, concerns about Gloriavale have been raised and —aside from the odd court case where creeps who have committed sex crimes have been hauled before the courts— Gloriavale’s been allowed to just keep on keeping-on.
What happened, which led to yesterday’s ruling, is BNZ told Gloriavale that it wanted to close all of its accounts – citing its human rights policy.
Gloriavale said ‘you can’t do that’, claiming that if they lost their bank accounts, their whole future would be in jeopardy. So they took the bank to the High Court and managed to get an interim injunction which forced BNZ to keep the accounts open.
The idea was that there would be a hearing down the track to decide whether BNZ would be in breach of its contract with Gloriavale if it closed the accounts.
But the BNZ wasn't going to sit around and wait for that to happen, and it went to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal considered the case and released its finding yesterday that BNZ has every right to choose who it does and doesn’t do business with.
The fact that it has a human rights policy makes it pretty clear, I reckon. Although I bet there will be some people going through BNZ’s list of other clients to see if it’s following its human rights policy to the letter and isn't just singling-out Gloriavale.
But I wouldn’t even care if the BNZ was singling-out Gloriavale because that place needs to go. And if shutting down its bank accounts is one way to force it out of existence, then bring it on.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The minute the defence force said it didn’t want a bar of the new youth boot camps, the Government should have put the brakes on then and there.
It didn’t, though, because it had talked a tough game before the election and like hell it was going to back away from that promise now.
But it should have.
So, let’s give the Government another chance and let’s see if it’s prepared to stop being so gung-ho now that we know that two of the kids who did a runner from the programme were involved in what appears to be some sort of car-jacking attempt at the weekend.
I don’t hold out much hope. But, at the very least, the Government should be pressing pause.
It should be pressing pause until it’s worked out whether this is a full-on residential programme or whether it’s still happy to have the kids go in-house for a bit and then send them back to the lives they came from in the first place. Because why would you do that?
It should be pressing pause to see if it can get the military involved on a much greater scale. The scale that it talked about before getting into government - without actually talking to the military.
It should be pressing pause until it gets Oranga Tamariki properly on-board. Because, let’s face it, boot camps are the last thing OT wants to be involved with.
I know that because I have some familiarity with OrangaTamariki and I know that sending kids to boot camps goes completely against its DNA.
It should also be pressing pause so that it can get advice from actual experts in this field. Instead of pressing on blindly with something that it knew it could get votes for - but, at this point anyway, looks like something doomed to fail.
Not that Phil O’Reilly feels that way. You’ll know him from his time with Business New Zealand. But he was also a member of the welfare advisory group that was in place during the last version of the boot camps under John Key’s government.
He said on Newstalk ZB this morning that boot camps work and he hopes the Government doesn't lose its nerve.
If you’re thinking ‘hold on a minute, these two kids weren’tactually under lock and key because they’d finished what’s called the “facility-based” part of the programe and were in family or community placements, and so why do you want to write-off the boot camps because of that?’
If you’re thinking that, then doesn’t the fact that they did this when they were away from the boot camp show you that this idea doesn’t work?
Since these two did a runner, and since a third young person who was involved in the programme died in a car crash, the Government has been at great pains to point out that other kids involved have got back into education or found work.
Which is great. Don’t get me wrong.
But it’s not enough to convince me that the Government should just keep on keeping on without, at the very least, talking to a few experts, trying to get the military more involved, and deciding whether this “community placement” part of the programme is actually a good idea.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’ve been reading a report the OECD released this morning, and it’s occurred to me that, if we want our businesses to survive, there is a very simple thing we could or should be doing to help.
When I say we, I’m meaning the government upfront. But, for this to happen, I think we’d all pretty much have to agree to it as well.
That’s because it would mean giving businesses a better deal on something that all of us have to pay for —whether we own a business or not— and that’s electricity.
So this report I’m talking about is the OECD’s 2024 economic outlook. There was one earlier in the year and Volume 2 came out at 5 o’clock this morning.
It assesses how things are in all of its member countries and one of the key messages that comes through loud and clear is that, if we want to see better economic times here in New Zealand, we need to do something about the electricity market.
You’ll remember how earlier in the year some manufacturing plants shut their doors when wholesale electricity prices went up so much that they were seven times higher than what they’d been 12 months earlier.
This report seems to focus on futures electricity prices – or “forward prices” as they’re also known. Which is when electricity users can sign-up for a set price for their electricity for a certain period of time.
The idea being that big businesses especially know what their power bills are going to be, and they don’t get surprised or caught out by “spot prices” - which are the prices charged for electricity that vary from hour to hour.
So the futures market is a bit like fixing your home mortgage instead of having it on a floating rate.
Interestingly, this OECD report talks about futures electricity prices being a problem but my recollection of the manufacturing closures this year is that they were forced by spot price increases.
Either way, the OECD says electricity prices are a significant problem – which is why I think all businesses, big and small, should get government subsidies for their electricity bills.
In fact, one of the headlines in the report —in bold— says it is essential to tackle high electricity prices.
Here’s a direct quote, and bear in mind that these comments are specific to New Zealand. The report says: “High futures electricity prices for industry will exacerbate productivity problems by weakening business investment, especially in the green and digital transitions, as electricity is a core input for both.”
“The electricity regulators and the government have launched reviews of the electricity market. Despite previous reforms to improve competition, electricity futures prices are high and above the threshold considered sustainable for the economy in the long run.”
The OECD report also says: “These reviews should re-examine separating the generation and retail operations of large electricity companies to boost competition in the futures market and provide industry with more hedging options.”
For me, what it says there about separating the power generation and power selling arms of the big power companies is a no-brainer. And Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones has already been making noises about that.
But can you imagine how long that is going to take? Which is why I think that, in the more immediate term, we should all be subsidising businesses for what they pay in power.
We should be doing that because businesses are vital for the economy. We should be doing it because businesses keep our smaller communities, especially, alive. When small-town businesses go, so do the people.
And not just for the big outfits, we should be subsidising the power costs for every business. More than 90% of all businesses in New Zealand are small-to-medium enterprises.
Now I know the way the tax system works, businesses already get subsidised power in some respects, being able to claim back the GST they pay on their power bills.
But I don’t think that goes far enough.
And I know that business is all about the free market and making a go of things on your own, but when you’ve got the OECD saying today that power prices have been and will continue to be an impediment to economic growth in this country, then you have to listen to that.
More importantly, you have to do something about it. Which is why I would be more than happy for all businesses in New Zealand to have cheaper power bills ASAP through electricity subsidies.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, National’s Matt Doocey and Labour’s Megan Woods joined John MacDonald to dig into this week’s political news.
Electricity prices are still rising – would ensuring businesses get a lower rate keep them from going out of business?
Will National actually miss their police force target, or is it achievable in the 12 months remaining?
And how about Ayesha Verrall’s ‘cooking the books’ comment against Health Commissioner Lester Levy?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Let me paint you a picture. A picture of over-the-top traffic management.
So you’re heading up Riccarton Road in Christchurch, and you get to the traffic lights near Hanson’s Lane where the Athol McCully garden shop used to be back in the day – just before the Woolworths supermarket.
You get to that intersection and the lights are red. So you stop, of course. And then, when they change to green, you keep going up Riccarton Rd towards the church on the corner.
And you get to that intersection where traffic coming from Sockburn and Main South Rd has to give way to you, if you’re heading west and veering to the right to go up Yaldhurst Rd.
At the moment, you can just cruise straight through because there’s a Give Way sign controlling the drivers coming from Main South Road who want to turn right to get onto Riccarton Rd to, maybe, head all the way into town and head over to Ilam.
But after a decision by the Christchurch City Council yesterday, instead of drivers heading westbound having the automatic right of way and being able to head up Yaldhurst Rd without stopping, they’ll come to a set of traffic lights at that intersection.
So, if you’re heading west up Riccarton Rd, you’ll stop at the lights at Hansen’s Lane and then, potentially, have to stop again a little bit further up the road.
If you’re veering to the left to go down Main South Road there’ll be no change, but if you’re heading up Yaldhurst from Church Corner, there’ll be another set of lights to deal with. Over the top.
It’s over the top because traffic at Church Corner is going to become way more congested than it is now.
It’s over the top because, even though the numbers say it’s one of the most dangerous intersections in the city, does it mean that we need traffic flights at all the spots around town where muppets are just incapable of the simple requirement to give way?
As someone who got in touch about this this morning said, roads in Christchurch seem to be designed to accommodate the 1% who probably shouldn’t be behind the wheel in the first place.
And that’s what we’re seeing here with this Church Corner decision.
In some respects, I should be congratulating the council for finally making an actual decision on what to do at Church Corner, because it’s been a debacle.
The local community board met three times and couldn’t reach agreement. They’d been mulling this one over for about a year. There were accusations of the board being dysfunctional – which I couldn’t argue with because, from what was reported, it was very dysfunctional.
In fact, the way that particular community board dealt with this Church Corner thing was a great advertisement for doing away with these boards altogether.
So they met three times and it seemed to turn into a bunfight every time.
So the community board members threw their hands in the air and said ‘let’s get the council to decide’. And the council, being the council, did the old consultation thing. Then, the council, being the council, threw the idea of traffic lights into the mix.
And, because that hadn’t been an option in the first round of consultation, the council, being the council, did another round asking people what they thought.
42% of people said they wanted the current right hand turn from Main South Road onto Riccarton Road gone, and a pedestrian crossing put in.
59% of people said they wanted traffic lights and some form of pedestrian crossing.
9% said they didn’t have a preference – why you would actively take part in a consultation process and not state a preference, I’ll never know.
If I’d put a submission in, I wouldn’t have voted for any of the options put forward by the council. Instead, I would have told them they’d forgotten about Option D - which was to do nothing.
Because that’s what I honestly think. If you’re going to put-in traffic lights just because a few people can’t be bothered giving way, then you may as well put them everywhere. And turning Church Corner into more of a traffic shambles isn’t the answer.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In relation to what happened in the Christchurch District Court yesterday, I could be telling you right now how outraged I am about All Black Sevu Reece getting a discharge without conviction for causing damage to a car and a garage after he was kicked out of a party for being a drunken pain in the backside.
I could be thumping the table, going on about All Blacks being role models and how they should know better, and how —if they do break the law— then, because people look up to them, they should face the full consequences of their actions.
I could be banging on right now about Sevu Reece only caring about what he did that night after Cup Day last year because a conviction could mean an end to his rugby career. Or, put limits on it, anyway.
I could be accusing him of crying crocodile tears about his apparent drinking problem. I could be saying: “oh yeah, is the drinking only a problem when it gets you in strife with the cops and you end up in court?”
I could be saying all of those things, but that wouldn’t be strong enough. I’d be sugar-coating it.
Because this is not just about what happened in court yesterday, this is about someone who I think, in my honest opinion, is taking the mickey.
One discharge without conviction I could probably accept. But two? Forget about it mate. And for me, that’s a far bigger deal than what he did on that one particular occasion last year.
I agree with the judge who said yesterday that the consequences of a conviction for that particular offence would far outweigh the seriousness of what he did.
Yes, he was obviously a clown at that party last year, which is why the guy hosting him asked him to leave in the early hours of the morning.
Yes, he was a muppet to get into that car outside the party, accelerate up the driveway and crash into the guy’s garage.
And yes, I get that it had implications for the victims.
And, yes, I accept that the way the justice system works, the judge yesterday could only consider things from the perspective of that one incident.
But the audacity to even ask for a discharge without conviction when he got the exact same thing back in 2018 after admitting a charge of common assault on his then-partner. That’s what I’m thumping the table about.
Because a discharge without conviction is the ultimate ‘get of jail’ card, isn’t it? It’s a ‘don’t even bother going to jail card’.
And it’s something to be respected. I know if I committed an offence and managed to get the same thing, there’d be no second time.
I’m pretty confident that I would see a discharge without conviction for the second chance that it is, and I’m pretty confident that you wouldn’t see me trying to get it a second time around.
That’s because I’m not another arrogant elite sports person who thinks the world revolves around my career. And that’s the problem I’ve got with Sevu Reece.
When he turned up at court yesterday, he wasn’t saying: “I’m a man fronting up and dealing with the consequences of my actions.”
He wasn’t saying: “Look at this kids - this is what it’s all about. This is about being accountable.”
In my honest opinion, what Sevu Rece was saying yesterday was: “I’m a celebrity, get me outta here”.
And that’s exactly what he did. For the second time. And that, for me, speaks volumes about the man.
It says to me that nothing’s changed. That there is still this thinking that if you represent your country in sport or whatever, then you are owed something. That you deserve special treatment.
And, if I had my way, there’s no way the courts would have even entertained the idea of giving him a discharge without conviction.
Because once is lucky enough. Thinking you can get it a second time, is arrogant and taking the you-know-what.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Chris Hipkins is expecting the next two years leading into the next election to be very competitive.
Recent polls have Labour and National neck and neck, with Hipkins edging in front of Christopher Luxon in the preferred Prime minister rankings.
The Labour leader says that they’re getting a very good reception out there, even better than they were in the lead up to the last election.
“It’s not exactly a great secret,” Hipkins told John MacDonald in response to his belief that the Labour leader won’t win the next election.
“You’ve already written that in the column.”
“You’ve told the whole country already.”
A favoured contender, Kieran McAnulty has confirmed he has no interest in being the Party’s leader, putting his hand up to be the campaign manager instead.
Hipkins says that the two of them are a good team, and stand 100% behind one another.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There is no way I would pay $8 to ride a bus, but we’re being warned today that that’s what we could end up paying in just three years.
That’s because the Government has told councils right around the country that they need to find more money for public transport, so that they don’t have to rely so much on rates and government money to keep the buses and trains going.
That’s the polite way of putting it. What NZTA is really saying is that the Government isn’t prepared to keep propping up public transport. Which, in the Greater Christchurch area, means massive fare increases are on the cards.
That’s according to Environment Canterbury (ECAN) regional councillor Deon Swiggs. ECAN, of course, has the job of running buses here and he’s saying that if they followed NZTA’s request to the letter, we’d see the $2 bus fares go up to $8 by 2027.
Where he gets that number from is that NZTA is saying to ECAN that it wants 38% of the cost of running the buses coming from private revenue.
I use the buses quite regularly. I was on a bus on Saturday, and I think the bus service in the Greater Christchurch area is, all things considered, actually very good.
But if the fares got up to $8, who would bother? If you work five days a week and get the bus, that’s potentially $90 a week in bus fares. Forget about it.
Which is why I’m hoping ECAN is going to push back big time on this.
We’ve seen the city council push back on directives from Wellington, and the regional council needs to do the same on this one.
Still, maybe it's not surprising when we’ve got a government that thinks it makes sense to increase the speed limit on the Southern Motorway to get us from Rolleston to Christchurch 49 seconds quicker.
A government that wants to press on with oil and gas exploration, and a government that doesn’t like pinging people with fuel taxes, and wants to make it cheaper for people to use their cars.
It might not be surprising, but it’s crazy to think that people would want to —let alone be able to— pay $8 bus fares.
But Transport Minister Simeon Brown doesn’t think it would be nuts.
He says: “Taxpayers and ratepayers have been increasingly subsidising public transport in recent years. We expect councils to find efficiencies to keep these costs down and to look at maximising alternative revenue streams such as advertising on the public transport network.”
The Transport Minister also thinks outfits like ECAN could lease out more space to retailers at bus stations and transport hubs. But as if ECAN is going to put time and effort into selling advertising or leasing out space. All it would do would increase fares. Through the roof.
And if that happened, I would be kissing the bus goodbye.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Chris Hipkins was talking tough at the Labour Party’s annual conference in Christchurch yesterday, saying he is determined to make the current Government a one-term government.
And sounding like he reckons he’s the guy to topple them. Saying the party’s internal polling shows it slightly ahead of National and putting him slightly ahead of Christopher Luxon as preferred Prime Minister.
You’ve got to be confident, especially in politics. But, if Hipkins thinks he can be the next Prime Minister, then he’s dreaming.
I reckon there is only one person capable of winning the election for Labour. Which I'll get to.
But you might have heard Hipkins talking on Newstalk ZB this morning. Banging-on about the current government.
And this is where, in my opinion, Hipkins is getting it all completely wrong and it's why I think he’s deluded if he thinks he can lead Labour to victory.
He goes on all the time about people wanting change at the last election. But he only pays lip service to the idea of the Labour Party, itself, changing. Let alone he himself changing his tune in any way.
And he won’t be the next Prime Minister, especially if he keeps this up, without saying anything about how he’s going to change. And he won't be the next Prime Minister if he doesn't show more humility about where things went wrong when he was in government.
Yes, the leader of the Opposition needs to criticise and point out cock ups and all of that.
But an Opposition leader who got a thrashing at the last election and who is despised by so many people because of the whole COVID thing, then that someone who has their work cut out for them.
And, a year down the track since losing the election last year, Chris Hipkins is showing no signs of changing and no signs of taking any personal responsibility for what happened.
Which is why I’m convinced that Labour can forget about making the current government a one-term government and can forget about winning an election in two years time if it keeps Hipkins in the top job.
Which brings me to the only person I think has any hope in hell of turning things around for the party.
It’s the Labour MP who, whenever he turns up on the Mike Hosking Breakfast filling in for Ginny Andersen, you get National voters texting in saying they want him on their side.
No prizes for guessing who it is I’m talking about. It’s Kieran McAnulty. He is everything Christopher Luxon isn’t. He’s also the type of person that commentators around the world say all left-leaning parties need to align themselves closer to if they want to win elections.
He’s not a chardonnay or a champagne socialist. The way he talks, he sounds like your average Joe in the street.
He’s taken on the job of campaign manager for Labour at the next election. But they’ve given him the wrong job, as far as I’m concerned.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Do you think the last government spoiled things for everyone? There’s a question!
Let me clarify that a little bit. Do you think the last government spoiled things for every politician from here on in, with the way it handled the COVID-19 pandemic?
Because if we believe the COVID report which came out yesterday, then Jacinda Ardern, Grant Robertson, Chris Hipkins etc ruined the party for every other politician - current and future - because of the damage they did when it comes to the public's trust.
It says, if a similar pandemic happened now, the public would have less trust in the Government and there would be less willingness to comply with the rules. And I have no doubt that would be the case.
I think that trust in the government will never be restored to what it might have been before COVID-19. And there are two reasons why I think that. One is connected to how Labour ran things. The other isn’t.
So, yesterday, we knew the report on the first phase of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into New Zealand’s COVID response was being delivered to the Government. What we didn’t know was when it was going to be released to the public.
All the talk ahead of yesterday had been that it was going to be next year before it saw the light of day. But the Government probably assumed that trust was going to feature in the report big time and knew that, if it was going to have a chance of restoring that trust, then sitting on this report for months wasn’t the way to go.
Not that I think that it will do much good on that front. Because there are two reasons why I don’t see trust in government ever getting back to what it used to be.
Let’s start with the one that isn’t related to Labour’s handling of the pandemic. And this is to do with the global political shift we’ve seen in the last few years, where people have said they’ve just had enough of governments telling them how to live their lives. Because they just don’t trust governments and politicians.
The other reason why I think that public trust in the government will never be what it used to be here in New Zealand, is specific to the way Labour handled the pandemic response.
I think most people would agree that, in the early days at least, they trusted Jacinda Ardern’s government to do the right thing in the face of what was significant global uncertainty.
But like most crises, COVID went on and on and on. We had all the different strains of the virus. We had different countries doing things differently. We had people losing patience with all the lockdowns and mask wearing and COVID cards.
So we had all that volatility. But the Labour Government just stuck to the plan it started with in the first place. Delivered with a "we know best” attitude. Which is why people stopped trusting them. And I don’t see public trust in our politicians ever being fully restored.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by National’s Matt Doocey and Labour’s Tracey McLellan to wrap this week’s political stories.
They discussed Phase 1 of the Covid Inquiry and Kiwis’ shaken trust in the government, whether Labour will commit to a capital gains tax as they head into their party conference this weekend, and Matt Doocey touched on the recently revealed texts he received from Mike King.
The Mental Health Minister says he didn't reply to the texts after King’s controversial comments around alcohol because he didn't want to.
The I Am Hope founder told Newstalk ZB last month that alcohol is the solution for mental health issues, until a better solution is found.
Minister Matt Doocey was among those to publicly reject the claim.
King, who receives $24 million in government funding for his mental health charity, sent Doocey a 500 word text attempting to justify his claim.
Doocey told John MacDonald he scanned the message, but doesn't reply to every text he gets, and had already stated his position.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
‘If you think I’m a Jacinda Ardern puppet, you’re going to get a huge surprise’.
Who’s saying that, do you think?
It’s Professor Tony Blakely – the epidemiologist and public health expert who has chaired the first phase of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into New Zealand’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
And I’m feeling the same way he’s feeling about the COVID vaccination mandates. I don’t know if you can call it “buyer’s remorse” but, like Tony Blakely, I would feel very differently about forcing people to get vaccinated next time around.
So his report on the first phase of the inquiry is being handed over to the Government today, which means his work is done and a new person is taking over to run Phase Two.
You’ll remember there was a bit of political furore over Blakely running the inquiry when he was among the cast of thousands of health experts who were in the news day-after-day during the pandemic.
But it seems any concerns about him not being independent enough to do a proper or thorough investigation —without fear or favour— it seems they might not have been justified. That’s going by what he’s been saying in the last 24 hours.
We won’t know for sure how critical his report is until the Government releases it. At this stage, that’s not going to happen until at least next year. The reason the Government’s giving for that is that it wants Phase Two of the Inquiry to be well under way before we get to see this report.
Professor Blakely says his view on vaccine mandates has evolved.
He thinks we went over-the-top with the vaccine mandates. And that’s where I’m at too. And yes, I was one of those people who talked about ‘no jab, no job’, I’ll admit that.
But that was me then, and this is me now. Because, for me, I’d never experienced a pandemic before. Or more to the point, I’d never experienced such an intense public vaccination programme before.
Whether I can be accused of drinking the Kool Aid, I’m not sure. I don’t know, but what I do know is that if there’s ever something like this again, you won’t hear me banging the drum in favour of vaccine mandates.
If you think that makes me a hypocrite, you’re welcome to think that. But, as Tony Blakely seems to have done as well, my thinking has shifted. That’s something he reckons the people in charge of our COVID should have done a bit more of at the time, as well.
Now you might say that hindsight is a great thing, and I'd agree with you. But it doesn't mean you can’t change your mind, which is why I now think forcing people to get vaccinated was a big mistake.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If there’s one city council facility in Christchurch that never seems to have a bad word said about it, it’s the He Puna Taimoana hot pools at New Brighton.
I would actually say that the pools are one of Christchurch’s great post-earthquake success stories.
What’s more, they don’t run at a loss. How often can you say that about anything run by a local council?
Tell that to city councillor Aaron Keown, though. Because he’s come up with this idea of selling the hot pools to try and get some cash in the door, so the council can avoid increasing rates by about nine percent next year.
I’m telling you now. It would be the wrong thing to do. And I don't think it matters whether you’ve been there or not to know how daft an idea this is. Because those pools have become one of Christchurch’s absolute gems.
I haven’t actually been there for a dip myself. But I know plenty of people who have - and they all rave about it.
In fact, I was talking to someone this morning who went there for the first time just a few weeks ago. He described it as “exceptional”.
And if you’re hearing this and thinking ‘oh must give it a go’. Today is your lucky day. Because I checked the online booking system earlier and there are spaces available right now.
It’s your lucky day because, sometimes, the hot pools can be booked out for days - if not weeks - in advance. That’s how popular they are.
That was one of the many things that this person I was talking to today loved about going there recently. It wasn’t crowded. It was very well controlled. That’s a booking system for you.
So why is Aaron Keown even entertaining the idea of selling off the pools? It’s because the council is really struggling to find ways of avoiding that nine percent rates increase next year.
It’s not the only idea that’s being thrown around the council table. But it’s the only one that I’m dead against. Councillor Sara Templeton, for example, has suggested they could sell-off the Lichfield Street carpark.
They can do what they want with that, as far as I’m concerned. But leave the hot pools out of this conversation.
Because not only is it a success story now. It’s been a success story since it opened four-and-a-half years ago.
It was late May 2020 and the council was predicting that it wouldn’t make any money in its first year. It was executing the pools to run at an $886,000 loss.
But it went nuts. And, instead of losing money, it made money. In its first year it turned a profit of $109,000. How many council facilities do that? Not just in Christchurch, but anywhere.
They’d hoped to get 75,000 people through the gates. But they had about 120,000 visitors instead. And in March this year, the 500,000th visitor went through the door.
At the time, the manager of the pools - Merryn Skipper - said the pools had had a massive positive impact on the local community.
She said, since the pools opened, Eftpos spending in the New Brighton area has increased on average by 200,000 transactions a month. Which, all up, equate to about 9.4 million extra Eftpos transactions in the area since May 2020.
It’s a gold mine! So where is councillor Aaron Keown coming from with this idea of his?
He reckons Ngāi Tahu Tourism would be right up for buying the pools. He says: “With another operator it might be better for the area. Especially if we throw them a consent to build a nice big hotel across the road.”
Where I think that idea falls over, is the fact that 85 percent of the people who go there are locals.
Either way, if the council wants to avoid that nine percent rates increase, it needs to come up with other ideas. Flogging-off the hot pools shouldn't be one of them.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I reckon former Labour Party leader David Cunliffe might have just done the best sell job on a capital gains tax that any politician in New Zealand —or anyone for that matter— has ever managed to do.
It might have something to do with the fact that taxes —of any sort— get people rather fired up, and a lot of people are anti-capital gains tax. In my experience, even people who say they’re on the left side politically hate the idea of paying more tax than they are already.
But I’ll tell you what, I reckon they’ll be feeling differently after comments from David Cunliffe.
He was talking on Newstalk ZB this morning ahead of the Labour Party's annual conference this weekend where one of the big things on the agenda is a vote on whether the party will go further with the development of a capital gains tax policy and potentially a wealth tax policy.
And he painted a picture of a capital gains tax scenario that I think would be far more palatable to most people than how capital gains has been discussed before. Which is allowing to offset a capital gains tax against other income taxes.
“I think it’s very possible to, over time, use it to offset income tax. So you know, your teachers, doctors, your farmers can take less growth of or a cut in income tax in exchange for realised capital gains —usually excluding the family home— being brought in at some sort of rate. Just broadens the tax base, and we can give offsets elsewhere.”
Now that in my opinion would do far more favours for most wage and salary owners than some of the tax changes the current Government has introduced.
Of course, whenever you start talking about tax, reality is more complex than the theory. And even I’m starting to wonder how this scenario David Cunliffe talked about this morning would practically work.
But, theoretically, I think people would be less against a capital gains tax if they knew they could offset it against their wage or salary.
The argument for a capital gains tax has always been that it is unfair that we treat different types of income differently. So it's a no-brainer that we do something about it.
David Cunliffe reckons most voters feel the same. What about you?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Anyone who thinks we can still stick to that pipedream of sport and politics not mixing probably got a hernia or had kittens yesterday morning before and after the All Blacks match against Italy.
The game itself wasn’t too flash. I think the general consensus is that it was lacklustre. Or the All Blacks were, anyway.
So people not too excited about the actual game. A different story, though, with the players taking the opportunity to show their backing for last week’s treaty principles hīkoi during the pre-match haka.
And then, after the match, there were players waving the tino rangatiratanga Māori Sovereignty flag on the field.
I’ve got no problem at all with what happened during the haka. But I’m not a hundred percent sure how I feel about the flag stuff. Reason being, that the All Blacks are a national team and using a different flag - other than the official flag - just doesn’t sit right with me.
It’s not that I’m anti-tino rangatiratanga flag. I just don’t think it was appropriate for the All Blacks to use. But, as far as using the haka to make a political point, I’m all good with that.
Translating what TJ Perenera said leading the haka, he said: “The sovereignty of the land remains, the sovereignty of the people remains, the Treaty of Waitangi remains".
TJ’s explanation is that it was about expressing unity. And that’s how coach Scott Robertson described it too when he was asked about it after the game.
Razor said it was discussed beforehand and the unity thing was what it was all about. But there are two ways you can define unity. One definition - in terms of what happened yesterday during the haka - is this idea that the Treaty of Waitangi actually unites us all.
The other definition of unity, is that this could be seen as the All Blacks standing in unity with the 42,000 people who were in the hikoi that turned-up at Parliament last week.
Either way, I think the days of trying to keep politics out of sport are over.
I’m good with TJ and the All Blacks doing what they did. Just like I was good with the Hurricanes women's team earlier this year having a go at the Government during their haka.
And here’s why:
For me, we’re dreaming if we think we can cherry pick from Māori culture. We seem to be perfectly happy for the haka to be part of the All Blacks machine but some of us want our inclusion of Māori culture to stop right there.
As long as we can use that Māori culture to entertain the crowds, that’s fine. But, for some, it’s a different story if the people whose culture we are happy to milk are getting a bit toey about things.
What I’m getting at, is that we can’t just pick and choose which bits of Māori culture we want to put on show and which bits we don’t.
We can’t just have the show and no tell. And what TJ Perenara and the All Blacks delivered yesterday in Italy was the show and the tell. They showed our Māori culture to the world - as they always have - but they also told the world that it’s not just about the razzamatazz.
They told the world that there’s some stuff going on back home that people aren’t happy about. Particularly the people back home whose culture is on show every time the All Blacks take to the field.
And what’s wrong with that? Absolutely nothing, as far as I’m concerned.
If we have a problem with what happened yesterday, then the All Blacks may as well ditch the haka altogether.
Because I think it is hugely disrespectful if we think Māori culture is only good for entertaining the crowds. Or selling a product. We might have got away with it in the past. But we’re fools if we think we can get away with it now.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I don’t know if I’m going to make any friends in Governors Bay, especially with the people involved with the Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust.
Because I think their call that the city council stop charging them interest on a loan it gave them to get the project across the line is, at best, unrealistic. They are dreaming.
I remember the first time I went to the rebuilt jetty after it was re-opened last year. It was a beautiful evening. Very still. One of those brilliant evenings on the peninsula. And I was really impressed.
I’d been to the old jetty plenty of times —that was before it was damaged in the earthquakes— but the new jetty was quite something. Still is quite something.
If you’ve been there, you’ve probably walked up-and-down reading the plaques with the names of all the people and the outfits that gave money to the project. Who only gave money because of those volunteers who decided that the community was going to get its jetty back and who did an absolutely brilliant job making it happen.
Especially when you consider that the city council originally thought it would cost $7.8 million, and these volunteers managed to get it done for $3.8 million. So around about half as much as the council was talking about.
They did it after the council decided that, because it was going to cost so much, it wasn’t worth doing.
Not that it wiped its hands completely, it sold the jetty to the trust for $1 and chipped-in $1.75 million of ratepayer money. It also gave the trust an $850,000 loan at 4% for four-and-a-half years.
So the jetty is back. Everyone happy.
Well, not quite. Because after all the heart and soul these volunteers put into raising the money to get it re-built, they’ve run out of puff.
They’ve worked out that, just to pay the interest on the loan from the city council, they’d have to have the equivalent of a fundraising sausage sizzle every weekend for the next three years. That’s just to pay the interest.
So this week they’ve been to the council, asking it to drop the interest on the loan. The council has said “no can do”. And I’m with the council.
For the exact same reason that the council has given to the jetty people – that, if it agreed to flag the interest on their loan, it would set a dangerous precedent.
Not that the city council is unanimous on this one – Councillor Aaron Keown reckons the council should drop the interest on the loan. He thinks that, instead of setting a dangerous or a problematic precedent, it would actually encourage more community groups to take on these types of projects.
His view is that if you look at the jetty project, the volunteers managed to get the rebuild done for half the amount the council thought it was going to cost. And he’s saying today that “if it delivers infrastructure at half the price, it is good precedent setting.”
Which Aaron, with respect, is a pretty weak argument.
It’s a weak argument because if the council gives on this one, not only will it have other outfits that it’s leant money to knocking on the door wanting their interest waived, it will also have others applying for council loans with 0% interest from the get-go.
There will be a stampede of people wanting free money from the council, and it will be pretty hard for the council to say no if it gives-in and flags the interest on the loan for the Governors Bay jetty.
I mean I get what this volunteer group is saying – that after 10 years working on this project, they’re worn out. But they knew when they took out the loan with the council, what the conditions were.
They knew the terms. It’s not like you or I can go to the bank asking them to stop charging us interest on our mortgage because we’re a bit tired, because it means we have to work more than we really want to.
The bank would tell us where to go. Which is what the council is doing too, as it should, to the jetty restoration people.
Yes, the jetty is an asset for the community. Yes, the fact that it’s been re-built much cheaper than what the council thought it would cost is brilliant. Yes, it is another fantastic example of a community recovering from the earthquakes. It ticks all of those boxes.
But it still doesn’t change my view that the jetty restoration people need to accept the conditions they signed-up to when they took the loan out with the council. And the council is absolutely doing the right thing refusing to stop charging them interest.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by National’s Vanessa Weenink and Labour’s Duncan Webb this morning for Politics Friday. They discussed whether the new gang patch law will make a difference to crime numbers, and why the Government is pushing on with the boot camp legislation while the trials are ongoing.
They also discussed behaviour in Parliament, particularly following Erica Stanford’s apology after insulting Jan Tinetti in the House. Is it time for more serious action? Are standards slipping?
Labour MP Duncan Webb claims Education Minister Erica Stanford has muttered insults in the House for some time.
Stanford apologised yesterday after Education shadow-minister Jan Tinetti accused her of using a swear word to describe her.
Parliament's microphones and Hansard recording did not pick it up.
Webb raised a point of order, and told John MacDonald that Stanford is a repeat offender.
He says this is just one instance where the Minister over-stepped the mark, and he decided it shouldn't, couldn't continue.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today’s the day when one of the most ridiculous laws we’ve ever seen in this country starts being enforced by the police.
As of midnight last night, it is illegal for gang members to wear their patches out in public. Not only that - the Government also wants the cops to stop gang members hanging-out together in public.
As far as I’m concerned, this is just another placebo policy. A policy that might make us feel good but won’t actually make much difference.
And instead the Government should just be letting the cops do more of the great work they’ve been doing to crack down on the criminal activities we know gang members are involved in.
The Comancheros are a perfect example. Remember back in September when the cops arrested pretty much every Comanchero member in the country after that three-year undercover operation?
They charged them with importing and selling drugs, running what was described as a pretty elaborate money laundering scheme, and running military training camps run by a former US marine.
I know we said at the time that it probably wasn’t going to spell the end of the Comancheros in New Zealand. Well, I did anyway. That’s because they’re a gang that actually has clout and international connections.
Nevertheless, the police have shown us what can happen if they’re just allowed to get on with it. And if the Government was serious with all its talk about making life difficult for the gangs, then it wouldn’t be telling the cops to go searching for gang patches in hanky drawers.
What I’m saying is we should be focussing on the crimes already being committed by gang members instead of creating another crime - which is what this new law coming into force today is doing.
In fact, I’d go as far as agreeing with a gang guy I saw on the news last night who said that this gang patch ban criminalises people for doing something where there are actually no victims.
Think about it: if you see someone going down the street wearing a gang patch - does that make you a victim? Now you might say, well yes it does because whenever you see a gang patch you might feel uncomfortable.
But does that make you a victim? I don’t think it does. There are all sorts of people out there who make me feel uncomfortable or intimidated, and they aren’t necessarily gang members.
Tell that to the new police commissioner Richard Chambers, though, who you might have heard speaking with Mike Hosking a couple of hours ago.
Mike was talking to him about the new job and asked him what he thought about these new gang laws, and he said “well, funny you should ask”.
He didn’t actually put it that way, but he did say that in Hastings at three minutes past midnight —mere minutes after the laws came into force— police stopped a gang member travelling in a vehicle. The gang member was wearing a patch, and so they dished out their first charge under the new law.
The thing is —and the Police Commissioner knows this— stopping one guy in a car is a different kettle of fish from dealing with a whole lot of gang members in one spot.
Or going into the homes of gang members and having a nosey around for gang patches, because that’s what the cops are expected to do from today. To go through hanky drawers and wardrobes and pull out the patches if there’s a gang member with criminal convictions living there. What a waste of time and resources.
Another gang person in the news today who I agree with as well is lifetime Black Power member and community advocate Denis O‘Reilly.
He’s saying: “This legislation is just pandering to an anxious, white, middle-class population, who the research demonstrates are the people least likely to be affected by gang activity.”
And he’s spot on.
That’s why I’m calling this a placebo policy. Because making life difficult for gangs isn’t taking their patches off them or throwing the book at them if they’re caught wearing them in public. Because a gang member doesn’t have to wear a patch to tell the world which gang they’re in.
Making life difficult for them is infiltrating their networks. Cracking down on all the illegal stuff they’re involved in. Which is why I think the gangs are going to be winners in this so-called crackdown on gang patches and gang’s congregating in public.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I can’t accuse NZ First MP Shane Jones of being pale, male, and stale. But he is male, and he is stale with these comments of his about the way some MPs are dressing in Parliament. I do agree with him, though, that some of the rules in Parliament need toughening up.
This has all been stirred-up after the MPs did their haka in Parliament last week.
Shane Jones and ACT leader David Seymour are saying that the rules governing how things are supposed to run in the House aren't up to scratch.
I was reading that the toughest personal penalty that an MP can face for playing up in the debating chamber is $1,000. Which is chicken feed when you consider the salaries MPs are on.
So MPs on Parliament’s Standing Orders Committee are going to look into it and see if they can come up with some stiffer penalties for MPs who break the rules.
Officially, these rules are known as Standing Orders and it is the Standing Orders Committee which is responsible for reviewing and considering the rules that govern how the House operates.
So Shane Jones is happy about that. He’s also happy to let the Standing Orders Committee decide what changes might be needed. But he also reckons they need to get tough on dress standards, as well, in Parliament.
He thinks the way some MPs dress, they look like "scarecrows".
But I’m not upset about cowboy hats and feathers in Parliament. That’s because Parliament is, after all, the House of Representatives. Meaning the politicians in that House are supposed to be representative of us.
And, if you’re somewhere right now where there are other people, take a look around. Is everyone dressed the same? Of course they’re not. Are all the guys in suits and ties? I bet they aren’t. And are all the women wearing smart business suits? I bet they’re not, either.
Whether we like it or not, dress standards generally have changed. You might say they’ve gone backwards. I wouldn’t describe it that way.
The point I’m making is that Parliament needs to reflect the real world. And the real world includes people dressing in cowboy hats. And feathers too, at times.
But where I am with Shane Jones and Christopher Luxon, though, is the need to ensure that the rules that determine how Parliament is run and what is expected of MPs and the consequences for breaking those rules need toughening up.
Reason being that there would not be any other workplace in the country where aggressive behaviour would be tolerated.
And I’m not being anti-haka here, but what happened in Parliament last week was aggressive. The All Blacks’ haka is aggressive, and the haka in Parliament on Thursday was aggressive. Just like Julie-Anne Genter was aggressive when she went nuts at Matt Doocey in the House earlier this year.
And that’s where the rules —or, at least, the punishments for breaking the rules— need a good look at.
Because, just like people wearing cowboy hats and feathers is part of the real world, we should also be seeing our Parliament run in a way that gives MPs the same protections that all workers in this country expect when it comes to not being treated aggressively and being respected.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins says he had no problem with Te Pati Māori's haka in the House last week, during the vote on ACT's Treaty Principle Bill.
David Seymour, the National Party, and Shane Jones have written to Speaker Gerry Brownlee.
They say the Speaker should oversee rule changes at Parliament in light of the disruption.
Hipkins told John MacDonald it's worth instead looking at Winston Peters, who he describes as one of the worst-behaved MPs.
He says it's wonderful Jones and Seymour have appointed themselves Parliament's hall monitors, but they could lead by example and speak to their own leaders.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
An absolute circus is one way to describe David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill.
Or you could say that the thousands at Parliament today to protest against it is what democracy is all about.
Either way, if you want to point a finger at anyone for creating this shambles, don’t point it at David Seymour. Point it at Prime Minister Christopher Luxon.
Who kept telling us last year how much of an expert he was at negotiations. Mergers and acquisitions was what it was all about. And, as we know with negotiations, it often means all parties doing a bit of give and take to get something across the line.
But for someone who likes to go-on about his real-world business experience, it amazes me that he’s created this shambles by acting in a way that no chief executive would. More on that shortly.
But I reckon people are thinking less about Christopher Luxon’s negotiation skills and more about his leadership skills right now. And I bet he is ruing the day that he agreed to include this sham in his coalition agreement with David Seymour.
I also bet he is losing a lot of people’s respect. He’ll know that. If he doesn’t, then someone needs to tell him. His MPs won’t say so, but I bet he’s losing a lot of their respect, as well.
It’s obvious. You talk to pretty much any National MP about the Treaty Principles Bill and they’ll shuffle uncomfortably in their seat. They’ll look away. They’ll say “oh yes, but not past the first reading” blah blah blah.
They’ll try not to let it show in their face. But look into their eyes, and you can see the dread.
That’s because they are embarrassed to be associated with this thing. And they have every right to be embarrassed when you consider that it was only agreed to, to get a deal across the line. Agreed to in a way which means it’s not actually going to go anywhere.
All it’s going to do is give David Seymour a platform for the next election.
Now before you start saying “hold on a minute, hold on a minute - it was only the other week mate that you were saying that we —as a country— seem to be incapable of discussing this sort of thing without it turning into a bunfight."
Yes I did say that. I wasn’t saying I supported the Bill, I was saying that, despite how advanced we think we might be as a society, when push comes to shove, we are incapable of having this “national discussion” that the pointy heads like to bang on about without it turning to custard.
And we’re seeing that play out today. Which Christopher Luxon knew would happen. He would have known full well that there’d be people who would go nuts over it.
But he went with it and, as a result, his leadership is looking weaker by the day.
Because if he had approached his negotiations with David Seymour in a way you would expect a seasoned chief executive to, then he would have done what any chief executive worth their salt does and determine whether a deal is going to do good things or bad things for the interests of the company.
The best chief executives —and I’m talking the absolute best of the best— what they do, is they base all of their decisions on what’s best for the business or organisation that they lead. And, if they're really good, that can sometimes mean making decisions that might even see them lose their job.
I’ll let you decide whether the company, in this case, is the National Party or the country. But this deal with Seymour isn’t good for his party and it isn’t good for the country.
And, if Christopher Luxon is the leader he claims to be, then he needs to show some genuine leadership —some genuine backbone— and use his business skills to get us out of this mess.
If he doesn’t, he will be toast. He will be toast as far as his MPs are concerned and he’ll be toast as far as the majority of voters are concerned.
Because, if he did do what I’m saying he needs to do, then I would respect him infinitely more than I will if he does nothing. If he keeps on with this charade, if he keeps on banging on about how unhelpful the Bill is, how divisive it is.
Keeps on trotting out that nonsense, and then sticks with the plan.
I don’t care about his leadership experience until I see some genuine leadership in the here-and-now. To get us out of this treaty principles mess.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When it comes to apologies there are generally two types: a sincere apology and a hollow apology.
And survivors of abuse in state or religious care are saying that the Prime Minister’s apology today for that abuse is hollow, because the Government isn’t saying anything today about redress or compensation.
The Government’s position is that it needs to take the time to make sure it gets the compensation scheme right and won’t be making any announcement until early next year.
Abuse survivors, though, say it should have been working on this long before now and today’s apology is undermined by what they think is a lack of timely action and work on compensation. Or, in other words, they’re saying that the apology is hollow.
Which I don’t agree with – I think the Government is right to take its time on this one. Which is probably easy for me to say because, thankfully, I haven’t been caught up in this nightmare.
Which is exactly what it has been and still is for these victims, or survivors as they prefer to be known, and they are the people criticising the Government today.
You’ll remember it was back in July when the final report on the massive inquiry into abuse of kids in care came out. 200,000 people were abused while they were, supposedly, being looked after by state and religious organisations.
And at the time the report came out, the Government said it would be delivering a national apology - which is what today is all about. And that it would be working on determining how the state will deliver what’s called redress. But, essentially, we’re talking about compensation for the victims who are still living.
Also included in that work is what changes can be made to try and ensure this kind of mass abuse can’t happen again, which is another priority for the abuse survivors.
I think it’s impossible to come up with changes that will stop it happening outright for the simple reason that there are evil people out there who can be very good at getting around structures and rules to do what they want to do.
But already the Government has this week announced steps to try and prevent abuse of kids in care. It's introducing a bill prompted by the Abuse in Care inquiry, which will ban strip-searching children.
So that’s all part of the redress work being led by Erica Stanford, who is the minister responsible for co-ordinating the Government’s response to the abuse in care inquiry.
The other big part of that response is the compensation side of things. Which survivors would have liked to have seen details from the Government today in parallel with the national apology.
But I think the Government’s right – this is something that can’t be rushed. I don’t think it’s something that should be neatly fitted-in with the timeline of the Prime Minister standing up today and delivering this apology that the country has to make, and which these poor buggers, whose lives were ripped apart, have been waiting years for.
In fact I’ve been very critical of the Government’s pace on some things. It’s been all quarterly action plans and runs on the board and, thank goodness, it isn’t taking the same approach trying to work out how it’s going to do to compensate these people.
Remember that it was less than two weeks ago when it announced that it was going to sort out things for people who were abused at the Lake Alice Child and Adolescent Unit, who reached a $6.5 million compensation settlement with the Crown in 2001 but then lost $2.6 million of that in legal fees.
So last week, after 20 years, the Government said it would fix them up for the $2.6 million they didn’t get.
That’s just one example of why taking a slow, measured approach is the best thing to do. It’s probably a basic example, but there are other reasons why I think the Government is taking the right approach.
Another reason why I think the Government shouldn’t be criticised today is that whatever it decides to do, it will be setting a precedent.
There will be more survivors coming forward - as they should. So this abuse in care compensation scheme isn’t going to be a one-off. It’s going to be something that will determine the scale of government compensation for abuse by people working for the state, ongoing.
Another reason too not to rush it is that it wasn’t just government agencies involved in this hideous abuse – religious organisations were involved too.
And the Government will need to negotiate carefully with these organisations - like the St John of God order which ran the boys home in Christchurch where terrible, terrible things happened.
Pretty much every time there’s a story on TV about abuse in care you see that stock footage of the van going through the gate and the pathetic-looking water sprinkler.
So this complex. The Government has to get it right. And while, yes, maybe it would have been good if it was in a position to announce compensation details today as well as the apology, I think it is much better to do a thorough job and do exactly what it said it would and do the right thing for the people it is apologising to today.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you’ve got solar panels on the roof, you’ll be loving the blue skies.
And a solar energy advocate is saying today that those of us who don’t should be getting financial support from the Government.
Mike Casey says New Zealand is one of the few western countries that doesn’t provide subsidies for solar energy. He says, in Australia, people can get subsidies to convert to solar and - guess what - more of them have. Way more.
I think this is brilliant thinking - but not necessarily a brilliant idea. Because, if we could do all that magic wand stuff - which we can’t - but if we could, I’d say yep - Government subsidies for anyone and everyone.
But there’s no magic wand and so we can’t. So I reckon there should be Government support to get solar into all new builds.
I was talking to someone who, as they put it, went down the solar panel rabbit hole - in that they looked into it. But they just came to the same conclusion that I think most of us have - and still do - and that’s that the numbers just don’t stack up.
You can spend the money getting the panels on the roof, but it’ll take you years before the savings in electricity costs justify the spend.
But getting more and more people onto solar energy is a much more realistic way for the Government - and I’m not just talking about the current Government, but all Governments - it’s a much more realistic way of trying to get those power costs down.
Because what other options are there? The Government of the day can thump the table and tell the power companies to stop ripping us off.
But that’s rarely worked with the supermarkets. So as if thumping the table is going to work with the power companies.
The other option up the Government’s sleeve is restructuring the electricity market. But when do you think we’re going to see that happen?
I was reading a history of New Zealand’s electricity reforms back in the 80s and 90s and it took about four years for those reforms to happen. So any changes the Government wants to make to the current electricity market is going to take a fair amount of time, isn’t it?
So, if it wants to, the Government can do that. But I think it needs to be looking for some quick-wins at the same time. And subsidised solar conversion would be a quick win. Because, like anything in life, if you focus on the things you can actually influence - then that’s when you start to make progress.
And providing taxpayer support to get solar power happening more widely, then that would be something the Government could make happen as soon as it wanted to.
There are about two million occupied homes in New Zealand and around 60,000 of them have solar panels.
It took New Zealand more than seven years to get 30,000 houses with solar. The other 30,000 took three years. And so now we’ve got 60,000. Which is about 3 percent of houses connected to the national grid.
Compare that to Australia, which heavily subsidised solar, simplified the installation process, and invested in workforce training for installers and the general figure is about 35 percent (compared to our 3 percent).
In many neighbourhoods in Australia, though, 50 percent of houses have solar panels. In some, as many as 80 percent. Thanks to government subsidies.
Which our Government could bring in today, if it wanted to.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You'll have your own way of describing this crazy situation where we’ve got KiwiRail telling the Christchurch City Council that it has to close a 1.5 kilometre stretch of cycleway for two years, because the cycleway needs some safety improvements.
KiwiRail reckons the Heathcote Express cycleway, which is near a railway crossing, is so dangerous that a death or serious injury could happen there once every 1,000 years. Yep, once every 1,000 years.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that any death or injury —no matter how infrequent— is acceptable in any way. And KiwiRail says the section of railway that the cycleway crosses is the busiest section of the South Island rail network, with about 35 trains using it each day.
The cycleway opened less than a year ago and the locals seem to love it.
In fact, some local school kids turned up at the city council this week to tell councillors how important it is and how worried they are about this section of the cycleway being closed for two years while the safety upgrades are made to the railway crossing.
Here’s an idea of why they’re so worried about not being able to use the cycleway for two years and being forced onto a road busy with trucks going to and from the port at Lyttelton.
“We would need to bike on the highway. Port Hills Road is 60km. Lots of trucks, underpasses, and it’s scary and dodgy. It’s very dangerous crossing the Lyttleton offramp.”
And you’ve got to say, the possibility of something bad happening once every 1,000 years surely has to put it at the lower end of things. And certainly not a priority.
And this is the key thing here. I certainly don’t think it’s worth forcing cyclists off a safe cycleway for two years and onto a stretch of road that these school kids and other people who use the cycleway everyday say is a way more dangerous way for them to get to school and work.
Now I’m not saying get rid of health and safety, because that old Kiwi “she’ll be right approach” is not something I’m in favour of.
But surely this type of crazy directive from KiwiRail shows how all the brilliant changes that have been made to keep people safer can be tarnished by another consequence of the health and safety laws.
Whether it’s an unintended consequence, who knows, but the layperson’s term for this consequence is “backside covering”.
That's all KiwiRail is doing here, because it knows that, whenever this once in 1,000 years death or injury might happen, it will be in the firing line. That’s the only conclusion you can come to.
But that’s what health and safety has become. Backside covering.
The other thing about this too is the safety upgrade being forced by KiwiRail is going to cost ratepayers $6.5 million.
I remember the last time I was in a managerial job, and I had to make my team go to a health and safety briefing. And the so-called expert started banging on about a “cable strategy”.
And I couldn’t help myself - because the old BS detector was going off left, right and centre. So I put my hand up and asked what this “cable strategy” was that they were going on about.
Turns out it was a documented plan on how to handle things like computer cables and other cords, so that they didn’t create a risk of people falling over.
That was the point when I realised that health and safety was becoming an industry.
And that’s how I’m feeling about KiwiRail’s plan to force the Christchurch City Council this 1.5 kilometre section of the Heathcote Express cycleway for two years.
It's also another example of how health and safety is out of control in this country.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by National’s Vanessa Weenink and Labour’s Reuben Davidson to dig into some of the biggest political stories of the week.
Christchurch City Council is pushing back against the closure of a cycleway at Heathcote, KiwiRail ordering upgrades due to a one in one-thousand-year risk. Is this really acceptable?
Is New Zealand capable of having an open and calm conversation about the Treaty Principles Bill?
Why does it seem as though only the “well off” students are making it into medical school?
And this week’s US Election saw Donald Trump election President – how will these next four years play out?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I think I’m going to trust my gut instinct more often.
Because yesterday, I didn’t like the idea of it, but my gut was telling me that Donald Trump was going to win the presidential election.
And because I’m going to listen to my gut instinct more often, today I’m going to tell you that —even if we don't like it— we need to calm the farm a bit with all the hyperbole being thrown around.
Because even though things are a little bit different this time around, did the world fall apart last time Trump was president? It didn’t.
He’s another one of those people who you know is just making stuff up —and you know they’re a nasty piece of work— but somehow people fall for them. And enough people have fallen for Donald Trump. Again.
But even though I felt he was going to take it out, I was still blown away with how the numbers looked from the start.
Because you know what it’s like with elections and how the early stages of counting can skew things quite a bit – which is what I was thinking when I kept refreshing the screen on the phone following the results yesterday afternoon.
But those Electoral College numbers just kept piling up for Trump. But, unlike last time he won, I wasn’t in the least bit surprised.
There are some aspects that did surprise me. Example: the move in support from black voters —especially African American men— from Democrat to Republican.
But even then, that shouldn’t really be a surprise when you consider how Trump campaigned. Where he just kept asking voters the rhetorical question: are you better off now than you were four years ago?
And that’s a question that’s relevant to anyone from any cultural background. And it seems, for enough of them, the answer to that question was “no”. No, we’re not better off.
And that, it seems, is what it came down to for the Americans who not only voted Trump back in as president but who also put the Republicans in charge of the Senate.
Which is bringing some dire warnings today. Which I think would be very easy for me —or for anyone— to jump on board with. Because I think for a lot of people their default position is anti-Trump. Even though I think he’s a horrible person, I’m not going to switch to default.
When I watched him making his big victory speech, I did wonder how many of his cronies who were on that stage with him will still be with him in four years time. There will be some casualties, we know that.
And he made it very clear that America is going to be his first priority. In fact, he said that.
But, on the basis that the world didn’t fall to bits last time he was president, I’m not buying into the hysteria. I could be proven wrong, but that’s my gut instinct.
Unlike political commentator Matthew Hooton who is putting a very dire warning in the NZ Herald today, under the headline: “America entering most dangerous period since 1861”.
He’s saying today: “The world enters its most dangerous period since World War II, with Trump threatening to abandon Ukraine, withdraw the US’s security in Europe which will encourage Russia’s Vladimir Putin to expand his ambitions westward, launch a global trade war and collapse the World Trade Organisation.”
Matthew Hooton goes on to say: “Trump has also promised to jail his political opponents. He made similar threats in 2016 that he did not act upon, but back then his circle included at least some people who could be relied upon to keep his most extreme tendencies in check.
“There are no such people around him this time. Nor is he constrained by the need to worry about re-election.
“Barred from standing for re-election in 2028, the danger is he will seek to hold on to power by other means.”
And Matthew Hooton concludes by saying: “The US enters its most dangerous period since 1861, the start of the Civil War.”
I’m not buying into that. What about you?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The legendary Miriam Margolyes is back in Christchurch, joining John MacDonald in studio for a chat.
She’s one of a few famous names taking part in the Isaac Theatre Royal Variety Gala show next week, popping into the city early to don a habit and play a nun in ‘Holy Days’.
Margolyes discussed all that was on her mind, her career, the importance of reading books, and how much it means to be back in the garden city.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Historic. Knife edge. Too close to call. That’s what they’re all saying about today’s presidential election in the States.
What you never see though, splashed across the screens on CNN and Sky News and BBC, is “gut instinct”.
My gut tells me that it’s going to be Donald Trump. And, this is the great thing about gut instinct, it doesn't really matter whether you’re wrong or right - it’s just how you feel about something.
And I’ve got this feeling that Trump is going to take it out.
And the reason I feel that way can be summed-up in one word: change.
When it comes to elections, people love change. The media loves change. But voters, especially, love change.
And you’ve got to give Trump credit for doing something Kamala Harris hasn’t done - and that is to do a much better job of selling the idea of change. Trump still represents change. Just like he did back in 2016. He still does now.
I think no one would disagree that Joe Biden stepping aside and letting Kamala Harris run for president was a no-brainer, it just took Joe a while to come ‘round to the idea.
But that is where the change started and stopped for the Democrats. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
From a distance —and this is the danger when you judge politicians from a distance— but, from where I sit, Harris wins hands down.
But I don’t think she deserves to be the next president. And I am confident that enough Americans will feel the same way and that’s why I think enough of them will give their vote to Donald Trump and he will be the next president.
When she did that first TV debate after she took over as the Democrats candidate from Joe Biden, I watched that and thought she had it in the bag.
When Trump came up with all that nonsense about immigrants eating people’s dogs and cats, I thought she handled all that beautifully. And I thought he had blown it – not just with the dogs and cats stuff but all the rambling.
And the rambling hasn’t stopped, of course. The stuff that comes out of his mouth is nonsense half the time - if not most of the time. But, if there’s one thing going for Trump —certainly in the eyes of American voters— it’s that he oozes change.
You know he’s going to shake things up. You know he’s going to say what he really thinks. You know that he’s all talk about loving Puerto Ricans and all that nonsense about protecting women and making America great again.
It’s all nonsense. It’s all awful. But compare that to Kamala Harris —and put it through the filter of voters loving change— and he wins hands down.
Ever since that TV debate —where she was the obvious stand-out— I’ve found her talk of change hollow, to say the least.
As someone said to me last night when she was on the TV news saying it’s time for change and time to do things differently and it’s time to end the division - someone else who was watching said to me ‘hasn’t she been part of this so-called problem over the past 10 years?’
And, for me, it’s got to the point where I think the majority of American voters will be thinking the same thing.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour is lamenting the Treaty Principles Bill even seeing the light of day.
David Seymour's controversial bill will be introduced in Parliament tomorrow.
Labour Leader Chris Hipkins says if implemented it would throw away years of legal precedent.
He told John MacDonald that National allowing the bill to get this far is irresponsible.
Hipkins says Labour wouldn't introduce anything it wasn't interested in taking further.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The plan to give “use of force” powers to the people running the Government’s new boot camps for young criminals is getting a bit of attention today. Or military academies as the Prime Minister was calling them this morning.
The Children’s Minister has got this idea that, if you’re involved in running a boot camp, you should have the same powers as the police and you should be allowed to use force.
The Prime Minister, though, doesn't seem to be so keen.
He’s going to stand up next week and issue a formal apology for the abuse that happened to kids in care in New Zealand over the years and he knows that giving “use of force” powers to the boot camp people could see history repeat itself.
Which raises the philosophical discussion about what these camps or academies are all about.
Or what they’re going to be about once the appropriate legislation has been passed that enables them to be set up and run as the Government wants them to run.
Because, as you’ll know, there’s a boot camp trial up and running and the Prime Minister’s been there and seems to have been impressed by what he saw.
He was talking this morning about kids helping out with landscaping and concreting work, and being busy learning about job interviews and writing CVs.
But remember that, because the relevant legislation hasn’t been passed yet, no one can be sent there or forced to go there yet. At the moment, it’s just kids who have volunteered who are doing the programme.
So, if they’ve put their hand up to be sent there, chances are they’re going to be the kids who will impress the Prime Minister because, if they want to be there, they obviously want to do something different with their lives. So, of course, they’re going to be motivated to help with stuff and want to find out what it takes to get a job.
It’s going to be a completely different story when you get kids being sent there by the courts.
And it’s at that point that the Children’s Minister wants people there who, effectively, will have the same powers as the Police and who will be able to use force to keep these kids under control.
But I can see why the Prime Minister’s a bit antsy about that. Because the last thing he wants to do is to give the green light for something that could lead to more abuse.
But if you can’t use force at a boot camp, then how does that make it any different to the facilities we already have for young criminals?
These are the youth justice facilities that Oranga Tamariki currently runs. OT is also running the boot camps. But if the boot camps aren’t any different than what we have at the moment —in terms of discipline— then why would you bother with them?
I don’t know if the Prime Minister has been to a youth justice facility, but I have. These are the places our worst young criminals currently go to and the one I went to was pretty much like a prison. A god awful, depressing place.
But they don't work. Yes, they keep these kids locked up, but I seem to recall that the re-offending rate is about 75%. That’s what makes them so depressing. Because for a lot of these kids, they do their time in youth justice and then graduate to adult prisons.
Which is why the Government wants the boot camps.
The question is: how tough should these places be? And what powers should the people running them have?
For example: I’ve got no problem with force being used if someone is endangering themselves or endangering others.
But should they be allowed to use force if one of these kids is refusing to get out of bed?
Because, while I think “use of force” probably sounds exactly like the thing you’d expect at a boot camp for bad kids, I think it could be another abuse in care disaster waiting to happen.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
From today, the police don’t intend to respond to every mental health callout. But I don’t think we’re going to see any major difference. I’ll tell you why shortly,. And it’s based on an experience I had on Friday night.
So if you’re worried about the police saying “not our department” if you call up, as of today, about someone having a mental health issue - don’t panic.
But you know the background to this and what’s led to today’s change with the threshold for transporting mental health patients increasing; there’ll be fewer visits to mental health clinics; and police handovers to mental health staff will be shorter than what they have been.
So 11 percent. That’s a key stat. Before today, 11 percent of police work involved mental health call-outs. And, as Chris Cahill from the Police Association was saying on Newstalk ZB today, whenever the cops are called-out to one of these jobs - it can keep them away from doing other police work for hours.
He says, on average, a mental health callout keeps police tied-up for three hours - sometimes as long as five or six hours.
So Chris Cahill is pleased about these changes coming into force today. One thing he isn’t happy about, though, is that it’s being forced by the police. As he said this morning, Health NZ hasn’t come to the party itself on this one.
He says police will still turn up if people are at-risk of harming themselves or harming someone else but, if nothing changes, police will still be swamped by mental health callouts and the health system needs to “step up” and look after these people.
The reason the police get so involved is that police officers are the only people who have the power to contain people and they can be invaluable in situations where someone is mentally distressed.
Chris Cahill, though, says the experience overseas where police have pulled back from mental health callouts, he says patients have ended up getting the treatment they need sooner.
Now I don’t know about that. Because I haven’t been able to find anything to support that online today.
And remember it is Chris Cahill’s job to represent police officers who are at the coalface when it comes to mental health callouts and who know full-well how these callouts impact their ability to deal with genuine criminal activity.
Because that’s been the argument the police have made all along. That, just because someone is in a state of mental despair, it doesn’t mean they’re a criminal. Which makes perfect sense.
But, as we know, sometimes a person can be more inclined to commit criminal behaviour than they usually would because of their mental distress.
Which is why the police have, in recent years, become the default responders in situations like these.
That, if someone is a threat to either their own safety or someone else’s safety, then call the cops.
Which is the situation I found myself in on Friday. It was about 5:30pm and I was in the centre of town.
I saw this guy who looked like he was crossing the road one minute, then walking back onto the footpath, and going around in circles, then trying to cross the road again. And drivers were tooting at him and there were a couple of people watching him.
And I went up to them and said ‘is that guy ok?’. Now - one weird thing - was the number of people who seemed prepared just to watch what was going on. There were people standing on the balconies of their apartments looking down at the street. Another guy was closer to the action. And he was who I spoke to initially.
Then the guy himself - who was pretty dazed - came up towards me and I tried to have a word with him. But he wasn’t making much sense. He was wearing a bike helmet and I could see a bike nearby but he said he hadn’t fallen off. But he just wasn’t making much sense.
And he tried to walk off in the opposite direction of where his bike was. So a few young guys who were staying at the backpackers across the road and I got him to stop and have a sit down on the footpath. And I knew I had to call for help. And, at that point, I thought we were dealing potentially with someone who diabetic or something like that, so called St John’s.
I went through the rigmarole of describing what was going on and the ambo operator got me to ask the guy if he was on any medication. So I did, and he said something about “mental health” - but that was about it. So I passed that on and the operator said they’d logged the job and asked us to stay with this guy.
Not that long after that a cop car turned up. And, as soon as the cops got out, it was clear they knew what had been going on and they said that the ambo people were snowed under and they’d asked the police to deal with it.
So they had a chat with the guy, found some prescription stuff in his bag, they seemed to think that he hadn’t taken his meds and they put him in the back of the police car to take him to hospital to get checked out.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I didn’t go to university and there’s a bit of a dad joke that I trot out about that now and again. I say that I’m a student of life, in no rush to graduate.
So maybe I’m coming at this with a biased view of the world, but I agree with this academic at the University of Canterbury who is saying today that universities have just become factories that pump out people with degrees. And he wants them to become elite institutions again.
What’s more, he’s saying that because universities are so focused on getting people in the door and giving them a qualification, it’s meant that there are people at university who shouldn’t be.
And how does he know that? Or why does he think that?
It’s because of the number of students at university that, he says, are illiterate. In fact, he reckons it’s got so bad that it’s reached “a crisis level”.
Mike Grimshaw is his name. He’s an Associate Professor of Sociology at Canterbury. And, as well as saying today that universities need to get all elite on it again, he’s also pointing the finger at the education system. Primary schools, in particular.
Which he says are failing to create what he calls a reading and writing culture because they have become more interested in technology than education.
This is how he’s describing it today. He’s saying that schools, and society in general, have “swallowed the technological Kool Aid without actually valuing education.”
So that’s where his finger is pointing.
He says many students "appear to be functionally illiterate - going on the incoherence of their written work. Compulsory writing or critical thinking courses do not seem to help as they can pass these and still regularly submit incoherent work.”
So I get what he’s saying about the school system failing kids so that, by the time they reach university, their reading and writing isn’t what it should be.
But I’m also going to point the finger at employers, because the fact that people have to have a university degree just to get a foot in the door at a lot of outfits is something I’ve been hot on for a long time. I think it’s crazy.
And it’s not just because I didn’t go to university, it’s not just because I learned how to be a journalist on the job at a local newspaper.
It’s because a university degree doesn’t make someone better suited for a job.
If someone’s a real nosey type, who won’t take “no” for an answer and who isn’t scared to knock on someone’s door to see if they want to talk, but doesn't have piece of paper from a university, they will be a way better journalist than someone who went to university, got a degree but is too scared to talk to people.
I’m sure you can think of jobs or professions where natural inclination or natural skill way outshines the benefit of a university degree. But, for some reason, a lot of employers these days don’t want to know you if you haven’t got a qualification.
When it comes to university, my view is that there should only be two reasons for someone to go. The first is if you absolutely have to because of the career you want - so that’s things like law, engineering, medicine.
The other reason is if you really want to. And that’s probably the key bit here, because, if you really want to go to university, chances are you’re not going to be illiterate.
Universities these days are full of people who don’t really want to be at university but they think they have to if they want to get a job, and they’ll be the ones who Mike Grimshaw at UC is talking about today.
And that’s why employers have to take some of the blame here. Employers who know full well that someone could do the job for them just as well —with or without a university degree— but, for some reason, they’re only interested in talking to the people with the degree and the framed photo on the wall.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A beloved Kiwi writer and actor will be featuring in the upcoming Theatre Royal Variety Gala.
Richard O’Brien, the mind behind The Rocky Horror Picture Show, will be taking the stage as they celebrate a decade since the theatre reopening after the Christchurch quakes.
Richard joined John MacDonald for a chat about the Gala, his new production, and his journey since the creation of his iconic show.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by National’s Vanessa Weenink and Labour’s Tracey McLellan for a chat about the latest political happenings.
The agenda today had a bit of a health skew, as they discussed whether it might be time for a user-pays approach to health and if single-patient hospital rooms are the way of the future.
And, who do they think will be the President of the United States this time next week – and who’s Tracey’s scarecrows American connection?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It’s Gumboot Friday tomorrow and the guy behind it, Mike King, seems to have put his foot in it. Although, I’m a little bit torn on this one.
So what’s happened is we’ve got this charity fashion show being held in Dunedin to raise money for suicide prevention and mental health awareness. And, like most events, the organisers wanted to serve alcohol as part of the hospitality offering for guests.
The police, though, weren’t too fussed about that and they opposed the application for a special alcohol licence. They did that because they don’t think it’s appropriate to serve grog at an event that is all about trying to raise awareness and reduce suicide rates, and the reason behind that is the growing evidence linking people drinking and taking their lives.
So yesterday, Mike King tells Newstalk ZB that alcohol isn't a problem for people with mental illness. It is a lifejacket.
Now here's where I'm torn.
Mike King is a guy who not only works tirelessly to raise awareness of mental health issues and raise money —with things like Gumboot Friday— but he’s also someone who has been there and done that.
Unlike some of the experts, he’s been there himself. And I know he’s right when he says that people turn to alcohol when they’re in mental distress, in fact, even people who you wouldn’t consider to be on the edge turn to alcohol.
If you say you’ve had a bad day, people will invariably tell you to have a drink.
So, of course, people turn to alcohol. But the scary bit is all this research coming through that shows how people can actually decide to take their own life – but only do it after they’ve been drinking.
Whenever I read or hear about that it terrifies me, because we all know people can think they’re capable of all sorts of things once they’ve got a few drinks on board.
So the link between alcohol and suicide makes perfect sense.
Which is why we’ve got Otago University health professor Rose Crossin poo-pooing Mike King’s comments today. She says alcohol can give you temporary relief from your problems, but it can also be a depressant and it can make your problems seem worse. And I’m not going to argue with that, either.
But I’m not going to crucify Mike King because I believe him when he says that alcohol is a lifejacket for people with mental illness. And if he thinks that alcohol does actually stop people taking their lives, then who am I to argue with him?
But given he is the face of Gumboot Friday, a charity which, remember, received $24 million in government support this year. And given that a lot of people probably consider him to be the most credible mental health advocate in the country, should he have said what he said yesterday?
My answer to that is “no”. He didn’t need to. We know he used alcohol and drugs to get him through. We know he knows what he’s on about.
And even though I know full well that alcohol gets a lot of people through their personal nightmares - it didn’t need saying. So I think he was right and he was wrong.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If I say to you “30 kph speed limit area”, chances are you can think of one. I can think of one straight away - on the southern end of Colombo Street in Christchurch.
You’re cruising along at 50 kph and then —bang— it drops down to 30. No schools on that stretch of Colombo.
There’s a school on one of the side streets, but it goes down to 30 —and it’s permanent— and then it’s back up to 50 by the time you get up to Thorrington School. Where you would think there would be a 30 kph limit.
Someone was telling me this morning about another one like that on Gloucester Street between Linwood Ave and Woodham Road. Again – no schools, no kindys, but still 30 kph. All the time.
So there are two examples where I think the Government’s doing the right thing getting rid of these 24/7 30 kph zones. But I think it’s going too far, because I actually think there is a place for them.
And this is what’s covered in these guidelines for local councils, because it’s the local councils that are responsible for all the signage in their areas.
So the Government is going to ditch the permanent 30 kph zones but the speed limit around schools will be allowed to drop down to 30 kph, but only during morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up times, and I reckon that will be a complete waste of time and effort.
Not to mention money, either. Because if there isn’t already one of those flashing signs outside a school which can show different speed limits at different times, then one of those is going to have to be installed, as well.
But I don’t give two hoots about the money side of it.
What bothers me is the fact that if we have different speed limits outside schools at different times of the day, you know what’s going to happen, don’t you?
Drivers are just going to go 50 kph all the time. And why’s that? They’ll go 50 all the time because they are creatures of habit. We’re all creatures of habit.
And, if we’re told that we can drive 50 kph past a school pretty much 23-hours-a-day - then that’s what we’ll do during the 60 minutes when these 30 kph limits will supposedly be in place.
Now, you might be thinking to yourself, that doesn’t stack up because most of the time when kids are arriving at school and leaving for the day, traffic is close to a standstill because of all the parents who insist they have to drive right up to the gate to pick up their kids.
And you might be right in some cases, but from what I see, that is for a very short window of time.
If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t need the kids out there in the mornings and the afternoons doing the lollipop patrols, would we?
But we do have them, because most drivers are bozos. I’m a bozo. You’re a bozo. I’ll put my hand up right now and admit that I’ve driven past school crossings sometimes in ways that, afterwards, I’ve felt terrible about.
And generally, it’s all about speed.
I was reading some comments by the head of the Board of Trustees at Linwood Ave School. She was saying that returning speed limits back to 50 kph is going to be a backwards step, and I agree with her.
I gather the speed limit outside Linwood Ave School went down to 30 kph earlier this year. She was saying it hasn’t necessarily slowed-down traffic, but she sees it as a start.
And that’s a key thing here too. It can take as long as seven years to change behaviours, which says to me that we need to give these permanent 30 kph speed limits outside schools more time to bed in.
Just because the traffic isn’t any slower today outside Linwood Ave School, for example, than it was before the permanent speed limit went down - that doesn’t mean it’s failed. That doesn’t mean it should be done away with. It just means we need to give it more time.
Because I bet you that if the Government stuck with it, we would see people driving slower around schools - eventually. And what would be wrong with that?
There'd be nothing wrong with that.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When I heard that a campervan park is going to be up and running in central Christchurch, near Latimer Square —possibly in time for this summer— my first thought was that I’m glad I haven’t spent more than $500,000 buying an apartment around there.
Not even the developer’s reassurances that campervan people aren’t “yahoo types” made me feel any more excited about it.
In fact, I think it’s the last place we want to see something like this. And I’m pointing the finger squarely at the council for giving this development resource consent.
Because just after I saw at the weekend that the council has failed to achieve its target of having 20,000 people living in the central city by this year, it’s gone and given out consent for a campervan park.
It’s not as if people who have bought apartments in the city aren’t having enough trouble as it is, finding more and more of the apartments around them being hired out as Airbnb accommodation.
If someone’s moved into the centre of town on the sell-job that they’re going to be living in this community of people all wanting to embrace the downtown lifestyle - they’re going to be feeling somewhat short changed, aren't they?
Especially people living near Lattier Square who are finding out today that there’s going to be a campervan park next door or down the road.
So the gist is the Christchurch City Council has given consent for this park with space for up to 25 campervans on Gloucester Street – where the Stonehurst Hotel used to be. That came down after the earthquakes, there was also a hostel there and a small campground back in the day.
The thing is though, that was then, and this is now.
And since the earthquakes, there’s been this big effort to get more people living in the centre of town.
The council set itself the target of having 20,000 people living in the CBD by this year. We found out over the weekend that hasn’t happened, and it’s pushed out the deadline another four years to 2028.
In the meantime, it’s giving the green light for this thing - where people will be able to take their campervans and stay for up to four weeks.
My opposition to it is based on a couple of things.
The first one is gut instinct or gut reaction. I just don’t buy this idea that just because you drive a campervan, it doesn’t mean you’re not going to be a pain in the backside to someone at some point.
Just because you’re a member of the motorhome association, it’s not going to make you any less self-entitled when you cruise into town. And, despite what the developer behind this project is saying today, there is no guarantee that someone driving a campervan is going to give two hoots about the people living there.
So that’s my gut instinct telling me it’s a bad idea.
The other reason I’m opposed to it is that it flies completely in the face of what the council’s supposed to be hellbent on achieving for Christchurch.
It wants people living in the centre of town. It wants people opening their eyes and realising that the quarter acre section isn’t the be-all and end-all, and that you can have a pretty decent life living in an apartment and making the most of what the central city has to offer.
And a campervan park is completely at odds with the vision it’s been trying to sell since the quakes.
Talk about left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
“There for the grace of God goes I.”
We generally say it when something bad and we know that it could just as easily happen to us, and anyone who is a parent should say that whenever they hear nightmare stories about kids being abused by their parents or caregivers.
I say that not just as a by-stander looking on. I say that as someone with three kids —all grown up now— but someone who has raised three kids and I know just as well as the next parent how much that can drive you to despair at times.
Which is why it is so important to remember that it’s not just the no-hopers who end up with Oranga Tamariki knocking on the door.
The child welfare agency’s clientele runs the full range of society, including those so-called respectable middle-class and upper-class families.
And I’m willing to bet that the reason some of them are in strife with OT is that they just can't cope. Or, more to the point, don’t know how to cope.
And until we realise that just banging-on about OT being useless isn't the only route we should be going down, then nothing’s going to change.
I am not saying we shouldn’t be criticising OT when they get things wrong. Which is what the Chief Ombudsman is doing —again— after what he says was “a series of failures” which meant Oranga Tamariki didn’t do what it should’ve done when it received multiple complaints about pre-school and primary school-aged kids being abused by their mother’s partner.
Peter Boshier is slamming OT, saying it even had photographic evidence of abuse but didn’t do enough to ascertain what was going on and, as a result, left the kids in serious risk.
So it’s only right that the Ombudsman calls them out like this. But, even if OT turned itself into a gold-plated example of a child welfare agency, that still wouldn’t be enough.
Because I’m willing to bet that some of these people who end up being investigated by Oranga Tamariki —not all of them— but I bet some of them, only come to OT’s attention because they just don’t know how to cope. Especially when it comes to coping with a crying baby.
Which is what Dame Lesley Max, who runs the Great Potentials Foundation, is talking about when she says we should be teaching kids about parenthood when they're at school.
Of course, chances are your so-called “family values” people would be dead against teaching kids how to be parents at high school, you know: “Aww, that’ll just encourage them to go out and get pregnant.” All that nonsense.
But I agree with Dame Lesley, why aren’t we teaching kids how to do what is the most important job in the world?
Maths and science isn’t going to help you in the middle of the night, when you’ve got a baby that’s been crying all day and all night and you’re at the end of your tether.
Geography isn’t going to help you then, nor are media studies, yet that’s what we do. And we wonder why most of us are nowhere near ready to be parents.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by National’s Hamish Campbell and Labour’s Reuben Davidson for Politics Friday.
On the agenda today was yet another case of Oranga Tamariki failing to act on information pertaining to child welfare – is it time to start parenting courses to help with the stress of raising children?
A petition has launched, looking at banning the private sale and use of fireworks. Has their time in the publics' hands come and gone?
And the Government is considering performance-based pay for public sector bosses – does this idea have merit?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I feel really uncomfortable about the idea of public sector bosses getting performance pay.
Not that the Government is going to care too much about that, because it’s confirmed that, from the middle of next year, that’s what’s going to be happening.
It’s unclear to me at this stage whether it’s going to mean the heads of all our government departments are going to have some of their salaries earmarked in a category which is known in the HR game as “at-risk”. Which means some of your pay you’re not guaranteed to get unless you meet certain performance measures.
The big-hitting chief executives in the private sector have these “at-risk” clauses. People like the head of ANZ, Antonia Watson, who fronted up to a parliamentary select committee yesterday and was asked how much she gets paid. And she told them it’s around $2 million a year.
I’m more than happy for her and all her other private sector chief executive colleagues to be getting bonuses and extra pay for doing what’s required of them and doing it well, but I’m certainly not happy for the people in charge of social welfare, education, health —all of the essential public services— getting bonuses.
And the reason for that is that public services can’t be pigeonholed like private operations can.
If a private business is losing money on something, they can pull the pin. Easy. You can’t be so knee jerk when you’re running a public service.
Because, generally, when a private business is losing money on something it’s because there’s less or no demand for what they provide. So you stop doing it.
If you’re running the social welfare department, though, or health, you lose money hand over fist, but you can’t do much about it because —despite the fact you're chewing through the money— demand is always going to be through the roof.
It’s the complete opposite of what happens in the private sector.
The Government’s bringing back performance pay for public sector bosses after the former government got rid of it back in 2018.
Chris Hipkins was the State Services Minister back then, and he got rid of the performance pay and bonuses because he wanted to put a bit of a handbrake on the pay pockets for the heads of government departments, which seemed to just be going up and up and up at the time.
And I remember before then, you had politicians saying that performance pay was needed to make sure the public sector could attract the best people to run all the government departments.
What they meant, of course, was that they needed to compete with the private sector and so they had to offer the same kinds of sweeteners.
But I think we can agree that that hasn't necessarily been the best thing, and that someone who is a brilliant private sector chief executive doesn't necessarily make a brilliant public sector chief executive. And vice versa.
Where I see problems with performance pay in the public sector is it will create tension and division. In fact, it will be worse than that. It will mean we see less genuine leadership in our government departments and more government puppets running the show.
I’m not saying that a government department or agency should be run independently from the wants and expectations of the government of the day, it would be naïve to even suggest that.
But if you’ve got the head of a government department being told that they’ll get a bonus if they do this or do that, or achieve this or achieve that, then their sole focus is going to be on pleasing the Minister.
They’re not going to advocate on behalf of the people who work for them, they're not going to rock the boat. They’re not going to be the type of leader that I think we need in the public sector.
They’ll be even more “yes people” types than they are at the moment because they’ll know that, if they aren’t, the bonus won’t be coming.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
After saying just the other week that I don’t agree with central Government taking over local councils when things go pear-shaped, I’ve changed my tune. Slightly. And I’ve got an idea to run past you.
First, though, can you imagine what it must feel like being a mayor and getting the phone call from the Beehive saying ‘you’re doing a pretty cruddy job so we’re sending someone in to sort you out’?
It happened in Christchurch a few years back when the Government-of-the-day wasn’t happy with the time it was taking the council to process consent applications.
It happened more recently in Christchurch too when there was all that kerfuffle over housing intensifications laws.
And then way before all of that, of course, there was the time that the government didn’t like the way Environment Canterbury was doing things and so stepped-in, gave all the councillors the boot, and put commissioners in to run the place.
And, yesterday, it was Wellington mayor Tory Whanau’s turn to get the phone call. Which was hardly surprising and, from the coverage I’ve seen, she seems to have been relatively gracious about it all.
But there was one thing she was adamant about - she’s not going to resign, after what is clearly a vote of no confidence from the Government.
The thing is, though, when you have no other option and you’ve got the Local Government Minister on the other end of the line spelling out what’s going to happen, you’re hardly going to make a clown of yourself and start chaining yourself to the front of the building in protest or locking the doors so the Minister’s enforcer can’t get in the place.
Because we know, don’t we, from experience that when a Government sends someone into a council, that person is there to enforce what the Government-of-the-day wants.
It was the enforcer who was sent to Christchurch to sort out the council over the consenting and the housing density stuff.
And it was the enforcer who was sent-in to sort out Environment Canterbury back in the day.
But I don’t think it needs to be this way. Because, when you get a Government intervening like it has here in Canterbury in the past, and the way it is in Wellington now, it does make a mockery of local Government, doesn’t it?
So I reckon the solution is to identify problems or issues before they become a crisis. Which councils themselves are never going to do. Because everyone likes to think they’re on top of things and you’re never going to get a council putting its hand up and saying‘ we’re a bit of a basket case, we’ve cocked things up here’.
Which is why we need another set of eyes and ears involved. And we already have a model here in New Zealand that I think could easily be replicated in local Government.
We have the Education Review Office which sends out inspectors to keep an eye on what’s happening in schools to make sure they’re doing what they should be doing.
And I reckon the same thing should happen with local councils. So, instead of the Crown observer only being sent-in when things are hitting the fan, the Government should have a team of observers who would go around all councils on a regular basis.
Do you think all that strife at the Gore council between the mayor and the chief executive might have been avoided or might have been sorted out sooner if there was more of an external microscope being run over the place? I do.
Do you think we might be more reassured that the councillors around the council table are actually the ones making the decisions and not the council staff, if someone from outside was doing a regular check on things? I do.
Do you think the shambles we’re seeing now in Wellington might have been avoided if we had this kind of external observation going on? I do.
So the way I’d see it running would be very similar to the way school inspectors do their job. There’d be a checklist or a criteria that councils could be assessed against. So at school, for example, the inspectors might go in and see how well the kids are going with reading or maths.
The council inspectors or observers could go in and check how well council meetings are being run; how much independent decision-making is going on around the council table; how they’re going with their 10-year budgets - which has been the big sticking point for Wellington.
And then, if they found that a council wasn’t up to scratch, the government could decide whether to give councils a few tips or whether it needed to go full noise and send someone in to bang heads together.
But, even if they did send someone in to get things under control, it would be at a point where the councils had already been called-out, been given the opportunity to fix things, and retained some sense of self-direction or self-management.
Because, the way things are at the moment, it’s no action, no action, no action and then - bang - the Government going all knee-jerk on it and sending the Crown observer in. There’s got to be a better way.
And I think doing regular council inspections or assessments would be that better way.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour Leader Chris Hipkins joined John MacDonald for their regular catchup.
On today’s agenda:
Andrew Bayly is in hot water for his “offensive comments” during a Ministerial visit – what are his party’s thoughts on the situation? Is it time to have central government reporting on local councils to mitigate the chances of what’s happening in Wellington? And, has David Seymour hit the bullseye with his new school lunch plan?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Sometimes you just have to resort to cliches, because there are times when there’s just no other way to say it. Or no better way to say it.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over-and-over and expecting different results.
That’s how I feel about the Government strengthening its Three Strikes law to make it easier to keep repeat offenders in prison for longer.
Which means that instead of 3 Strikes kicking-in after someone’s first sentence of two years or more, they’re going to be in the running if their first sentence is just one year or more.
So, if someone commits a crime with punishments longer than one year (the first time around) and then goes on to commit two more crimes and gets sentences of two years or more for each of them - the third time, the judge has to give out the maximum sentence. No discounts.
Until now, the 3 Strikes was only going to kick-in after someone committed their first crime that had a sentence of two years or more. Now it’s going to kick in if their first crime gets a sentence of just one year, or more.
And the reason I think it’s insanity is the same reason that Julie-Anne Kincade thinks it’s insane. She’s a King’s Counsel and Vice-President of the Law Association, and here’s what she had to say to Mike about this a couple of hours ago:
She says there's no evidence that Three Strikes works in the way that people think it will work. She says it doesn't deter people, and some people might be sent to jail just because they don't have a house where they can serve home detention.
Julie-Anne Kincade is also concerned these changes to the Three Strikes laws could men negative outcomes for innocent people too.
"I'm also very concerned about the lack of parole. Parole is an incentive for good behaviour and it incentivises people to engage with psychologists and take programmes. To understand their trigger points.
"Under this regime, the most serious offenders won't be allowed any parole. They won't be given any rehabilitation and then they'll be chucked out on the street without the strong support that parole system gives people to make sure they transition back into our society. This is actually going to achieve exactly the opposite of what they want to achieve."
If the aim is to reduce violent crime then the Government is barking up the wrong tree with this one. Because if it didn’t work the last time we had it —which was between 2010 and 2021— do you really think it’s going to work now? Of course it’s not.
And the reason it didn’t work last time we had it is because laws like this don’t take into account other factors like mental health, intellectual disability, the age of the offenders, and any addictions they might have.
The same thing happened in California after they brought in a Three Strikes law in 1994. In fact, it saw so many more people end up in prison that it nearly bankrupted the state. They, eventually, saw the light and got rid of it.
Not here in New Zealand, though. The fact it failed last time obviously isn’t a concern for the Government - which is only doing what it’s doing to keep the crowds on the sidelines happy.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You can call me a nerd, if you want to. But I reckon there is nothing like the performance of walking down to your local polling booth on voting day and casting your vote.
The way we do every three years when we’re electing a Government. In the general election.
There’s no confusion. It’s well-publicised. You can do early voting, if you want to or need to. But we all know, don’t we, that when we wake up on a particular Saturday morning every three years - we know it’s voting day.
Not so straightforward, though, when it comes to voting for our local council. Which, let’s face it, actually has more sway over our daily lives than central Government.
And I think we need to merge the general election with local body elections, which I’ll get to shortly.
But, for some reason, in the spirit of trying to make it easier for us to vote in our local elections, we’ve actually made it more difficult.
And this is something Local Government New Zealand wants to try and sort out. It wants to get more of our voting in the elections for our local councils.
I reckon the pitiful voter turnout - compared to general elections - largely comes down to the fact that you can pretty much vote when you want in local body elections. Well, within a voting period. But you can do it when it suits you.
If you compare voter turnout for the general election with local body elections, it's very clear.
Turnout at last year’s general election was 78.2 percent. Turnout in the most recent local body elections two years ago was 40 percent nationally.
And the reason for that is simple, in my view.
The voting papers for the local body elections arrive in the mail. They sit on the kitchen bench. Every time we walk past them we think, ‘ooh, must get those away’.
But for most people, the only time the papers leave the bench is when they’verealisedit’s all too late and they chuck them in the recycling bin.
And then, for the next three years, they complain about how hopeless their local council is and, you know, “can you believe how our rates have gone up under these clowns?”
So Local Government New Zealand, here’s what needs to happen to make sure more people vote in your local body elections.
For starters, council elections should happen at the same time as general elections.
And there’s a very good reason for this. Not just because it makes sense doing it at the same time.
The reason is, how many times have we heard that councils have had to pull the pin on something - let’s use cycleways as an example - because there’s been a change in Government or a change in Government policy and the money they thought they were getting from Wellington isn’t happening anymore.
If local body elections were held at the same time as general elections, things would be more in sync, wouldn’t they?
And the other big change that’s needed - is we need to get rid of postal voting.
Because, as I say, the papers arrive in the mail but most of us end up throwing them in the bin. Because we just don’t get around to it. Unless you’re a nerd, like me. And unless you love elections.
But for normal people, the voting papers just gather dust - and then it’s too late.
So instead of postal voting in local body elections, I reckon there should be a voting day where you have to turn up at your local polling booth - unless you need to do an early vote - and I reckon that should happen on the same day as the general election.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What’s the thing you hear people say time-and-time again about the way we seemed to just get on with the job of building infrastructure back in, say, the 1970s?
What’s the most common thing you hear people say about that?
They say “our forebears had the foresight”. And that’s what I hope Christchurch city councillors have when they decide whether or not to press-on with the controversial Wings to Wheels cycleway on Harewood Rd.
Because,believe it or not, it’s back on the table after costs have skyrocketed and the government money that was originally going to be coming to help pay for it has been pulled.
The overall gist is that if the council wants to go further with this particular cycleway project, it’s going to have to come up with about an extra $10 million over and above what’s already been spent and what’s left in the budget.
So far, the council has spent $6.2 million on the project without any shovels hitting the ground and it’s only got $18.5 million left in the budget. And there’s a gap of about $10 million.
Nevertheless, I hope our councillors have this “foresight” that people like to credit past leaders with.
And I hope they have the fortitude to say, ‘you know what, this is going to cost a truckload more money than we thought we’d have to spend and it’s a truckload more money than we want to spend - but we’re going to do it, for the generations to come’.
That’s what I hope they do.
You might remember that it was back in 2019 when the council came up with the plan for the 4.5 kilometre cycleway on Harewood Rd.
The cost back then was expected to be $19 million, with half of the money coming from the Government, through NZTA.
Naturally, costs went up. Initially, they went up to $22.7 million and now it’s expected to cost $28.5 million all up.
So the council has just put out a range of options to be considered, which range from pressing-on and spending millions more than they expected to putting the thing on hold indefinitely.
And, in the middle of those two extremes, there are other options. Such as building a shorter cycleway - which would still cost about $20 million.
The council is also suggesting that, instead of going for what we like to call the “over-engineered” options, it could just paint lines on the road and put in traffic lights at three intersections.
But that option would still cost $10.5 million, anyway. So why would you bother with that half-hearted measure?
I’ve often said ‘what’s wrong with a few white lines?’. But if you’re going to spend $10 million, you may as well spend $28 million. There are some other cheaper alternatives too.
I see councillor Victoria Henstock is saying that she’s pleased to see there are several options on the table, because she’s been opposed to the Harewood rd cycleway from the get-go.
But this is where she’s wrong. She’s saying today: “This is a sensible approach. We cannot keep pouring money into projects that we cannot afford and are not wanted by the local community, as they keep telling me.”
And that’s the problem right there. When you get politicians who are only interested in what the people in the here-and-now think. And, in particular, the people in the here-and-now who complain.
Because, of course, Councillor Henstock is going to hear from people who are anti the cycleway.
She’s not going to hear from the people who, in 10 years time, are going to think this cycleway is absolutely brilliant.
The people who, in 10 years time, will be saying ‘wasn't it great that our city leaders had the foresight to bite the bullet; they had the fortitude to spend the extra money, and make sure we can ride our bikes safely”.
That’s what I hope people will be able to say. And that’s why, instead of tinkering around the edges and coming up with some sort of half-hearted alternatives that will still cost a lot of money, I hope the council doesn’t give in. And I hope it presses-on, as planned. And certainlydoesn't pull the plug altogether.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A blow to South Canterbury as Timaru's Smithfield meat-works is confirmed to be closing.
The entire nearly 140-year-old site will close by December's end.
Alliance Group's told staff they'll be offered re-deployment at its other processing plants, where possible.
Waimakariri MP Matt Doocey told John MacDonald that he's gutted.
He says it'll impact many families and be felt by the wider community.
Christchurch Central MP Duncan Webb says it will have a knock-on effect for the city.
He says the loss of 500 jobs means 500-less incomes being spent, which local businesses will feel.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Here’s my perception of ACC: some people get ACC pay-outs at the drop of a hat and others have to fight, for what can be years.
And it’s the fighting bit that seems to be biting ACC on the backside, with the news that it’s gone from having a $900 million surplus last year to a $7.2 billion deficit this year.
It’s saying one of the reasons for that is that the courts are coming out with rulings telling it to pay people more money than it wanted to in the first place. Which, if that is the case, tells me that the ACC model is broken. It needs a re-think.
I would hate us to be without ACC. But, when you have it saying that it’s losing money hand-over-fist because the courts are disagreeing with some of its decisions, then it needs a good looking-at. It is broken.
I’ve got a mate who stuffed his shoulder doing his job. He was a painter for years from when he left school, and his shoulder packed a sad after years and years of painting.
If you’ve ever done a bit of painting, you’ll know how doing it day-in, day-out must mess around with your body. Your shoulder. Your neck.
So this guy had a genuine work injury, but it seemed like he had to fight for his shoulder operation for yonks. And I’m pretty sure that was after ACC had already paid out for his other shoulder. It was nuts.
Eventually, after a huge battle, ACC agreed to cover it.
So he’s an example of one end of the ACC spectrum. And he’s not the most extreme example I’ve heard of someone who has been battling ACC for about four years.
What happened there is she fell from her deck, hit her back on a railway sleeper in the garden, hasn’t been able to work since and, since then, she’s been battling ACC to prove that the back injury wasn’t something that existed before she had her accident.
And she has been fighting and fighting and fighting. She used to be a full-time midwife but now spends her days in bed or in a wheelchair, and, by the sound of it, it seems battling ACC has become her life.
This particular case is still going on. But, if this person is eventually successful and does manage to prove that ACC is in the wrong, then it will be another example of the types of cases that ACC is partly blaming for its $7.2 billion deficit.
It’s saying that court rulings are being handed down in favour of the people wanting more compensation or wanting, at least, some compensation.
Then you get the other examples where ACC money flows like a tap.
An example I’ve got is when one of the kids came off their bike at the adventure park, in Christchurch. He was checked over by the patrol staff there and they thought he might have been concussed and said we should take him to after-hours, just in case.
I did that and they checked him out and they said ‘no concussion’. But just as I was about to pay, the person behind the counter asked if we’d like them to clean up some of his scratches.
Which made sense to me. Since we were there.
So they did that and then they said, because they’d cleaned up the scratches, the whole thing would be covered by ACC and we didn’t have to pay anything.
Which seemed to me like a rort. I wasn’t sure who was rorting who, but there was no need for ACC to cover it. But that’s what happened.
ACC boss Megan Main says it’s a bit of a balancing act for them, when it comes to the level of ACC support people get.
Quite often, though, that's where the trouble starts.
Either way, what we're seeing is proof that the ACC model —while better than nothing— is coming unstuck and needs an overhaul.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch's mayor is keeping mum about seeking re-election.
First time mayor Phil Mauger took the reins in 2022 after narrowly beating former health boss David Meates.
City Councillor Sara Templeton has announced her bid for mayor a year out from local body elections.
Mauger wouldn’t confirm to John MacDonald whether he's decided to run.
He says there's a lot going on, so he'll worry about it after Christmas.
They also discussed his interview with Jack Tame on Q&A and if he really believes his comments about not breaking promises to ratepayers.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The highest court in the land is too big for its boots.
That’s what the guy who runs the New Zealand Initiative think tank is saying today. Roger Partridge is his name - he’s also a lawyer and King’s Counsel.
And he says the Supreme Court needs to be reined-in because he thinks it’s trying to re-write the laws made by Parliament.
One of the examples he’s giving to support his argument is the Court ruling two years ago that the voting age of 18 discriminates against younger people. That’s not the Supreme Court’s job, he says.
But I disagree. Because I think the Supreme Court should be free to decide for itself whether it’s going to consider a particular case, and the judges at the Supreme Court should be free to decide and say what they like after they’ve considered those cases.
The alternative is the Supreme Court being given restrictions and barriers and not having the freedom the highest court in the land should have. And when I describe it as the highest court in the land - that’s exactly what it is.
It is the court of last resort, for want of a better term. And it has been since 2004, when it was formed to replace the option of New Zealanders taking their cases to the Privy Council in London.
One of the reasons given for setting-up our own Supreme Court 20 years ago was that having something based here in New Zealand would be fairer than expecting people who wanted to go to a court of last resort to have to go to London and the Privy Council.
So, the argument was that it would be fairer for people who couldn’t even entertain the idea of appealing something through the Privy Council because of the expense. And let’s face it, running back to the mother country because you weren’t happy with how your case was handled here in the colonies is pretty old hat.
But where Roger Partridge from the New Zealand Initiative is coming from today is that he thinks the Supreme Court has gone beyond the job it was given 20 years ago.
He’s saying that the court is over-reaching and seems to have given itself the power to re-write legislation it does not like. And he wants Parliament to tell the court to get back into its box. Or to get back into its lane and to make decisions based on the law, without criticising the law.
If you want to think about it this way, it seems to me that what Roger Partridge is concerned about is the Supreme Court here ending up like the Supreme Court in the United States, which does seem to have quite a bit of sway over federal and state laws.
There was the case two years ago of the Supreme Court in America overruling the decision back in 1973 that abortion is a fundamental human right – the Roe v Wade case. It has had a lot of people there talking about whether the Supreme Court is having way too much influence, and I see there are people in the States right now calling for it to be reined in.
Like Roger Partridge from the New Zealand Initiative is doing today in relation to our Supreme Court.
So let’s take one of the cases that he says shows how the Court has got too big for its boots and why he thinks it shows that the court needs to be reined in: the Supreme Court’s ruling on whether the voting age should be 18.
Roger Partridge says that what the court did there was it looked at the argument from the outfit that wants to lower the voting age —this is the “Make It 16” crew— and he’s saying that it didn’t just consider the argument from a lawful perspective - but it also considered how social values might have changed since the passing of the Electoral Act in 1993, which sets the voting age at 18. And since the passing of the Local Electoral Act in 2001, which does the same. It says the voting age is 18.
And he says that’s not the Supreme Court’s job. It is the politicians —or it is Parliament— who should decide whether this particular law —or any law for that matter— is still consistent with society’s values.
Now, if you agree with him, then let me ask you this. Does that mean you also think judges in our other courts shouldn’t pay attention to society’s views on ram raids —for example— and shouldn’t consider how much we’ve had a gutsful of ram raids when a ram raider fronts up in court?
Answer me that.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I think we need to get over ourselves here in New Zealand when it comes to foreign investment.
And it looks like we’re going to have to get over ourselves - whether we want to or not - with the Government’s plan to make it easier for foreign investors to buy New Zealand companies and properties.
The way I’d describe it is that, at the moment, the Government thinks we treat overseas investors as if they’re going through customs - and we’re all suspicious about their motivations for coming here.
Whereas it thinks we should be more like the duty free shop, putting down the welcome mat and selling New Zealand to overseas investors. You know, give them a bit more of the glad eye and less of the raised eyebrow.
And I’m all for that. Because modern New Zealand was built on overseas investment.
I’m not saying it’s been perfect. But I agree with the Government’s plan to open the doors more to foreign investors.
Because the alternative is to keep languishing, blindly pressing-on under our own steam, convincing ourselves that we’re a country that can do without foreign money. And anyone who thinks that is dreaming.
So we had two announcements about this at the weekend. The first came on Saturday when Associate Finance Minister David Seymour announced that the coalition government had agreed to change the laws around foreign investment, saying the way we’re doing it at the moment is the worst in the world.
That, out of 38 countries, we come last in terms of being open to investment from overseas.
He says the Government wants to reverse the idea that investors need to convince the Government why they should be allowed to invest here; and change it to us telling investors why they should be coming. So more encouragement and less policing.
Oliver Hartwich, who’s a foreign investment expert with the New Zealand Initiative think tank, thinks we shouldn’t just be making it easier for investors to spend money on businesses here. He thinks we should be going the whole hog and making it easier for them to buy houses here too.
And wouldn’t you know it, Winston Peters - who’s always been anti foreigners buying houses here - says he’d be open to changing his position if the right investors came along.
So, after David Seymour announced on Saturday that the Government plans to loosen the rules around foreign investment, Winston Peters made his big announcement that NZ First wants to see a $100 billion Future Find set-up, to ensure we have the money for all the big infrastructure projects that need doing.
The money would have to come from overseas. Which is why he said this morning that he might not be so hard-line on foreigners buying houses here, if it means getting the type of investment he wants.
I thought it was kind of weird that Winston Peters said this morning that he hadn’t seen anything before David Seymour announced the changes to the foreign investment rules on Saturday. But, nevertheless, they seem to be on the same page. And I’m with them on this one.
I think we have no choice but to make it easier for foreign investors to buy New Zealand companies and properties. For the simple reason that we’re a tiny outfit and we’re dreaming if we think we can do it all on our own.
And because, if we don’t attract these investors, they’ll go somewhere else. Somewhere else that doesn’t put up as many barriers as we do.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There are a lot of weird things in the world, but one of the weirdest would have to be the international drivers licence.
You know, you’re licensed to drive in one country, but a little bit of paper lets you drive in any country. It doesn’t matter that you know next to nothing about the road rules or the driving conditions.
But tell that to the Government which obviously doesn’t find international licences as weird as I do.
I find them weird. I don't like them. And, before you accuse me of being a hypocrite - I’ll admit that I am a hypocrite because I’ve used them before when I’ve gone overseas.
But ever since I got my first international licence, I’ve thought that it’s crazy that you can drive anywhere without being tested or trained on local rules and driving conditions. Which is why I think the Government’s latest move to reduce waiting times for practical driving tests is just crazy.
It’s going to extend the period someone from overseas can drive on an international licence in New Zealand from 12 months to 18 months to try and reduce the waiting times for practical driving tests because the average wait time is over a month.
Apparently, the way things have been, the demand from international drivers wanting to get their New Zealand licence has been going through the roof.
Transport Minister Simeon Brown says there are tens of thousands of international drivers wanting to get their New Zealand licences. Or licence conversions, as they’re known. Which has meant that the queues and waiting times have been getting longer.
So the Government wants to take some of the international drivers out of the queue so local drivers can do their practical tests sooner.
Simeon Brown says they’re hiring more trainers and testers. But they still need to do more, and this is one. But I think it’s a terrible idea and I’m not alone.
Someone who is a testing officer got in touch to say they think it’s a crazy idea too.
This person says, from what they see, international drivers wanting to convert their licences to New Zealand licences are failing their practical driving tests —on average— six times, before they pass.
This person says that, instead of letting them drive here on international licences longer, the Government should be doing the opposite and limiting them to three months maximum before they have to convert to a New Zealand licence.
That would do nothing to fix the problem the Government’s trying to fix but I don’t care about that.
Because what should be the priority here? Helping people get their licences quicker or keeping people safe on the road?
That’s a no-brainer question. The priority has to be keeping people safe on the road.
And that isn’t going to happen by letting international drivers get off a plane, get behind the wheel of a vehicle and cruise around the place for six months longer than they’re allowed to now before being tested.
I’m not anti international drivers. As I said at the start, I’ve held international licences before. I’ve taken advantage of something that I actually think is crazy.
But I am definitely anti anything that is going to mean untested drivers driving on our roads longer than they do now.
I don't care how long it takes people to get their licence if the alternative is what the Government has come up with today.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins claims the Government's failure to compensate for the nurses’ pay rise has driven Health New Zealand's budget blowout.
The agency's finances jumped from an expected half-a-billion dollar surplus to a $1.4 billion deficit in April.
It's now expected to blow out to $1.76 billion.
Chris Hipkins told John MacDonald that there's a mix of issues in the system, but under-funding's definitely playing a role in the deficits.
He says nurses won their pay equity claim after a hard-fought battle and the Government hasn't provided the funds to pay for it, adding more financial pressure.
The crackdown on dodgy builders however, is getting Hipkins’ support.
The Government's looking at changes to registration and licensing regimes, with a focus on lifting competence and accountability requirements.
Larger fines could also be on the cards for workers hiding non-compliant work during inspections.
Hipkins says the regulatory systems for builders aren't as good as they should be.
He says a more streamlined regime with harsher penalties for the cowboys of the industry is great.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I think we need to see the New Zealand Navy ship sinking as a wake-up call. Not the sinking itself, but what it’s going to mean for our Navy and our wider defence force.
The fact that we’re probably going to lose a truckload of money because of the ship being under-insured isn’t an issue for me and I wasn’t overly surprised when Finance Minister Nicola Wilis confirmed it yesterday. Because can you imagine the premiums versus the likelihood of a sinking? So I think the insurance thing is a bit of a red herring.
But any of the Navy people I’ve heard quoted in the news since the weekend haven’t been too shy to say that the loss of the Manawanui is going to be a major blow for our Navy. And I’m saying today that the Navy’s loss needs to be our wake-up call.
We need to start investing more in our defence force. And the reason I think that is that when you run a military or a defence force you do it with precision and planning. And you can only do that when you have certainty and the financial backing to run the outfit with confidence. Not on a wing and prayer, as we do at the moment.
The thing is: when it comes to government spending, you never hear people demanding more money to be spent on our military. People demand more money for health and hospitals. They demand more money for schools and education. They demand more money for life-saving drugs. But you never hear them demanding more money for the military.
Except for a few old military types who I’ve always thought have been living in the past a bit. Reliving the glory days and who can’t really get over the fact that the world has moved on, and New Zealand isn’t the player we used to be on the military front.
But I’m coming around to their way of thinking. I think the time has come where we do need to demand that more money be invested in our military. Which I never thought I would hear myself say. But I think that’s because I’m like most people - the military is kind-of out of mind, out of sight.
And the only time I really think about it is when we get an air force plane breaking down on the tarmac somewhere or, like at the weekend, we get a navy ship sinking.
Not that that happens every day. My understanding is that the Manawanui going down after hitting that reef on Saturday was the first time we’ve lost a Navy ship since World War 2.
Nevertheless, I think the time has come for some serious soul searching about the future of New Zealand’s military force. Which is kind of happening. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says a major strategic review is on the way.
The broader question though is what we think the future of our military should be and whether we think more needs to go into it. More investment.
I don't think we have any choice.
Our planes are not reliable. We’re now down a ship. Not to mention the Navy ships that are sitting idle, unable to be used because the Navy doesn’t have the crews to run them. That’s because people are leaving the Navy for jobs elsewhere.
The housing provided to our military personnel is cruddy. Black mould. Sick soldiers. Sick kids. Back in May, a military advocate —who is married to a soldier— said her goal was to show New Zealand just how horrendous conditions are for serving military personnel.
So you add all that up, and you get a defence force that we can either keep running down. Or we can invest more in the people we —and the world— relies on to keep the peace.
The time has come for us to invest more in our defence force. Because. the way it’s going, it will reach the point where it’s no use to anyone.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Government's fast track legislation is shaping up to be a real cluster. Especially, in Greater Christchurch.
I think some of the projects it wants to get going here sooner rather than later are making its new legislation more ram-raid than fast track.
So it's released details of 149 projects that will be included in the Bill which, it says, is being done to help rebuild the economy, sort out the housing crisis, improve energy security, and do something about the state of our infrastructure.
But, here in Canterbury, it's going head-to-head with the Selwyn and Waimakariri councils over the construction of nearly 8,000 houses which these two councils have been trying to block for years.
The reason they don't want them is that they don't think they can cope with the kind of rapid expansion these developments would lead to. And I agree.
I think it's reckless and all part of this "get stuff done" mentality that can sound great, but that's about it.
I think what we're seeing here is the Government going all "you can't stop progress" on it and not considering the wider implications. And they are riding roughshod over the concerns of two of our local councils.
In Selwyn, for example, under the new fast track bill, a development by the Carter Group in Rolleston West would see 4,200 more homes built across four suburbs.
Which would mean more than 12,000 new residents fast-tracked into Rolleston - which is already New Zealand's fastest-growing town.
That's on the basis of there being 4,200 extra houses, and an average of just under three people per house in Selwyn at the moment. That happens - and the population of Rolleston would increase by 41 percent.
As Selwyn councillor Sophie McInnes is saying today, that would be "explosive growth".
She says, think about how many schools they would need in the area - where Rolleston College is already a capacity with 1,800 students. You bring another 12,000 people into the area and you're going to need more schools, aren't you?
What about health facilities? I don't see any new medical centres or a hospital on the Government's list of things to do.
As Selwyn councillor Sophie McInnes is saying, they want Rolleston to grow at its own pace. In a sustainable way.
For the local economy to grow and create local jobs, so they don't get these new developments popping up where people sleep at night and then leave in the morning to go to work and school in the city.
And then there's Waimakariri. Where the Carter Group wants to build 850 houses and a commercial centre at Ohoka but the council's been against it - for the same reason as Selwyn has been opposed to the developments there - because of concerns about unsustainable growth.
The difference is, though, that the Ohoka development includes a school and/or a retirement home.
But, last year, independent commissioners decided not to give consent for the project because they didn't think it would fit with Ohoka's existing rural nature, and because there's a lack of local jobs and a lack of public transport.
They said at the time, "Families with secondary school students, sporting interests and those working in Rangiora, Kaiapoi or Christchurch will travel to meet their day-to-day needs."
So, basically, the decision not to give the Ohoka project consent was for similar reasons as to why the Selwyn council doesn't want that massive 4,200 house development.
These areas can't cope with that kind of growth and it would just turn them into dormitories.
But, oh no, the developers with their noses out of joint have run to the Government and have said "pick us, pick us" and the Government has decided "yep, you're on the list".
And I think it is very short-sighted. I think the Government is being reckless. And I think it will do nothing to change the minds of people who think this whole fast track thing is the Government riding roughshod just to please its mates.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by National’s Vanessa Weenink and Labour’s Tracey McLellan to discuss the biggest political stories of the week.
On today's agenda was Health NZ’s nearly $1 billion deficit – how does the Government get them out of this hole? Are private-public partnerships the answer?
Is it time to stop people building homes in 'dumb places' as the insurance council has this week asked?
And will we start to see a conversation across all parties around the retirement age?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I don’t know whether Mary Richardson is a martyr or a mug. But, I tell you what, the acting chief executive at Christchurch City Council has shown outstanding leadership, not just outstanding leadership - she’s also shown outstanding political nous with this $100,000 pay cut.
She demanded it because of the financial pressures the council and ratepayers are dealing with, which I believe has gone down very well with staff. Not just because of that, but also because, generally people at the council like her, which is quite an achievement for someone working in senior management anywhere.
But there’s going to be a sting in the tail for everyone working at the council and the rest of us who use council services that’ll get to.
Mary Richardson has been acting chief executive since former council boss Dawn Baxendale quit suddenly late last year, and all along she’s made it clear that she’s not interested in the job full-time and would only be there until the council appoints a new person.
But they haven’t been able to, thirty-seven people applied for the job. It came down to a shortlist of three but Councilors didn’t think any of the candidates were what or who they wanted and so they went to Mary Richardson and said “How ‘bout it? Want the job.”
Mayor Phil Mauger obviously did a good job because she agreed to take it on but has told the council she doesn’t want to do a full five-year term and has agreed she’ll stick around until June 2026.
Her other provision was that she be paid $100,000 less than the money Dawn Baxendale was on. I reckon most people in her position would milk it for what they could, I’ll be honest, I would.
If I was Mary Richardson and I had Phil Mauger come to me saying they bombed-out in the recruitment process and would you please take the job, I’d be saying “I’ll do it - but I want to be paid at least as much as the last chief executive". In fact, I’d probably push my luck a bit because if you don’t ask, you don’t get.
Not that Mary Richardson is denying herself too much, because she’ll still be on a salary of $450,000 which is still a good wicket by anyone’s means.
But here’s the sting in the tail I mentioned earlier and here’s why I think she has shown outstanding leadership and outstanding political nous. It has been made very clear that local councils up and down the country are on notice from the Government to cut costs.
Time-and-time again, the Prime Minister and the Local Government Minister have said councils need to look and learn from what’s been happening in government departments and agencies. Councils need to do the same and live within their means.
Mary Richardson has obviously heard that, then she’s put a stake in the ground starting with what she herself gets paid as head honcho. It’s not an act of goodwill, it’s a statement of intent, a statement much more powerful than any new vision and mission statements that might have been trotted out by the 37 people who thought they should be chief executive.
By insisting on a $100,000 pay cut, Mary Richardson has signalled a period of austerity at the Christchurch City Council. If she has any of her people coming to her between now and mid-2026 saying they want to pay their staff more, what do you think her attitude is going to be? When the chief executive takes a $100,000 pay cut, what does that say to the rest of the organization? It says forget about pay rises.
When Mary Richardson has people saying they can’t do things any differently or more cheaply because it’s all been tried before - she has given herself license to demand that they try again. That’s what happens when the person at the top takes a $100,000 pay cut.
When someone says they need more staff - No sorry, that’s what happens when the person at the top takes a $100,000 pay cut. When the person at the top takes a $100,000 pay cut explicitly because the council and ratepayers are under financial pressures, that makes it very clear that you and I can’t just keep on demanding more of this and more of that from the council.
So while Mary Richardson will be admired today and respected, inside and outside the city council for taking a significant pay cut, we need to see it for what it really is .What it really is, is the beginning of significant belt-tightening at the Christchurch City Council.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I think the hospitality outfits trying to shut down the Arts Centre’s plans to have more food trucks on-site need to pull their heads in.
Annabelle Turley from the Central City Business Association has made the bold demand that the council pull its funding from the Arts Centre if the food truck thing goes ahead.
This all goes back to the city council not providing as much ratepayer funding in its 10-year budget as the Arts Centre had asked for. And so the Arts Centre accepted that and got on with the job of working out what it could do to generate more revenue itself.
So it came up with a plan to get more food trucks on site. The idea being that it would bring more people into the arts centre and get people spending more.
Which I think is a great approach. A great attitude. Because the Arts Centre could still be banging on about not getting adequate support from the council. But it’s not. Instead, it’s showing some entrepreneurial spirit and working out how to bring more money in the door itself by having more food trucks there. As many as 25, potentially operating up to 12 hours a day, seven days a week.
Which has upset the hospitality businesses in town no end. They say the Arts Centre is going to compete head-on with their businesses with all these extra food trucks.
Which I think is nonsense. And here’s why.
If I’m planning to have a nice meal at, King of Snake say, just by the Bridge of Remembrance, do you think the food trucks at the Arts Centre are going to put me off doing that? Of course they’re not.
If I’m in the mood for King of Snake’s Natural Oysters with Nashi Pear and a Black Pepper Vinaigrette; or if I’m in the mood for their Wild Venison Carpaccio with Chilli Black Bean Dressing - do you really think I’m going to cancel at the last minute and go for a wiener sausage from the back of a truck at the Arts Centre instead?
Of course I’m not. But tell that to the hospo operators in town.
Annabelle Turley from the central city business association says —instead of dozens of food trucks— they’d be happy if the number of food trucks at the Arts Centre was more along the lines of Little High Food Court. Which, by the way, would have to be the coolest food court in the world.
But, to be honest with you, I think Annabelle’s argument is a bit all over the place. She says that Little High is the model the Arts Centre should be using, with just eight food outlets.
She says the Arts Centre is being hypocritical because it’s always banged on about how it’s an important heritage site but now wants to cheapen it with extra food trucks.
She says, because central city businesses pay rates, they are effectively subsidising the Arts centre to set-up in competition with them.
And this is the one that really sticks in my claw. Because, ever since the earthquakes, a truckload of ratepayer money has gone into supporting these central city businesses. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
I haven’t been able to put my hands on a figure, but millions and millions have been spent. The council and its agencies have done all sorts of things over the years to get people back into the central city so that these businesses that are complaining about the arts centre have a better chance of getting customers through the door and surviving.
Then there’s all the ratepayer money that’s gone into things like central city security patrols to make the place more inviting.
Yet these hospitality businesses and the central city business association have the gall to tell the council to pull its meagre funding for the Arts Centre, on the basis of some wishy-washy argument that a few dozen food trucks are going to put them out of business.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch's Mayor isn't swayed either way on a clash between city hospitality and food trucks.
The Arts Centre Trust is applying for up to 33 food trucks to operate on the site.
The Central Business Association says that's unfair, given businesses subsidise the centre and commercial rates are higher than residential.
Mayor Phil Mauger told John MacDonald he sees both sides.
He says with the museum closed the Centre will want to get money, but 7 days a week is a big shift.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Stop building houses in dumb places.
That’s the message the Insurance Council is giving the Government.
That bit about “dumb places” isn’t me paraphrasing, by the way. They’re not my words. They’re the exact words the Insurance Council is using after the Government confirmed that changes to the Resource Management Act are one of the 43 things in its final quarterly action plan for the rest of the year.
And when I heard that, the first dumb place I thought of was New Brighton, in Christchurch. In fact, pretty much anywhere along that eastern coastline, but especially New Brighton and South Brighton.
Because I can’t understand for the life of me why the city council has allowed building just to keep on keeping on in those areas when it knows that up to $14 billion worth of properties in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula could be at-risk from sea-level rise.
We learned about that figure in October last year when the council made a submission to parliament’s environment select committee, which is leading an inquiry into climate adaptation.
So, the Christchurch council says on one hand there are truckloads of areas that could be inundated because of sea level rise —about $14 billion worth of property— but, on the other hand, says yep, you can build that new house you want to build at Southshore. Or tells developers they can build apartments at New Brighton.
And it’s just nuts.
You’d think we would have learned not to do this years ago after the quakes.
Because remember all the head scratching that went on back in 2011 after the big earthquake about why the council had historically allowed building to happen in certain parts of town? Parts of town where things really went pear-shaped after the quakes.
But it’s coastal suburbs like New Brighton, South New Brighton and Southshore where there’s been a lot of talk about inundation because of how the coastal land dropped after the earthquakes.
It seems to have been something the Christchurch City Council has preferred to pussy-foot around over. Increasingly so, as time has gone on.
I remember speaking to Dr Bronwyn Hayward from the University of Canterbury, who has written some of the reports that have come out from the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, and I asked her if she could understand why we’re still putting houses in New Brighton and South Brighton.
She said she couldn’t understand it at all. Especially, when you consider that the council itself knows that there’s $14 billion worth of properties at risk of being inundated.
On top of that $14 billion, the council also reckons road and water infrastructure worth about $3.2 billion is at risk of being taken out because of sea level change.
But, despite that, the consents department will probably dish out approval for more building in those areas today.
I remember meeting a guy who came around to do a TradeMe pick-up a couple of years ago. He’d moved down from the North Island with his family, and they were building a new house in New Brighton. He was really excited about it and I just didn’t know what to say to him. So I said nothing.
But what I wanted to say was: “Why the hell are you doing that? Don’t you know it’s going to be underwater at some point?”
And we know it is, because the city council has told us. The same city council telling people it's ok to build there.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m glad I’m not a teacher today.
If I’m honest, I’m glad I’m not a teacher every day. Couldn’t do it.
But I’m especially glad after this ham-fisted announcement by Associate Education Minister David Seymour that, if schools want to have teacher-only days, they’re going to have to have them outside term time.
Which is essentially telling the teachers that if they want to have any sort of professional development or training, they need to do it during their own time. They have to chew up some of their annual leave or other leave entitlement to do it.
Can you imagine any other employer trying to get away with that? “Oh yeah, looks like a great course, Shona. But you’ll have to do it during your holidays.” As if that would happen.
But that’s what David Seymour wants principals to tell their staff. And what makes this approach by the Government so ham-fisted, is that they’re only doing it for the people screaming on the sidelines.
The people who like to bang-on about teachers having 10 weeks holiday a year. The people who bang-on ignorantly about teachers only working from 9 ‘til 3.
They’re also doing it to grease up to all the parents who like to whinge about teacher-only days.
I’ve been there, done that when it comes to dealing with the inconvenience that teacher-only days can be. Just like everyone else, I’ve been a bit cynical at times about teacher-only days being held on the first day of term or the last day of term.
But, deep down, I’ve known that they are held for very good reasons.
Like everyone else —especially when our kids were young— it meant that we had to juggle things a bit on teacher-only days. And —because I’ve been there, done that— I think I’m qualified to say that, sometimes, parents can be the biggest bunch of whingers when it comes to school.
I can’t remember specific examples, but I bet, at times, I whinged with the best of them when our kids were at school. Some parents are more inclined than others to whinge - but we’re all pretty good at it.
And this is what the Government is responding to with this directive to schools to not have teacher-only days during term time.
And what makes the Government’s approach on this even more ham-fisted, is that it’s doing this at the same time as it’s telling teachers that there are a whole lot of changes on the way, a new maths curriculum —all of that— and, at the same time, they’re telling teachers to forget about having teacher-only days during term time.
But did someone not tell David Seymour that these teacher-only days are when the teachers are going to get their heads around all these changes the Government wants happening from Term 1 next year?
Oh that doesn’t matter. Sod the teachers as long as we’re getting brownie points from voters who, when it comes down to it, don’t know a thing about teacher-only days but “goddam it if I have to get someone to look after the kids after school because of another blimmin’ teacher-only day”.
I see this is being described as “a kick in the guts” for under-pressure staff.
Peter Thorne is the acting principal of Belmont Primary School on Auckland’s North Shore and he’s saying that it’s a kick in the guts because teacher-only days are the opportunity for teachers to get-together and focus on their professional needs and the needs of their students.
And what’s the problem with that?
What this is, is an assault on teachers. And they have every right to feel that way, especially, when the Government is dressing this up as part of the solution to the problem we have with truancy.
Do you really think that the odd teacher-only day now and then is getting kids into the habit of wagging school? It’s absolute nonsense.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald was joined by Duncan Webb and Nicola Grigg for Politics Friday.
On the agenda: how does National defend what has been labelled an attack on teachers with changes to teacher-only days? Was the Government too ambitious with its plans for the Dunedin hospital? How will this impact medical students in Otago?
And the Selwyn Mayor says his district will be bigger than Dunedin in ten years, and with Christchurch’s population set to boom - is our infrastructure up to the growth expected?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When you look around Greater Christchurch, do you look around and think “oh, we could handle another 100-or-so thousand people living here”?
Do you think to yourself “our roads aren’t clogged up, our schools aren’t overcrowded, we’ve got plenty of houses”? Do you think that?
Or does it feel to you like we’re just getting by with what we’ve got, with the population we’ve got?
I think we’re just getting by and, if we don’t wake up, we’re going to be another Auckland before we know it.
There are a couple of things today that have got me thinking about this. The first is this report from the Infrastructure Commission which pretty much says —when it comes to infrastructure— we kind of know what we need to do, and we just need to do it.
And one of the key issues it identifies is population growth and how we’re going to deal with it.
The other thing that’s got me thinking about how disorganised we are for having a truckload more people living here is what Selwyn mayor Sam Broughton is saying today about population growth in his area. He’s saying that, in 10 years time, the population of Selwyn will be bigger than the population of Dunedin.
Dunedin’s population by the way is currently about 130,000. And Sam Broughton thinks there’ll be more people than that living in Selwyn in 10 years time.
Rolleston, especially, is going nuts. As of last year, the population of Rolleston was 29,600. Almost triple what it was in 2013. As for the population of the wider Selwyn district - as of last year, it was 81,300, which was a 5.2% increase on the year before.
Compare that to the whole country’s population growth over the same period - which was 2.1%. So nationally, 2.1% population growth. In Selwyn, 5.2%. And these are the numbers that have prompted Sam Broughton to say that, 10 years from now, there’ll be more people living in Selwyn than Dunedin.
And it’s not just Selwyn. It seems to me that the whole of Greater Christchurch is going nuts - or not far away from going nuts, anyway.
Let’s look at Christchurch city’s population. At the moment —according to the Christchurch City Council website— the population in the city is 396,200 – that’s as of June last year.
After the earthquakes, the numbers went down by about 21,000 people. But things have bounced back - in fact, they had bounced back by 2017. And, it seems to me, that there’s no shortage of people wanting to come here from around the country.
The universities —Lincoln and UC— are going off big time, which is such a change from how things were after the quakes.
And, as for population growth in Christchurch, the numbers in terms of projections seem to vary a bit but there’s no doubt the city is going to have more people —not less— in the future. Numbers I’ve seen this morning say the population of Christchurch could be as high as 445,000 in 10 years time, and well over half a million in about 15 years time.
So, a lot of variables, but there’s going to be more people here in a pretty short time.
Are we ready for that? I don’t think we are. At least when you consider how things are at the moment.
We’ve got someone here at work who says it can take her 45 minutes to get from where we are on Armagh Street by the Margaret Mahy playground - it can take her 45 minutes in the evenings to get from here to Brougham Street. And then she’s got the drive to Rolleston from there.
I don’t think we’re ready when you consider the likes of Cashmere High School making its zone smaller and smaller in recent years because it’s struggling to cope with the number of kids living in its enrolment area.
I don’t think we’re ready when you consider that we still don’t have properly functioning infrastructure like the fire-damaged wastewater plant and that organics plant that’s been making life miserable for people in the East.
The traffic on Brougham Street. Do you reckon that piece of road is ready to cope with gazillions more people coming in from Rolleston? If Sam Broughton is right and there are more people living in Selwyn than Dunedin in 10 years time - then we’re going to need some pretty serious changes there, aren’t we?
Especially when you consider that stat that was thrown around at the time of the big stadium debate, that 50% of the people who currently live in Selwyn travel into Christchurch everyday for work, school and other things.
So I don’t think we are ready and we need to wake up.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What about all the weasel words we’ve been hearing from the Government about Andrew Coster? Who’s stepping down from the job of Police Commissioner to head the Government’s new Social Investment Agency.
He’s leaving the police force a bit earlier than expected. He was due to stand down in April and, if I was a suspicious person, I’d see this as a win-win for him and the Government. Because, despite all the platitudes coming from the Beehive, the Government is going to be delighted that he’s moving on. But, unlike the Government, I'm not going to be so kind.
Coster himself is describing the move as going from the bottom of the cliff in the police force to the top of the cliff running this new government agency, which is all about investing in people and supporting people to try and help them avoid getting into a life of crime in the first place.
And I think “Cuddles Coster” —as some people like to refer to him as— is the perfect person to run this new agency. He’s been a lawyer, he was 2IC at the Ministry of Justice for a couple of years, he’s been a cop and, since 2020, he’s been commissioner.
So he knows how the justice system works. He’s seen and understands some of the things that lead people into crime, he’s worked for a government minister, and he’s felt the heat when things haven’t gone right.
So, hands down, he’s the best person for the new job.
But, listening to Police Minister Mark Mitchell and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, you would think they reckon he’s the best person to be Police Commissioner, as well.
Let’s start with the Prime Minister. Here’s what he said yesterday about Andrew Coster: “He has done a really good job. Since we came to power, we made a really clear set of expectations, and laid that out really clearly. He has done an exceptionally good job.”
The PM got a bit brassed-off when reporters reminded him that his predecessor Simon Bridges had described Andrew Coster once as a “wokester”, but Luxon wasn’t having a bar of that.
And then there’s Mark Mitchell, who’s saying that the only reason he gave Coster a hard time was because the commissioner was working for a wishy-washy government back when Labour was in charge.
But we all know that the reason they’re being so uncharacteristically kind about Andrew Coster is that, even though he’s leaving the Police, he’s still going to be working for them. And you can’t bag one of your honchos in public, because, if you did, you might get slapped with some HR legal action. And why would you make anything other than glowing comments about someone who’s still going to be working for you.
In this new role Coster will still report to a government minister. Instead of Mark Mitchell it’ll be Nicola Willis, who is the Minister for Social Investment. But let me say what the Government isn’t saying. When it comes to Andrew Coster’s performance as Police Commissioner, I can’t let him away with the shambolic way he handled the anti-vax, anti-everything protest at Parliament back in February/March 2022.
That was when we all started to learn about “policing by consent”, which Andrew Coster was big on. Which, in a nutshell, is about the police working in a way that encourages people to co-operate with them - instead of waving the big stick at them.
Andrew Coster’s leadership of the police response to the Parliamentary protest two years ago was a shambles. There were all the shallow threats about seizing all the vehicles that were clogging up the streets.
“If you don’t move those vehicles, we’re going to move them. We mean it. We mean it. Aww…maybe we don’t mean it.”
What it meant is that by the time the Police did finally flush out the muppets who reckoned they were there for a genuine protest, the battle was lost.
His policing by consent was in tatters and it was the beginning of the end for Andrew Coster.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour still isn't ruling a capital gains tax in or out, following comments from the boss of our biggest bank.
ANZ CEO Antonia Watson says while she isn't jumping for joy about the prospect of a capital gains tax, the time has come to for a tax on realised gains.
Labour's Carmel Sepuloni told John MacDonald that Watson is just another example, of a prominent figure who's now open to the idea.
She says she Labour hasn't made any decision either way but is reviewing its progressive tax policy.
The Deputy Labour Leader joined John MacDonald for a chat in place of Chris Hipkins, talking about Andrew Coster’s change in jobs, abusing public transport workers becoming an aggravating factor, and the potential for a capital gains tax.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I don’t know where Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis get this idea from that you can only do a hard day’s work if you’re physically in the office or on the premises, as opposed to working remotely from home.
Because, from my experience, there is a hell of a lot of time wasted in a lot of workplaces.
Nevertheless, the Prime Minister and the Public Service Minister are giving government workers a rev-up and telling them to get their act together, get out of the tracksuit pants, have a shower, put their work clothes on and ditch this working from home nonsense.
With Nicola Willis saying that working from home is not an entitlement, it is a privilege only to be granted when bosses are satisfied that it isn’t having an impact on productivity and performance.
If there’s just one thing I can agree with the government on, it’s that there can be a lot of confusion at workplaces sometimes as to who is and who isn’t working on-site. Pretty much ever since this working from home thing became a thing during COVID.
You know: “Oh I’m looking for Dave, but he’s not at his desk."
“Oh nah - he’s working from home this week.”
“No one told me.”
“Yeah, yeah, yeah - his line manager up north approved it after the last lockdown and he’s just been doing it every second week ever since.”
So I agree with the Government that there can be quite a bit of confusion as to where people are sometimes. But, overall, I think it's dreaming if it thinks that waving the big finger and telling people to get back to the office is going to make them any more productive.
Because, generally, it doesn’t matter where we are - we all waste time. Including, when we’re at the office.
I bet there were truckloads of office workers who turned up to work at the usual time today, dumped their bag, maybe put their lunchbox in the fridge in the staffroom, said gidday to a few people, and then walked out the door again to get a coffee.
They would've been back by about 9:30, gone through a few emails - and there would've been dozens of emails because they would've been CC'd into pretty much everything.
Then they would've grabbed a snack bar and mandarin from the lunchbox in the fridge in the staffroom to take to their 10 o’clock meeting.
The 10 o'clock meeting wouldn't have started at 10 because of a few stragglers (there’s always a few stragglers) and the Zoom connection to the crew in Wellington would have frozen. "Can you say a few words Steve, we’re just trying to get a connection."
But they would've sat through it looking busy, nodding their head, when they were actually just writing down lists of what they need to get done around the house at the weekend.
And it would've been the same right through the day. And they’ll go home tonight and tell anyone who will listen how frantic their day has been; how it was all meetings, meetings, meetings and how they’ll do a bit of work for a few hours after dinner just so they’re set up to get stuff done tomorrow.
And they’ll go back in the morning and do the same thing all over again.
More productive? Pfft.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
ECAN regional council chair Peter Scott has to go.
You’ll remember the fuss earlier this year when he admitted to Newstalk ZB that he’d been farming illegally on his South Canterbury property without the appropriate consents.
And how, after that blunder, he disappeared for a while - ECAN spent $66,000 on a 10-week investigation - and then he was back again. All G.
Well, not “all G” actually, because it’s now been revealed that he’s been hooning it in the car the council - or ratepayers - provide him as part of the job.
And I actually think this is way-worse than the consenting bungle he confessed to.
So how about this? Since January, Peter Scott has broken the speed limit in his regional council ratepayer-funded vehicle 678 times - at speeds of up to 157 kph.
I’ve done the numbers and this equates to at least 75 times a month, or twice-a-day, seven days a week.
Now these aren’t infringements. From what’s been reported so far about this, it’s unclear whether any of these did result in Peter Scott getting tickets.
But I think it's safe to assume that, because he was still using the vehicle up until the end of last week - when he handed it back - I think it’s safe to assume that he didn’t get any speeding tickets.
But he gave it a good go. Breaking the speed limit at least twice-a–day, seven days a week since January this year.
These were all recorded on the GPS system ECAN has on all its vehicles so it can make sure people who use their vehicles aren’t speeding.
And, as far as I’m concerned, he has to go. For two reasons.
First reason: can you imagine any staff member getting away with this level of speeding in an ECAN vehicle?
They wouldn’t. But, as long as Peter Scott remains chairman and a councillor, anyone working for ECAN has every right to tell their bosses to sod off if they try to take them to task for breaking the speed limit in a council vehicle.
The other reason Peter Scott has to go, is that he isn’t just the chair of ECAN - he’s also the chair of the Canterbury Regional Transport Committee.
And this is where things really start to drip with hypocrisy. Because, if you thought it was hypocritical enough for the chair of the regional council to be farming without the proper consents, get a load of this.
The Canterbury Regional Transport Committee is an entity that involves all councils in the Canterbury region - including ECAN - and NZTA. And the number one job of the regional transport committee is to implement the Canterbury Regional Transport Plan.
So Peter Scott is in charge of that committee. And that committee has to make sure that all the councils and NZTA are singing from the same song sheet when it comes to transport and roads.
Now this plan has three key objectives. One of them, which is particularly relevant to Peter Scott speeding in his council car, is to reduce deaths and serious injuries on Canterbury roads by 40 percent by 2031.
Previously, Peter Scott - who chairs this committee - has said: "Canterbury embraces the Government's moves to reduce the road toll.”
This is the guy who, since January this year, broke the speed limit in his regional council ratepayer-funded vehicle 678 times, at speeds of up to 157 kph.
This guy, who chairs the regional transport committee which says “poor decision-making by drivers is leading to deaths and serious injuries on our transport network", is a complete hypocrite when it comes to road safety..
He’s the guy who has overall responsibility for implementing a plan to reduce deaths and serious injuries on Canterbury roads by 40 percent over the next seven years. Yet, when it comes to his own driving, he’s actually part of the problem that his committee is trying to fix.
For me, this is the major reason why Peter Scott has to go. He has apologised, handed back his council car and says he will do a defensive driving course.
But, in my opinion, he’s a hypocrite whose goose is cooked.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
World-renowned illusionist and 'International Magician of the Year', Cosentino, is bringing his spectacular new live show Decennium to Christchurch in November.
Decennium is a 90-minute stage spectacular, which was written, produced, and choreographed by Cosentino. He'll perform his most death-defying escapes that will thrill your senses, his greatest mind-boggling stage illusions and cutting-edge street magic that twists your view of reality.
He spoke to John MacDonald on Canterbury Mornings about how magic taught him to read at age 12.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It seems to me that the Christchurch City Council has really got it in for the Arts Centre.
For starters, when the Arts Centre asked for $20 million in council support over the next 10 years, the council said “yeah, nah” and gave it just under $6 million instead.
Now, it wants to sting the Arts Centre $18,000 for increasing the number of food trucks operating there.
The council says the charge is for “added stress” on its transport network that will be caused by the extra food trucks rolling into town, which is out-and-out nonsense as far as I’m concerned.
And the council needs to be told to pull its head in and stop trying to punish the Arts Centre for doing exactly what the council wants to happen, which is attract more people to the central city.
It’s especially bad when you consider how hypocritical all this is – I’ll get to that in a second. But here’s what’s happened:
The Arts Centre decided that, since the council wasn’t going to give it the extra funding it says it needs, it started to think about how it could generate some extra income itself. And it decided to get more food trucks on site, the idea being that it would bring more people into the Arts Centre and get people spending more. A win-win, you would think.
So good on the Arts Centre for not sitting around whinging and getting on with the job itself of trying to bring in some extra money.
Of course, if it wanted to have more food trucks it needed to get resource consent. So it went to the council, wanting consent to have up to 33 food trucks there. The council wasn’t fussed with that and so, between them, they agreed it would be cool to have up to 25 food trucks.
So compromise reached: more food trucks, more people, more money spent. Brilliant.
Until the council got back in touch and told the Arts Centre that, because there’d be more food trucks rolling into town, that would put “added stress” on its transport network. And because of that added stress, it would be billing the Arts Centre $18,000.
But here’s what makes it even worse. Here’s where the hypocrisy comes into it.
Do you remember a couple of years ago —nearly three years ago now it was— and the Destiny Church was running those anti-vax protests in the centre of town? They called themselves the Freedom and Rights Coalition and they had those protest marches in November and December 2021, and January and February 2022.
They got quite feral at times. And the problem the city council had with them was that it wasn’t notified beforehand. Which other protest organisers do, apparently.
And so, because of that, the council hit the Freedom and Rights Coalition and the Destiny Church with a $50,000 bill for doing traffic management during these protests.
Which is fine, but, at the last minute, the council backed down and told this outfit to forget about the $50,000 bill and ripped up the invoices.
And this is what really riles me about what the council’s doing to the Arts Centre. It wants to charge the Arts Centre $18,000 for showing some initiative and trying to get more people going there and spending more with more food trucks. The council’s quite happy to effectively fine an outfit for doing something positive, when it’s the same outfit that told the Freedom and Rights Coalition that they didn't have to pay their $50,000 bill.
The hypocrisy is staggering. And the council needs to get on the phone to the Arts Centre, apologise for its hypocrisy, give it credit for trying to get more going on in the centre of town, and tell it to forget about paying this stupid bill.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
With nearly every Comanchero gang member in this country facing criminal charges, is this the beginning of the end for this Australian outfit’s New Zealand operation?
They set-up shop here six years ago and have been helped enormously by Australia’s 501 deportation programme, but it’s not as if the gang’s been operating here just to give these guys something to do once they get off the plane from Sydney.
Have no doubt, the Comancheros are here because they see it as a great place to make money. If they didn’t, they wouldn't be investing so much into their operation.
It’s not a club. It’s a business. The question now, though, is whether the fall-out from this three-year operation by the police is going to make it too difficult for the Comancheros to do business here.
When it comes to a start-up business, the Comancheros have wasted no time getting their share of the drug trade here. Especially, when you consider that they didn’t arrive en masse - it was a small, but influential group that arrived here first when the 501 deportations started.
But, in just six years, they’ve more than given the other gangs a run for their money. One report I saw this morning said the Comancheros had created a “radical shift in the criminal underworld”.
Nothing demonstrates that more than what the police are saying about the gang getting this former US marine into the country last year to give gang members training in combat drills and military tactics.
So there they were —allegedly, of course— these gang members all dressed up in combat-style clothing with full face and body paint. Camouflage and everything.
They were, apparently, using plastic bullets and real firearms in this training. The police are describing what went on as military-style camps. The purpose of them was to make sure the gang had the capability to take on wars and continue doing their hits.
So they’ve rounded up next to every member in the country and thrown charges at them relating to importing and selling drugs, running what they’re saying was a pretty elaborate money laundering scheme, and running these military training camps run by a former US marine.
Now there’s no doubt the Police have done a brilliant job.
It’s taken them three years and, as we know, these kinds of operations are dangerous. They are dangerous, painstaking and they take time, so congratulations to the Police. But I reckon they’re going to have to keep the foot on the pedal if they think this is going to have a long-lasting impact on the Comancheros.
In fact, I don’t think —long-term— that this is going to change much when it comes to this particular gang.
And the reason I say that is because the Comancheros aren’t just some hokey kiwi gang. And let’s be honest, compared to the Comancheros, our other gangs are pretty hokey.
But what the Comancheros have over all the other gangs here, are two things: money —and lots of it— and international connections. Head office is in Australia, where they’ve been causing strife for decades, and their international drug network is said to be second-to-none. If you can put it that way.
So this sting by the police, while it’s absolutely brilliant, I think it is just going to be a blip for the Comancheros, and I don’t think this is the beginning of the end for them here in New Zealand.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Nothing brings out the redneck in me as much as a judge handing out a concurrent prison sentence.
You know the situation. A person’s found guilty on, say, two charges —let’s say they get two-year sentences for each— but they don’t go to prison for two years plus two years (four years), instead, they serve the sentences concurrently. Meaning they’re serving both sentences at the same time.
It’s something the Government is turning its attention to with these tougher sentencing laws it’s cracking on with, but I don’t think it’s going far enough.
It’s introducing legislation to deliver the tougher sentences it promised prior to the election. Paul Goldsmith, the Justice Minister, says the changes are going to mean criminals will “face real consequences for crime and victims are prioritised”, saying there has been a trend in recent years where courts have handed-out fewer and shorter prison sentences.
Stupidly, he’s saying that the legislation changes will help ensure there will be 20,000 fewer victims of crime within five years and that serious repeat offending by young people will be down by 15 percent.
I say stupidly because the Government has no idea whether that will happen or not. It might be its target. But, anyway, they’re a couple of outcomes the Government thinks we will see as a result of these tougher sentences.
And it’s all the stuff that people have been talking about and the politicians have been banging-on about for a while: the legislation is going to put limits on sentencing discounts judges can apply.
It’s going to mean harsher penalties for anyone involved in crimes against sole-charge workers or at places where people live and work. So that’s your dairies, where the family lives out the back or upstairs.
Young people who commit crimes over and over again can forget about sentence discounts because of their age or because they say “sorry”.
But the one that I’m most interested in, is what the new legislation is going to do about concurrent sentencing. Which I think is a good start, but I also think the Government should be doing more, going further on this one.
As it stands at the moment, through this new legislation, the Government is going to encourage judges to hand out cumulative sentences for crimes committed by people on bail, in custody or on parole - instead of concurrent sentences.
So if they’re in custody and commit a crime in prison, that’ll get added to the time they’re already serving. If they’re on bail and commit more than one crime and they’re sent back to prison, they’ll serve time for each crime. Not concurrently. The same if they’re on parole.
And, as far as I’m concerned, these are all good things. I don't necessarily think that this will stop these people from re-offending, because I’ve never bought the argument that tougher sentences stop people from offending.
Because, most of the time, their heads aren’t screwed on properly, anyway. And thinking about the punishment they might get if they’re caught is probably the last thing they’re thinking about at the time.
But these changes are great for victims of crime and their sense of justice. But, as I said earlier, I don’t think the Government is going far enough.
I think we need to pretty much do away with concurrent sentences for all crimes. For all criminals. Because how can anyone think it is fair and reasonable to send someone away for the least amount of time?
Which is what happens when someone serves their sentences concurrently. They’ve done multiple crimes, they’ve been found guilty on each of them, there is a punishment for each crime, but —in real terms— they are punished as if they’ve only committed one crime.
And I reckon that if the Government was really serious, it would be doing away with concurrent sentences altogether.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Christchurch City Council has learned nothing from the cathedral debacle.
Because it’s now going to spend $19.5 million over the next four years, so that work can start on repairing and restoring the old provincial chambers building in the centre of town.
$19.5 million. Nearly twice as much ratepayer money as what was going to go into the cathedral. To get things started on a repair job which is expected to cost around $200 million.
I get it. It's got history. It's very relevant in terms of the history of Canterbury. It’s a beautiful building. No arguments from me on those fronts.
But, as far as I’m concerned, the council shouldn't be pouring money into what could turn out to be a rinse and repeat of the cathedral debacle.
The building itself dates back to 1858 and is the only purpose-built provincial government building that still exists in New Zealand.
It was originally built to be the headquarters of what was known back then as the Canterbury Provincial Government. But when the provincial government was disestablished in 1876, it was used as offices for various government departments.
Eventually, the Christchurch City Council became responsible for it. Pre-earthquakes, it was a popular spot for weddings and functions. But that all came to a stop and it’s just sat there since 2011.
But in the Council’s new 10-year plan, it’s going to spend $500,000 in the next 12 months; $4.5 million the year after that; another $4.5 million the year after that; and $10 million the year after that.
So, over four years, that’s $19.5 million. And the purpose of that spend is so that work can start. So that work can start on something that’s expected to cost 10-times that.
When is the council going to learn not to throw millions of dollars at something that has next to zero certainty of getting finished?
Because $19.5 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the money that’s going to be needed. Somewhere in the ballpark of another $180 million is going to be needed.
But, just like happened with the cathedral, money’s going to be chipped-in here and chipped-in there on some sort of wing and a prayer that the rest of it will come from somewhere.
Now, to be fair, there’s possibly a greater likelihood of the Government helping out on this one. But it won’t be to the tune of $180 million.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis justified the Government’s decision not to bail-out the cathedral reinstatement because it considered the cathedral not to be owned by the public and that its public use was limited because it is a private, religious space.
You might also recall her saying a few weeks back that the Canterbury Museum redevelopment - which is also underway and also short of all the money needed - might be more likely to get government support because it is a place used by the general public.
Nevertheless, here we go again, with the city council pouring ratepayer money into a project that could very well end up lingering. Just like the cathedral.
It's especially bad when you consider how tight it was with funding for the Arts Centre. Which is actually up and running and open for business. And is actually making a contribution to the city economically.
The Arts Centre wanted $20 million in council support over the next 10 years. But it only got $6 million.
And instead, the Council’s going to pour $19.5 million into getting repairs underway on the old provincial chambers building with what, seems to be, no idea where the rest of the money is going to come from.
It is a ludicrous and irresponsible way to spend ratepayer money.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m glad I’m not working in the health system. Not that I’d be much use if I was, I’ve never been that great with blood.
But the reason I’m glad I’m not a doctor or a nurse or a GP or a specialist, is the big stick that’s being pointed at all those people by the Government with its new targets.
If I was starting a shift on a ward somewhere right now, I’d be thinking ‘here we go again’. Another government treating health as if it’s a factory. And only doing it to look good for the people on the sidelines, not the ones in there doing the doing.
And it’s not just this government, governments have done it for years. Tinkering with waiting lists. Promising big spend-ups but not delivering. Labour’s done it, National’s done it, now the coalition’s doing it.
And the reason they do it is because they think we are sucked-in by all this serious-face, performance indicator stuff. When all it does is set us up for disappointment and makes the people who do all the amazing work in our health system feel like they’re nothing more than political puppets.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for trying to do things better. And I’m all for trying to be as successful as you can be in something, but knowing what's expected of you and how it’s going to be measured is just part of it.
The ones demanding the performance also need to ask the ones responsible for delivery what they need to make it happen. Something the doctors and nurses and GPs and specialists aren’t being asked by this government and haven’t been asked by any government – all they’re told is ‘do better, do better’.
And today they’re being told that 90 percent of cancer patients have to start getting treatment within a month; that 95 percent of kids have to be fully immunised by the time they’re two; that 95 percent of people who turn up to an emergency department have to be treated, discharged or transferred somewhere else within six hours; and that 95 percent of people can’t be left waiting longer than four months for elective surgery.
Which all sounds brilliant. It all looks good on paper, but there’s no more money coming to make it happen.
But Health Minister Shane Reti seems to think that’s not going to be too much of a problem. The likes of the nurses union, though, disagrees - saying the health system is just being set-up for failure. Again. And I agree.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This is not the first time I’ve said this, but we are the people’s republic of pushovers, aren’t we? The way we give overseas visitors free ACC cover.
Even more so when you consider the news that ACC wants to increase its levies by two or three times the rate of inflation over the next three years because it's taking longer and costing more for people to recover from their injuries.
It's got a massive hole in its budget and your levies are going up, mine are going up, but your mate from the States who comes here and hurts themselves doing something gets free cover. And it has to stop.
Especially, when you consider that there are only two countries that do the same for us: Australia and the UK.
But, you know, the argument against making people from overseas pay their way more will probably be similar to the argument against increasing the international visitor levy. That, if you make tourists pay for their own treatment if they injure themselves, they won’t come here. Which is just nonsense.
ACC Minister Matt Doocey is trotting-out the Government’s usual line about expecting ACC to “look at existing costs within the scheme to ensure that any levy increase is absolutely justified before final decisions are made.
“The Government's expectation has been made clear to ACC that it must deliver greater value for the funds it receives. I am monitoring this very closely and will be ensuring ACC is improving its financial performance."
Which ACC is already doing. It’s been cutting staff numbers. Back in May, it announced plans to cut more than 300 jobs – about 10 percent of its workforce.
So ACC is already doing the cost-cutting the Government wants, but it also wants to charge more in levies.
And my view is that if those of us who live here in New Zealand are going to have to pay more, then we should have a re-think about how generous we are when it comes to people who don’t live here.
And I think we need to back ourselves and make visitors pay their way more.
The two approaches I think we could use are either effectively charging non-residents at the door when they need treatment. So they break a leg, head to the emergency department and, once they’ve got the plaster on and they’re ready to leave, they get the credit card out. Or we make it mandatory for anyone visiting New Zealand to have travel insurance. Because it isn’t at the moment.
If you’ve been overseas yourself, I bet you haven’t gone without travel insurance. That’s because we kind of expect or assume, don’t we, that if we need medical care while we’re away, it’s not going to be on the house. Unless it’s Australia or the UK that we’re visiting.
When I went to the UK three months ago, I still took out travel insurance. But I know that if I had had an accident while I was there, my insurance company would have made me take as much free stuff as possible before paying for anything.
And the same for people coming here from overseas. If they’ve got travel insurance, do you think their insurers will say “we'll pay for everything”? Of course not. They’ll say, ‘take the free stuff then come back to us if you need more’.
And that free stuff is what you and I pay for. And what ACC wants us to pay even more for.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If someone is 10 years old, they aren't legally allowed to smoke. They aren’t legally allowed to drink alcohol, and they’re not really allowed to have their own Facebook page, but they can be held criminally responsible for violent crimes such as murder or manslaughter.
And the new Chief Children’s Commissioner, Dr Claire Achmad, says that’s crazy and wants the minimum age of criminal responsibility to be raised from 10 to 14.
And my head agrees with her, but my heart doesn’t.
So the Children's Commissioner is saying today that, when a child commits a crime, it means they are struggling and they should be helped —not punished— and she wants to see changes in how we deal with these kids.
A surprising thing is the Prime Minister’s response to this call for change, but I’ll get to that.
It’s not as if the Chief Children’s commissioner is a lone voice in all of this. Last year, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child said New Zealand should raise the age of criminality to 14.
It said that our approach focuses too much on the offence and not the fact that these offenders are young kids and, because they’re kids, they should be treated differently.
The year before that —in 2022— the then children’s commissioner called for the age to be lifted to, at least, 14, but preferably 15 or 16.
So this has been building momentum.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith doesn’t appear to be in favour of any change - saying that special provisions are made for criminal kids. The Prime Minister's door seems to be slightly ajar, not completely closed, to the idea.
He said yesterday that the Government would need to have “a proper consideration; a proper discussion” before making any moves to change the minimum age.
He went on to say: “We have real challenges in serious youth offending. Again, it comes down to quite a relatively small group, but certainly the age of some of those young offenders have got younger and younger over time.”
And he said while raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility isn't a priority right now, “we’re open for doing whatever it takes, and we’re open for considering lots of new, bold, brave ideas”.
Maybe the “bold and brave” part of that would be taking on the risk of a public backlash. Because there’s no shortage of people who think, whatever someone’s age, they should face the full consequences of their actions.
And I know that, if one of these ratbags we’re talking about was to commit a serious crime that affected me, I’d want the book thrown at them.
Maybe I’m underestimating myself there. And this is what I’m getting at when I say my heart tells me that the age of criminality shouldn’t be raised from 10 to 14.
Whereas my head tells me that what the Chief Children’s Commissioner is saying today makes perfect sense.
Why would you take something like the old ‘lock ‘em up and throw away the key’ approach when you’re dealing with someone so young and someone, you would like to think, has a greater chance of being rehabilitated and changing their ways than someone older?
In my head, it makes perfect sense not to lump 10-year-olds in with older crims and treat them the same.
That’s what the Chief Children’s Commissioner is saying today, and she says there’s evidence to prove that we’re doing things wrong.
Dr Achmad says it’s out-of-step with what science tells us about brain development in young people and it’s out-of-step with New Zealand’s international obligations and duties under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
She says: “When a child criminally offends, it means that they are struggling; that their needs aren’t being met in one or more ways.”
She says we can still hold these kids to account without punishing them.
As I say, I’m torn. Because what she’s saying makes sense. But, in my heart of hearts, I can’t agree with what she’s calling for.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by Chris Hipkins for their regular catchup.
Labour's leader is siding with the Prime Minister in being open to exploring a social media ban for kids.
Australia's Government's examining banning under-16 year olds from using sites like Instagram, Facebook, and X.
Christopher Luxon has said he's looking into the policy.
Chris Hipkins told John MacDonald that he's on the same page, but this shouldn't be seen as a silver bullet as kids ultimately find ways around such things.
He says there also needs to be a good focus on educating kids to be safe online.
Hipkins also says the electricity sector needs more regulation as two central North Island mills have given final confirmation they'll close.
Winstone Pulp is blaming high energy prices for shutting down its Ohakune mills, with the loss of 230 jobs.
Chris Hipkins says the new Government's done away with a consumer advocacy group for electricity users, but intervention is needed.
He says there's clear evidence the market is failing because people are paying too much and electricity company profits are making far too big a profit – evidence the Government should do more.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
At last, Selwyn mayor Sam Broughton has come up with an idea that I actually agree with.
There was his push recently for the speed limit on the Southern Motorway to be bumped up to 120 kph, just because people are driving that fast anyway.
That wasn’t his finest hour.
But this idea he’s pushing today - that new road tolls need to be created and higher fuel taxes are needed because of a lack of government funding for roading projects in our neck of the woods - I think it’s a winner.
In fact, as far as higher fuel taxes are concerned, I don’t think it should be limited to Selwyn. I’d be all-for a Canterbury regional fuel tax to raise money for roads and transport here. Money that isn’t coming from the Government.
Which is why Sam Broughton is speaking out today. He’s saying if we want better roads, and the money isn’t coming from Wellington, then we need to get some skin in the game.
So it’s yes from me for a regional fuel tax. And it’s a yes from me for new road tolls. And I'd start with the Southern Motorway - which is in Sam’s area. I’d also be in favour of a toll on the Northern Motorway.
Both of them very good roads, and both worth paying extra to use.
This practical thinking we’re seeing from Sam Broughton is a far better and more realistic response to the Government prioritising the North Island over the South Island in its roading and transport funding announcement last week, than what we’re seeing and hearing from other Canterbury local body politicians.
They’ve been banging-on about how unfair it all is. Sam Broughton, though, is saying ‘yep, it probably is. But we can either decide to keep whining about it or we can come up with some solutions ourselves’.
They’re not his actual words, but that’s effectively what he’s saying with this talk of higher fuel taxes and road tolls in his area: take control. And I like it.
Because if you just go on like Peter Scott, who is the chairman of Environment Canterbury —he’s saying ‘ooh it’s not fair and we just want our fair share’— if you keep banging on like that, that’s all it is - banging on.
He’s throwing all sorts of percentages around - Canterbury makes up 12 percent of the country’s population, and our roads make up 16 percent of the total roading network, but we’re only getting five to eight percent of the funding. Wah wah wah.
Wellington hears that kind of response and thinks ‘yeah and?’
Sam Broughton, though, he’s telling it like it is.
He’s telling people in Selwyn that, if they want the improvements and changes to the roads that they think are needed, then we need to find a way of doing it that doesn’t rely on the Government and doesn’t mean rates going up and up and up.
Which they already are in Selwyn. Over the next three years, on average, there’s going to be a 48 percent increase. And, without as much government money coming as it had hoped, the Selwyn council reckons that could go over the 50 percent increase mark.
If you’re not convinced that a regional fuel tax for Canterbury is a good idea. Maybe this might convince you. Back in 2018, ECAN did the numbers and estimated that a regional fuel tax here —at say 10 cents a litre— could bring-in an additional $100 million for regional roading projects.
This was just a couple of months after Auckland got its regional fuel tax. Which is history now, but I think it would be a winner here.
If you think of those numbers ECAN did back in 2018. A regional fuel tax —providing the money was spent here— would have brought-in $600 million by now. Do you still think Sam Broughton is dreaming? I don’t think he is at all.
I don’t think he’s dreaming, either, with this call for more toll roads. And I’d be more than happy to pay a toll to use the Southern Motorway and the Northern Motorway in and out of Christchurch.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It might happen. It might not.
What I’m talking about, is the way some people seem to think they have to jump to the defence of the super rich whenever anyone mentions the idea of a wealth tax.
Which one of our country’s wealthiest people is actually advocating for today. This is Bruce Plested, who was a co-founder of the Mainfreight transport business and who’s done very well out of it.
And, while he’s not claiming to be speaking on behalf of all the mega-wealthy people in New Zealand, he is saying today that he would have no problem paying more tax.
Mainfreight is currently valued at about $7.3 billion on the New Zealand Stock Exchange. Bruce Plested still has a 14 percent stake in the company. So he’s done alright.
At the same time, Labour leader Chris Hipkins is saying that the party is thinking about including a capital gains tax in its tax policy - which could include taxing the increased value in people's houses, even when they're not being sold.
Which I think is nuts. I’ve got no problem with the idea of a wealth tax - I think that would be much fairer.
The reason why I’m against capital gains taxes, is that capital gain is, generally, the only way ahead for most of us - financially.
Maybe the gains we’re going to get out of property, for example, won’t quite be on the scale they have been in recent years. But why should we be taxed on that? Let alone the capital gain we get on properties we aren’t even selling.
Even talking about that possibility, Chris Hipkins is holding up a sign saying “don’t vote for us”. Because, what I’ve learned over the years, is even people on the left will avoid paying taxes if they can.
What’s more - as we see with the likes of council rates - just because your house increases in value, it doesn’t mean you can afford to pay more rates.
Just like with this idea Labour’s got. Just because your house increases in value, it doesn’t mean you could afford to pay capital gains tax. And then what would happen if, down the track, the market went backwards and you lost some or all of the capital gain you’d previously been taxed on? Tax refund anyone? I don’t think so.
So I think it’s very easy to pull holes in Labour’s potential capital gains tax idea.
A wealth tax, though, is a different story. Because, anyone wealthy enough to be on the list of targets for a wealth tax, wouldn’t be impacted as much as the rest of us if we were pinged with a capital gains tax.
But those who jump to the defence of the super rich whenever anyone mentions wealth taxes won’t agree with me. They’ll say what the Revenue Minister is saying, that a wealth tax would drive the super rich out of the country.
Someone who does agree with me, though, is Max Rashbrooke - who is an expert in inequality.
He says the facts of the matter are, that when a super wealthy person threatens to pull their money out if a wealth tax is brought in, it’s generally what he describes as “a hollow threat”.
He’s a researcher at Victoria University, in Wellington, and he says New Zealand lets wealthy people off very lightly when it comes to paying tax.
Unlike me, though, he’s in favour of a capital gains tax as well as a wealth tax. Where I’m just in favour of a wealth tax.
He says: "Capital gains tax is just so standard virtually everywhere else in the developed world. It's just part of the furniture. It's totally normal. It is bizarre that we don't have one."
On the wealth tax, Max Rashbrooke says what he would do is he’d have a wealth tax and put the money into a Kiwisaver scheme for kids which, he says, would genuinely build wealth for everyone. Not just for a select few - as he puts it.
I wouldn’t go for that. I’d put the money from a wealth tax into all the things the government pretty much can’t afford to do right now, because it’s not bringing enough money in the door from taxes.
This cost-cutting that we’re seeing now in the public sector - that’s just politics. We’re not going to suddenly be able to afford more infrastructure and more hospitals, or more of anything the taxpayer pays for. Because there just isn’t enough money. And it’s only going to get worse as the population ages.
So something has to be done. More tax is needed. And, as far as I’m concerned, the answer is to tax the super wealthy more - through a wealth tax. Instead of hitting us all with a capital gains tax.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National’s Matt Doocey and Labour’s Reuben Davidson joined John MacDonald this week for Politics Friday.
They discussed Hagley College’s idea to trial a flexible model, with students working from home two days a week – how does this fit in with the Government’s plans for attendance?
Will increasing the visitor levy be the answer to funding issues, or will it be a silver bullet to the tourism industry?
Does the Government support the Mayor’s letter, asking them to crack down on pokie machine jackpots and add limits to machines in Christchurch?
Plus, what really happened with Matt Doocey’s interview mixup on the Mike Hosking Breakfast?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Commerce Commission says the big supermarket operators are still creaming it.
They’re not making the changes the Commission wanted them to make. Their profits are still too high and the Commission is talking tough, saying it would like to be able to fine them up to $10 million if they keep ripping people off and ignoring what the Commission wants.
But I don’t think that $10 million fines would make the least bit of difference. Because we’re talking here about a sector worth $25 billion, do you really think they’re going to worry about the risk of a $10 million fine?
Of course they’re not. They’d just be like the garden shops that open up shop on public holidays. It’s against the rules. They know they might be fined, but they run the risk, anyway because they make way more than enough to cover any potential fine and then some.
And the supermarket companies are the same. They haven’t worried about the Commerce Commision up until now —which has been demanding all sorts of changes on behalf of us consumers— and they won’t be any more worried about the Commerce Commission today than they were before it came out with its latest assessment of the supermarket sector.
These companies know they have it over us. What’s more, can you imagine how long it would take to actually prove a case of price-gouging or whatever against these outfits?
And while that was all going on, they’d just keep hiking up the prices and “ripping us off” - as the Commission put it yesterday.
Actually, it was the Commerce Commission’s grocery commissioner, Pierre van Heerden, who said that. It’s him doing the tough talking. Which is about time because, until now, he’s been all ‘measured tones’ on it. But yesterday, he put his serious face on. And good on him.
But it’s going to take a lot more than him putting on his serious face for the supermarket operators to pay any attention.
On paper anyway, it is an absolute rort that the prices we pay at the supermarket have been going up at a faster rate than increases in what the supermarkets pay their suppliers. That’s the nub of what the Commerce Commission is saying.
Which makes a complete joke of the lines supermarkets like to use about “passing on the savings to you”.
As far as the Commerce Commission and the Grocery Commissioner are concerned, the supermarkets haven’t been doing that at all. They’ve been screwing their suppliers —getting their prices down— but they certainly haven’t been passing them on.
Where I’m torn in all this is that I know supermarkets are businesses. They have to make profits to survive. They’re not charities.
Even though they provide some of the essentials of life, they’re not charities. They exist to make money and they’re doing that.
For a long time now, owning a local supermarket has been seen as a licence to make money. It’s not easy. And I know with the likes of Foodstuffs, at least, you can’t just walk in and take over a supermarket. Even if you’ve got the money to buy one, you have to do your time working in a supermarket - getting a real understanding of how they work.
Nevertheless, people have made good livings out of it. But it’s only in recent years that us customers have looked up and thought, hold on a minute, when it seems that we go through the checkout and it gets more expensive every time.
So yes, a supermarket is a business which needs to be profitable. And yes, I’m torn when it comes to punishing businesses for being successful. For being profitable.
But when a business does that in an underhanded way - that’s where I draw the line. And, like the Commerce Commission and the Grocery Commissioner, I think supermarkets have been underhanded, especially when you consider the fact that the prices we pay at the check-out have been going up at a faster rate than increases in what the supermarkets pay their suppliers.
That’s underhanded, and good on the grocery commissioner for calling them out.
But I don’t think the supermarket companies will care and I certainly don’t think the threat of $10 million fines will make any difference, either.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Monty Python star Eric Idle is making his way to Christchurch in his one man musical.
Always Look on the Bright Side of Life, Live! is a nostalgic reflection on his love comedy, music, life, and what he calls “Mock and Roll”, a blend of comedy and music.
He joined John MacDonald live from Los Angeles to discuss the show that will be hitting the city on the 28th of October at the Isaac Theatre Royal.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A report into the viability of Christchurch hosting the Commonwealth Games took 14 hours to write, after it was requested in January.
The report, commissioned by Mayor Phil Mauger, from Council and Christchurch NZ recommended Christchurch avoid holding a standalone event.
Newstalk ZB has revealed it cost just over $1000 for staff time.
Mauger told John MacDonald the report was a big job for Christchurch NZ, which didn't need rushing.
He says the city wasn't trying to host the Games sometime in the next year, so they just fitted it when they could.
Mauger joined John MacDonald in studio for their regular catchup, giving his thoughts on the Games’ report, high rises in the CBD, and his request the Government does more to address the pokie machine harm in Christchurch.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It is time for Christchurch to get real.
To get real and accept that we will never host the Commonwealth Games. Never host them on our own, and not even bother trying to be part of any national bid to host them in the future.
I’ve never shared Mayor Phil Mauger’s dream of getting the Games here again. His idea is based purely and simply on his rose-tinted memories of the ‘74 games here in Christchurch.
But that was a different time, and I imagine he’s not enjoying reading this new report that has just been delivered by the city council’s tourism and economic development agency, ChristchurchNZ.
To sum it up, the report says: We don’t know what it would cost to host the Games in Christchurch —but it would be a truckload. And there are other events we should be trying to get here instead— which would be cheaper and have much more of an economic impact.
All this has ever been, is a pipedream of mayor Phil Mauger's. And good on ChristchurchNZ for coming to the conclusion that it has: that we need to move on.
The reason, by the way, that I think we need to ditch the Games outright —as in hosting them ourselves and hosting them with other cities around the country— is because I think the Commonwealth Games will be history sooner rather than later.
And I’m more than prepared to listen to the experts, which is what I’m hoping the council will do.
It’s also what I need to do if ChristchurchNZ tells me that this idea I’ve got of getting Oasis over here to be the first band to perform at the new stadium when it opens in 2026 is a dud.
For me, I probably just want to re-live my 20s. And Phil Mauger wants to re-live the time when he was a kid and watched the QE2 stadium being built across the road from his place, and his youthful memories of that golden age in Christchurch’s history.
But we all have to move on.
We also have to remember that Christchurch was left with a lot of debt after the ‘74 games, which wasn’t cleared until the Government chipped in with some money ahead of the 1990 Games in Auckland. Because that would’ve been a bad look if it hadn’t.
So ‘74 wasn’t everything it’s cracked up to be. Just like the Commonwealth Games aren’t what some people still crack them up to be.
Especially when we now know that there are other events that could cost way less and deliver more bang for buck.
An example ChristchurchNZ talks about in its report is the opportunity for Christchurch to host the International Masters Games in 2030. They say this is a ‘live’ opportunity for us to host an international multi-sport, multi-day event - which could pump nearly $12 million into the local economy over a 10-day period.
This is the stuff we need to focus on getting here. Not other nonsense, like the Commonwealth Games.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Let’s get this clear from the start: Transport Minister Simeon Brown is no knight in shining armour coming to the rescue of motorists up and down the country.
He’s not doing anything special or spectacular with this announcement that the Government wants to spend a record amount of money on our roads and transport.
$32.9 billion over the next three years. And, to be fair, it’s mostly roads. $5.5 billion on pothole repairs
Funding for walkways and cycleways has been halved and there’s going to be no taxpayer money going into speed bumps. Not that that will stop local councils from pouring money into speed bumps, but there’ll be no government money available for speed bumps.
But, like I say, before you go falling at Simeon’s feet or getting on the blower to the Vatican wanting him canonised, let’s see this announcement for what it is: it’s a no-brainer.
Because, despite the hefty price tag, if the Government hadn’t decided to spend this kind of money all its talk about committing big-time to infrastructure would have started to sound pretty hollow, pretty quickly.
The other reason why it needed to allocate a record amount of money to roading and transport —aside from it being a government that’s big on roads and big on infrastructure, in general— is that, when it comes down to it, it had no option.
It could have decided not to make such a big commitment, but that would have been nuts because our roading network is in desperate need of investment.
Tell that to the Opposition, though. Labour’s transport spokesperson Tangi Utikere is saying that the focus on big new roads is hypocritical for a government promising to cut costs. If that’s the best criticism you can offer, mate, you might need to think a bit harder.
The Greens aren’t impressed, either. They want more money for —you guessed it— cycleways and public transport.
I see that NZTA’s chief executive Nicole Rosie is saying that it will be "challenging to deliver everything within the confines of our budgeted funding". But she says they are "up for the challenge".
But her group general manager of transport services, Brett Gliddon, is sounding a bit more upbeat. Here’s what he’s saying:
“Not having sustainable funding over recent years has really impacted our ability to do things in an efficient way and design a pipeline so that construction companies can invest in plant and people to get efficiency.
“So what we're hoping with this new amount of money is contractors will get a pipeline of work into the future, they'll invest in people and better ways of doing things. So that's the hope.”
Well hey Brett, you better have been listening to the Transport Minister because it’s not going to be enough for you to just hope the roading contractors do things differently.
Because, even though Simeon Brown is confident that NZTA can deliver all these projects on time and within budget, it’s going to depend on them putting the screws on the outfits that actually do the work, as well.
Nevertheless, this is a plan the Government had no options other than going with.
Yes, it’s big money, but it’s also back-to-basics. Because, when it comes to roading, we’ve become pretty average at the basics. And the basics are what we have to get much better at.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Life’s all about choices. And we need to make some.
Outgoing Treasury boss Dr Caralee McLiesh says cutting costs here and there, like the Government is doing at the moment, isn’t going to be enough to really get the country's finances in order.
And she reckons one of the things we need to do is make changes to the government superannuation scheme.
I agree with her. Because we are dreaming if we reckon we can just keep on keeping on, paying out the pension to people just because they reach a certain age.
Which is where we get to the choice we need to make. Because doing nothing isn’t an option.
The two options we do have is, either, raising the retirement age; or means-testing for the pension.
I’m no doubt that, at some stage, we have to start means-testing for the pension.
I’ll tell you why I’m in favour of means testing and why I’m not in favour of raising the retirement age.
The fact is, no matter how active we think we are or how active we try to be, age catches up with every one of us. It happens to everyone.
And some people have careers and they work in jobs that can be almost impossible to do by the age of 65. Some people even struggle by the time they’re 60. Painters. Builders. Most tradies, really.
Others might have jobs that aren’t all that physical, but age still catches up with them and the idea of working beyond 65 is just not on their radar.
What I’m saying is that everyone ages and expecting everyone to work past 65 just isn’t realistic. Because age catches up with all of us. There’s no variable.
What is variable, though, are our financial positions. Some people are loaded. Some people are hard up. Some people are somewhere in between. So it’s crazy that, when it comes to the pension, we treat everyone the same.
The loaded people get the pension, and it’s beer money. The hard up people get the pension, and it’s their lifeline. So their lives are completely different, in terms of what they can and can’t afford, but we pay them all the pension.
And we can’t keep doing that.
The other strong argument in favour of means-testing the government pension arrives in our letterbox at home on a semi-regular basis.
Our kids are all at university in Dunedin and Wellington but a lot of their mail still turns up at home, some from their Kiwisaver providers.
So, here they are - not all that long out of school in the grand scheme of things - and they’ve got Kiwisaver accounts.
Maybe some of that money will get chewed up on home deposits down the track. But, the point is, thanks to Kiwisaver they are saving for retirement at an age when most of us probably never even thought about it.
And these are the generations who, I reckon, won’t even have an expectation that anything other than what they save themselves and what their employers contribute through Kiwisaver, will be what they will have by the time they get to retirement age.
But, if you're already in your 60s, chances are you’re of the thinking that you’ve paid your taxes, you’ve done your bit, and that you deserve every cent of the pension. Which is an argument I struggle with. Because we all pay our taxes but we don’t necessarily use all the services that our tax money goes into.
But, somehow, the pension is different. And there is this sense of entitlement that, even if you don’t need it, you should still get it.
Which needs to stop. Because we can’t afford it anymore.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you drive a petrol vehicle, how’s that $20-a-week tax cut looking now that the Government wants to sting you with road user charges?
I’m being a bit facetious. Because I actually think road user charges are much fairer than fuel taxes. Because, when you use a road, it makes no difference whether you drive an old dunger or something more modern - you’re still using it.
Because with road user charges, you pay depending on how many kilometres you drive, instead of how much fuel you buy.
And if you’ve got the most fuel-efficient vehicle on the market, why should you effectively pay less to use the same road as someone who can only afford an old gas guzzler?
You shouldn’t. Which is why the Government wants owners of petrol vehicles to pay their way the same way drivers of diesel vehicles and EVs do right now - through road user charges. Which would be much fairer than a fuel tax.
Just like we pay the same amount for things like Netflix, whether we watch it on a cruddy old TV or the latest high-definition TV.
That’s what this is. User pays for our roads. And a much fairer version of user pays than what we have at the moment. Which means, if you drive a petrol vehicle, you pay a fuel tax. And, if you drive a diesel or an electric vehicle - you pay road user charges.
Before you think I’m getting too carried away, there is a caveat on my support for what the Government wants to do.
And I think this is where the people who have been screaming blue murder since the Transport Minister announced his plan are coming from. They’re saying there’s no way they’re going to pay road user charges, as well as fuel taxes.
And fair enough too. There is no way the Government could justify stinging us for both. So that’s the only caveat on me saying ‘yep, go for it’.
There’s another thing too. How realistic is all this?
For starters, Simeon Brown reckons he can have road user charges for petrol vehicles in place by 2027. Which, of course, is after the next election. So get ready for this to be an election issue in a couple of years’ time.
And, while this all looks good on paper - well, I think so anyway. While this all looks good on paper, there are other unanswered questions.
Will owners of petrol vehicles even bother paying these new road user charges? You can guarantee there will be some who won’t. Who knows how many.
How is the Government going to make sure whether people are paying them or not That’s the $3.5 million question the Government doesn’t have an answer to yet. There are 3.5 million petrol vehicles in New Zealand at the moment. Which is about three-quarters of all vehicles on the road.
And the big question: the Government has already talked about a 12 percent increase in petrol taxes in 2027 —the same year these new RUCs come into force— so what’s happening on that front?
The closest thing to an answer to that question can be found in the media statement the Transport Minister put out yesterday.
Simeon Brown says: “We are transitioning the light vehicle fleet to road user charges, and away from fuel tax, by as early as 2027.
"Transitioning to road user charges will ensure that all road users are contributing fairly to the upkeep of our roads, regardless of the vehicle they drive.”
So “transitioning away from fuel tax” is all he’s saying about that. And, for me, that’s the crucial bit.
Because, even though I think road user charges are a much fairer way of paying to use our country’s roads, it would be nothing short of a rort for the Government to charge us a petrol tax and road user charges.
Perhaps we can take comfort in the fact that with vehicles becoming more fuel-efficient, shifting to road user charges will mean the Government will get more revenue than what it’s getting now under the current way of doing things. And, on that basis, it will be more-than-happy to ditch the taxes outright.
But I’m happy to put that question aside for now. I’m happy to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. And I’m happy to say that, at this stage, I’m right behind the idea.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This week on Politics Friday, Labour’s Megan Woods and National’s Matt Doocey joined John to dig into some of the biggest political stories of the week.
On the agenda was the proposed road user charges system – will it work? Is it fair? Can National and Labour agree on an infrastructure plan to ensure things get finished? And is importing LNG a longterm solution? What does the former Energy Minister make of National’s plans?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I love the Government’s thinking on infrastructure planning.
It wants us to have a 30-year plan for big projects that politicians, generally, wouldn’t be able to muck around with. Which, of course, would give us all a lot of certainty.
It would also give the people who invest their own money in infrastructure certainty, as well.
So a great idea. Because we are seeing right now how hopeless we have become at long-term infrastructure planning, and the consequences seem to be coming at us left, right and centre.
The inter-island ferries, electricity infrastructure, the state of our roads. The band-aid approach has got us in this mess.
Not to mention all the political pipedreams and political interference. So, why wouldn’t you try and get a long-term plan that everyone pretty much signs up to? It’s a no-brainer.
And, to try and make it happen, the Government is setting-up a new National Infrastructure Agency.
Where I see it coming unstuck, though, is getting the politicians to agree on a 30-year plan.
Even on the day it was announced, we had Labour complaining that they weren’t given enough warning or weren’t consulted enough before the Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop told the world about it yesterday.
And the Green Party’s Infrastructure spokesperson Julie Anne Genter is saying a 30-year-plan is great - as long as it puts the environment front right and centre.
So, chances are, we’ll have all the parties sitting in a room trying to agree and we’ll have National wanting more motorways, Labour wanting more trains and the Greens wanting more cycleways.
This is where I see the Government’s idea coming unstuck. Which shouldn’t be the case because, in other countries, politicians have managed to do what Chris Bishop wants to do.
Across the ditch in New South Wales, they set-up Infrastructure New South Wales 13 years ago.
Back in 2011, the then-state government decided long-term infrastructure projects were too important to be left to the whims of the political cycle, and it seems to have served them well.
Since being set-up, Infrastructure New South Wales has helped deliver projects such as the Sydney Convention and Exhibition Centre, planning of WestConnex and traffic management around Sydney Airport and Port Botany.
It’s also been involved heavily in the new metro system in Sydney which opened the other week - and people seem to be raving about it.
And I suspect the plans by the government here to set-up a National Infrastructure Agency follows Chris Bishop’s recent trip to Australia with the Prime Minister, Transport Minister Simeon Brown and Resources Minister Shane Jones.
But I don’t think Chris Bishop is going to get what he wants.
Because —even though it’s been done in other countries— I have zero faith that our politicians can agree on this.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis is visiting Christchurch today and joined John MacDonald in studio to give her thoughts on a few topics.
They discussed National's infrastructure 30-year plan. Is she confident of getting cross party support?
What were her true thoughts when she was approached about putting more money into the Christchurch Cathedral, and will there be any money in future for it?
And what about the Canterbury Museum, which is currently 15 million dollars short in funding?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It’s not quite as fast as Selwyn mayor Sam Broughton wants it. But the Government’s thinking about raising the speed limit on the Southern Motorway between Rolleston and Christchurch to 110 kph per hour - which would be the highest speed limit in the South Island.
Mayor Broughton reckons it should be 120, the Government thinks 110 is more like it, and I think it should stay at 100.
The mayor’s argument in favour of increasing the speed limit seems to be along the lines of ‘people are already driving that fast now, so that’s what the speed limit should be’.
Which is a bit like saying, ‘some people are murderers, so let’s make murder legal’.
I know, slight exaggeration, but that’s why the mayor of Selwyn wants to see the speed limit lifted - because people are driving fast, anyway.
Transport Minister Simeon Brown, though, reckons it’s all about productivity. It’s about getting stuff done.
Here’s what he has to say about that: “Boosting economic growth and productivity is a key part of the Government’s plan to rebuild the economy. This proposal supports that outcome by reducing travel times and increasing efficiency on this key South Island freight route.
“The Christchurch Southern Motorway has reduced congestion, and improved safety and travel time reliability.
“We know how critical this connection is for motorists and freight operators, and we’re committed to ensuring that this state highway enables people to get to where they want to go, quickly and safely.”
Which all sounds great, Simeon. But how much quicker do you think increasing the speed limit is going to make things? By my calculations, if you compare a 100 kph speed limit with a 110 kph limit —and if you drive at those speeds— the faster speed takes just over a minute off your travel time.
Is that really worth it? I don't think so at all. Especially when we know that the faster a vehicle goes, the messier things get when they crash.
The other thing that makes this such a daft idea is the fact that it was only three months ago when the Government pulled the plug on a $90 million upgrade of Brougham Street, which would have to be one of the most congested and dangerous roads in the city.
It was due to be underway by the end of the year and would have meant there’d be an overbridge for pedestrians and cyclists, lanes for car-pooling and buses and motorbikes, and a shared pedestrian-cycle path.
But because that’s not happening, this “critical connection for motorists and freight operators” that Simeon Brown is going on about, will continue to come to a standstill as soon as it hits Brougham Street.
So, if this speed limit change goes ahead, you’ll be screaming up the Southern Motorway from Rolleston, you’ll get to Brougham Street and then you’ll be going nowhere fast.
You’ll get there a minute quicker. But so what?
The other question this raises, is if it’s good enough for the Government to be thinking about raising the speed limit on the Southern Motorway, should it be doing the same on the Northern Motorway?
Here’s why Simeon Brown thinks the Southern Motorway is ripe for faster driving. He says “the Southern Motorway was built to a high safety standard and has delivered strong safety benefits for people travelling in and out of Christchurch.
He says that the Southern Motorway has “safety features that greatly reduce the risk of death or serious injury in a crash, including two lanes in each direction, flexible median barrier between opposing lanes, and a smooth alignment that offers good forward visibility for drivers.”
So, even though I’m against this idea of increasing the speed limit on the southern motorway - if the Government ends up doing it, then they might as well do it on the northern, as well.
Because if it reckons the southern is safe enough for faster driving. Then the northern must be too, right?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John was joined by Labour Leader Chris Hipkins on the show today for their regular catch up.
John was keen to find out where Labour stands really on oil and gas exploration in New Zealand - if they get back into power will they honour any contracts in place? Does Hipkins agree with the proposed speed limit change on the Southern Motorway, given the Road To Zero campaign it supported? And is it time for a Super City Council in Canterbury in his view?
Labour's leader is encouraging councils to take a closer look at their governance structure.
Some councils in the lower South Island have voted this week to continue discussions on creating unitary authorities.
Chris Hipkins told Canterbury Mornings it's a good thing to talk about amalgamation in the context of improving local government services.
He says it's a conversation local councils should have with many councils in New Zealand relative to its size.
Hipkins says if you were to design a local government system on a blank piece of paper you wouldn't design the one we have.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Sometimes, no matter how much of a greenie you might think you are, you just have to get real.
Tell that to the likes of the Labour Party, though, which is saying the moves announced by the Government to try and make sure we have enough electricity to keep the heaters and lights on, and the factories operating, show that it is “giving up on climate change”. Which is nonsense.
Greenpeace New Zealand is taking it a step further and accusing the Government of “outright climate denial”. Again, nonsense.
And, whether I like it or not, I’m looking at what the Government has announced to deal with, what it’s now calling the energy crisis and, I’ll be honest with you, I’m finding it hard to argue with.
I feel like I should be arguing against it. But I can’t. Because I think, in the face of reality, the Government is doing what it has to do.
And, instead of giving up on climate change —like Labour is saying— the Government is giving up on a pipedream. A pipedream that New Zealand would only be using renewable energy by 2030, in six years' time.
That was the target we had - up until yesterday.
But, as you might have heard the Prime Minister say, that was nothing more than a slogan on a bumper sticker, and so it’s gone. Oil and gas exploration are back. The Government also wants to see more gas imported to help generate more power.
But before we get too excited, neither of those are going to fix things overnight.
In relation to the importation of liquified natural gas - the first thing the Government has to do is remove the barriers which stop gas being imported. So that’s the paperwork side of it and they will take some time.
Then there's all the logistics of getting the gas here.
So the power bills aren’t going to suddenly start coming down. Not this year, anyway.
As for the other piece in the puzzle —getting oil and gas exploration up and running again off the New Zealand coast— that’s a slow burner too.
In fact, it’s such a slow burner that I don’t think we will ever see it happening. Because governments change and, if Labour is true to its word, it will put the ban back in place whenever it ends up in government again.
Not that that will be a problem for National. Because, even if it goes nowhere, it will still be able to crow that it tried to do something.
Even the Prime Minister acknowledges that we’ve got a bit of making-up to do when it comes to giving foreign oil and gas companies confidence that New Zealand is somewhere they should think about coming back to, after Labour pulled the plug on exploration.
So what the Government is doing is a mix of practicalities and politics. It’s being practical in terms of paving the way for liquified natural gas to be imported so we can generate the electricity we need, for the time being.
And it’s being political with the removal of the oil and gas exploration ban because, as I say, even with the ban lifted - I don’t think we’ll see it happening again.
But —as any politician will tell you— sometimes, being seen to do something, is just as important as whether it works or not.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I think the Government’s done a John Key.
You know - float an idea, wait for the noise, and change the thing people are making the most noise about.
Which is exactly what’s happened with the new Fast Track legislation for large-scale infrastructure and mining projects.
Some are saying the Government’s 'backed-down' with its decision to let an independent panel of experts decide whether a big infrastructure or mining project gets the big tick. Call it what you want. But the Government’s done the right thing, in my book.
Because, if it hadn’t, this legislation would have been anything but 'fast track'.
Because, initially, the plan was to let three Government ministers decide whether new projects would get the go-ahead. But a lot of people didn’t like the idea of politicians making decisions about stuff they might not have any idea about.
Or politicians making decisions about proposed projects and not taking everything into account.
For example, there have been concerns since the legislation was first-proposed that the Government would prioritise the economic benefits of a project or a development over any environmental impacts, for example.
That’s less likely now. Not that it still doesn’t have a political fight on its hands. The Greens still aren’t fussed about it. Nor are any of the Opposition parties.
The Green Party’s environment spokesperson, Lan Pham, says the changes the Government has made to the legislation is just “tinkering and shallow re-packaging” that fails to address environmental concerns.
Labour had its own fast-tracking law back when it wanted to get on with projects after COVID. That legislation’s now history. And I see its environment spokesperson is saying that letting the independent panel make the final decisions is a 'small win'. But Labour doesn’t think the Government’s gone far enough to ensure the environment is protected.
So the plan now is to have an independent panel of experts make the decision, including iwi representatives.
When I heard iwi were going to be involved, I thought the Government might have been opening a can of worms for itself. Time will tell on that front.
I see already, though, that the head of a Wellington iwi - which led a hikoi to Parliament over the legislation - is saying today that the Government has done the right thing taking politicians out of the decision-making.
Helmut Modlik is chief executive of Te Runanga o Toa Rangatira. He says he’s very pleased.
He’s saying: "I actually want to acknowledge them for listening. I was of the view and still am that they're trying to enable quicker and more cost-effective delivery of the built environment changes that we need.
"And, in the first instance, the balance wasn't quite right. We spoke, the nation spoke and they listened. So yeah, I want to acknowledge them for that."
RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop denies that it’s about politics. He just wants to get on with stuff and says the Government realised that sticking with its original plan to give Government ministers final approval for these big projects was going to be more trouble than it was worth.
The Government knows that there would have been no hope in hell of charging-on if it had stuck with the original plan of letting Chris Bishop, Energy Minister Simeon Brown and Resources Minister Shane Jones decide whether a development or a project gets the green light.
Because, if it didn’t make the change it announced yesterday, the Government would have spent more time in court than actually “getting stuff done”, as the Prime Minister likes to say.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you’ve heard all the talk over the past 24 hours about the Government making more changes to the Resource Management Act and you’ve thought ‘oh boring, nothing to do with me’, think again.
Because there’s one aspect that has potential to make a difference for anyone and everyone in the country. Which includes you.
I don’t think it’s going to be enough on its own. Because, if you don’t need cheaper power bills, then you’re shouting drinks tonight.
So I think a lot more than what the Government is proposing to do with the Resource Management Act is needed. But I’ll get to that.
What happened yesterday, is the Government announced more changes it wants to make to the RMA - the Resource Management Act - which is the legislation that sets out all the rules and requirements in place to protect the natural environment.
To make sure we don’t go all “get stuff done” and “you can’t stop progress” on it, and then look up and realise that we’ve stuffed the environment while we’re doing it. I know some people will argue that we’ve still managed to stuff the environment. But that’s what the RMA is all about.
In essence, it lays out all the hoops people and organisations and companies have to jump through before they can do things like set-up a new power station.
And this is the aspect of the changes announced yesterday that is most relevant to the here-and-now.
The here-and-now where wholesale electricity prices in New Zealand are seven-times higher than what they were three years ago.
Which is why we’ve seen some big manufacturing plants either closing down completely or putting things on hold for a bit until the power prices start to come down a bit. And the Government’s talking about interim fixes, such as importing more liquefied natural gas.
They’ll do that. And they’ll keep putting the heat on the four big electricity generation companies. Which not only generate the power, they also sell it to us. So this is Meridian, Contact, Genesis and Mercury.
But the more power there is, the lower their profits. Simple as that. Which is why I think the Government’s plan only goes part of the way towards giving a more sustainable electricity system and market.
What I think needs to happen, is the control these four big companies have over things needs to change.
And the most straightforward way of doing that, is changing the way things are structured - and separating power generation from power retailing. That’s why people refer to these companies as GenTailers - they make the electricity and they sell it.
I don’t see things changing all that much until we rip-up the current structure and tell Meridian, Contact, Genesis and Mercury that they’ll make the power, and other companies will sell it to us.
That way, they could only charge what the market is willing to pay. Instead of the other way ‘round, as it is now.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday John was joined by National's Vanessa Weenink and Labour's Duncan Webb in studio.
Is New Zealand in an energy crisis, and will the RMA changes help get more power into our grid at a better price?
Why is National supporting the treaty bill to a certain point, even though they have no plans at all to support it past the first reading?
And does central government really have a right to tell local councils what to spend their money on?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today Kiwi iconic band Zed release their first album in 20 years, Future Memory.
Formed at Cashmere High School, the Canterbury band will celebrate with a launch party in Akaroa today.
Bassist Ben Campbell joined John to talk about the album, their history and the pressure their fame brought the young group 20 years ago.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If we thought the last government was a bunch of control freaks, the current one’s just as bad, isn’t it?
That's what I’m thinking with all this talk from the Prime Minister, telling local councils that ratepayers are sick of white elephants, that they need to focus on the basics like collecting the rubbish, fixing the pipes and filling-in potholes, and to stop blowing money on fantasy projects.
The thing for me is that —even though there are a truckload of things I see the Christchurch City Council doing, for example, that I question big-time in terms of blowing ratepayer money— I don’t think it is the place of central government to tell them to pull their heads in.
That’s our job. If we want to, we can turn up at council meetings and do one of those deputation things. Where you get a few minutes to say your piece to all the councillors around the council table.
And the ultimate way we can make it very clear whether we approve of the way they’re running things, or not, comes every three years at the local body elections. Which is exactly what the central government politicians tell us if we don’t like what they’re doing.
I remember Christopher Luxon himself saying, not that long ago, that if the Government’s fast track legislation led to some sort of environmental disaster, then people could punish them for it at the next election.
But when it comes to local government the Government’s attitude is very different. And yesterday, the Prime Minister told local councils that when it comes to spending money - the party is over.
Here’s a little bit of what Christopher Luxon said to councils yesterday:
“Ratepayers expect local government to do the basics and to do the basics brilliantly. Pick up the rubbish. Fix the pipes. Fill in potholes. And more generally, maintain local assets quickly, carefully, and cost effectively.
“But nothing in life is free, and ratepayers expect to pay for it in exchange. But what they don’t expect to pay for is the laundry-list of distractions and experiments that are plaguing council balance sheets across the country.
“Ratepayers are sick of the white elephants and non-delivery. So, my challenge to all of you is to rein-in the fantasies and to get back to delivering the basics brilliantly.”
Which, from the reports I’ve seen, generally went down like a cup of the old proverbial with the mayors and councillors in the room.
And it wasn’t all just talk and bluster either. The Prime Minister also announced what the Government wants to try and do to get councils under control.
It’s looking into performance benchmarks for local councils. It’s looking at how councils might be stopped from spending money on what the Government considers to be “nice-to-haves”.
It’s going to look at transparency and accountability rules to make it easier for councillors to request information from council staff. And it wants to reform the code of conduct process to balance councillors’ freedom of speech rights with what it calls “politicised” code of conduct investigations.
But, even though I agree that local councils need to up their game, I don’t like the Government poking its nose in like this.
For a government that banged-on pre-election about keeping things under local control, it’s not really walking the talk, is it?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined in studio by Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger for their regular catch up.
What did he make of the Prime Minister’s comments on council spending? The work on the Christ Church Cathedral has been indefinitely paused, will it receive any more ratepayer money? And, does he support the idea of LIV Golf making its way to Christchurch?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Remember Bishop Victoria Matthews? Who wanted to pull down the Christchurch cathedral after the earthquakes? Reckon she’s thinking “told you so” now that the reinstatement is officially on ice?
Bet she is. And if she isn’t, she should be.
Because let’s be realistic. On ice, whatever you want to call it, the cathedral will never be finished. Never. For the simple reason that, as time goes on, the cost of fixing it will go up and public support will go down. They are two certainties. In fact, they are the only certainties.
If you’re a supporter of the reinstatement, you will probably think ‘oh that will never happen’. That the people of Christchurch will always have the cathedral in their hearts. That it’s, you know, ‘the symbol of Christchurch’.
Well, not so, actually. Whatever support there is for spending tens of millions of dollars reinstating the cathedral will never be stronger than it is right now.
Because, as younger generations come through, they won’t have the same connection to it. They’ll probably have no connection to it. And what that will mean is the cathedral’s restoration or reinstatement will lose its social licence.
In its simplest form, social licence is public acceptance or support of an activity - especially when there’s big money involved.
And the cathedral has had enough social licence —or public or community support— up until now, because it’s relevant to people of a particular age. Or particular generations. And as time goes on, that will diminish. There is nothing more certain.
When I watched the news on TV last night, there was an image of what the church itself wanted to build in place of the cathedral after the earthquakes, and I actually felt quite angry.
I surprised myself, sitting in front of the TV watching it. Because, even though I’d washed my hands of the cathedral before yesterday —when the company running the reinstatement and the church announced that they were pulling the plug, for now— I was reminded of what could have been, if people hadn’t poked their noses into it.
There were images of the demolition work actually starting. And there was one of those architectural animations showing what a new, replacement cathedral would have looked like.
If only the church had been allowed to do what it wanted to do in the first place, we would probably have a cathedral by now and we would definitely know what was happening with the Square which, at the moment —let’s face it— is the dead centre of town in more ways than one.
If only all these heritage people realised that heritage isn’t just about buildings. It’s about history.
And a new, replacement cathedral would have been just as historically significant as the old one. Because, whether we like to think it or not, the earthquakes are just a blip in our city’s history. Or they will be as time goes on.
An awful blip, but just a blip. And a new cathedral wouldn’t have trampled all over the city’s heritage, it would have been part of our heritage. Part of our history.
If you want to get all fancy on it, it would have told Christchurch’s earthquake "story" just as much as a reinstated cathedral would have.
But now, we’ve got a broken-down cathedral that I don’t see ever being finished. Because we’ve got generations coming through that will have no connection at all to it, and who will think that the idea of spending tens of millions of dollars fixing it up is just nuts.
Some people have thought that all along. And a lot more will in the years to come, while the reinstatement people and the church blindly press-on, holding out their hand for money.
When will they learn?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
An award-winning Christchurch band is in the lineup for the 2025 Selwyn Sounds.
The Narcs’ Andy Dickson joined John MacDonald for a chat about the music scene in the 80’s, and what it was like to perform with some of the biggest names in the industry like Elton John and Queen.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
With some ideas, they sound better than they actually are.
Which is how I’m feeling about this idea that Christchurch should do what Auckland has just done and ban supermarkets and bottle stores from selling alcohol after 9 o’clock at night.
I don’t think it’s a good idea. Because I just don’t think it would make people buy less alcohol, they’d just buy it at different times if they couldn’t buy it after 9 o’clock.
And what about people who do buy alcohol at night and don’t cause any problems? Why should they be punished? So that’s where I’m at on this.
As an aside, I can’t actually remember the last time I bought alcohol after 9pm.
I buy alcohol just like a lot of other people, but I cannot remember buying it late at night from the supermarket or a bottle store.
Nevertheless, even though I probably wouldn’t personally be affected by a 9pm shutdown of booze sales in shops and supermarkets, I still can’t support the call that’s coming today from community board leader Paul McMahon.
Paul is the chairperson of the Waitai-Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board, in Christchurch.
Now I’m not saying he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, because, as well as being a community board member, he works in alcohol harm prevention. He’s a local advocate for alcohol reform.
He says about 75 percent of alcohol is purchased from off-licence premises. And he says, from his experience, most harm comes from alcohol purchased after 9pm - and, the later it gets, the worse it gets.
Now I would say that, generally, that’s the case with all alcohol consumption.
What’s that saying? “Nothing good ever happens after midnight”? It might even be earlier. But you get what I mean, the later people drink, the more likely they are to find themselves in trouble.
And so what Paul McMahon is saying today is that nothing good ever happens after 9pm, which is when he wants bottle stores and supermarkets to have to stop selling the beers and the wines and RTDs and the spirits.
On a practical level, I reckon most supermarkets in Christchurch are closed by 9 or 10, anyway. So why bother with a one-hour ban for the ones that stay open later than 9?
Christchurch city councillor Sam MacDonald is saying that he doesn’t think anything needs to be done with bars and restaurants, because he thinks they’re doing a pretty good job of keeping people under control, but he’s open to looking at tighter restrictions on off-licence alcohol sales.
The thing is though, is what is it exactly we’re trying to find an answer to? If it’s an answer to the problem of people drinking way more than they should and causing problems for themselves and trouble for other people, then I don’t think reducing the hours when bottle stores and supermarkets can sell alcohol is the answer.
Because, if people are going to get off their trolleys, they’ll do it. Irrespective of when the bottle store closes.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I don’t like the idea of the Government dangling $72 million in front of the cops and saying to them: “You’ll get this if you test the number of drivers we want you to test for drugs and alcohol.”
You might think it’s great that the police are being told what’s expected of them and that some of their funding depends on it. But I don’t.
Don’t get me wrong. There are some great things about this announcement yesterday by the Transport Minister that the Government is cracking down on drunk and stoned drivers..
As someone who thinks we should have a zero alcohol limit for drivers, anything to try and catch the clowns who drive drunk is a good thing in my book.
And the move to roadside testing of drivers for drugs can’t come quick enough. Especially, when you consider the carnage that has been caused by drivers high on drugs.
Here’s a stat that proves it: In 2022 alone, 112 people died in crashes where drugs were involved. That was about 30 percent of all road deaths that year.
So yesterday, Simeon Brown announced that the Government is going to be putting $20 million into a new roadside drug testing regime. This will happen once legislation is passed that will allow police to more easily test drivers for drugs.
The bill is going through the select committee process and submissions are due to close shortly.
The way the legislation is drafted at the moment, anyone who is pulled over and tests positive for drugs won’t be allowed to drive for 12 hours. Samples will be sent off to the laboratory for more sophisticated testing and, if they come back positive as well, the driver will get a fine and demerit points.
The stoners aren’t happy. Or should I say that the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (also known as NORML) aren’t happy. Because they aren’t convinced that the technology used in roadside drug testing is accurate enough.
Green MP Julie-Anne Genter is someone else who has reservations. She says there’s a chance that people who use cannabis legally for pain relief, for example, could get done.
Either way, I think it’s a good thing. And once the legislation is passed, the Government will give the cops the green light and will be expecting them to do 50,000 roadside drug tests a year.
As for the alcohol testing, the Government’s increasing the breath-testing target from 3 million tests to 3.3 million tests per year, and it wants 65 percent of alcohol breath tests to be done at your typical high-risk times for people driving drunk.
He says the police have been a bit haphazard in recent years with breath-testing drivers and wants a more consistent approach.
So yes, it’s great there’s going to be more roadside testing for drunk drivers and it’s brilliant there’s going to be testing for drugged-up drivers, as well.
But, as I said before, I don’t like this “performance” element the Government is attaching to the funding for what it’s calling its Road Policing Investment Programme.
It’s telling the police that they’ll only get $72 million of the funding if they meet the Government's target of 3.3 million roadside alcohol tests a year and 50,000 roadside drug tests a year.
I don’t like it because, even though 65 percent of the tests are to be done at high-risk times, we’ll have the cops either scrambling to do the other 35 percent at times and in places where it becomes nothing more than a box-ticking exercise; or they won’t do other worthwhile stuff because they’ll be busy meeting the target so they can get their funding.
I think it’s a very slippery slope. Because what’s to stop the Government doing the same thing with other elements of police funding? Nothing.
And, while we know the Prime Minister is all about KPIs and quarterly plans, patrolling roads and fighting crime never fits into beautifully-crafted gantt charts and spreadsheets. And I imagine there’ll be plenty of cops who find this carrot-and-stick approach the Government is taking somewhat offensive.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you don’t like the idea of Saudi Arabia putting money into sport, then tell anyone you know who supports Manchester City to burn their shirt.
If you don’t like the idea of Saudi Arabia putting money into sport, then tell anyone you know who’s right into Formula 1 that they should be ashamed of themselves.
If you don’t like the idea of Saudi Arabia putting money into sport, then you’ll be with New Zealand golfing legend Sir Bob Charles who doesn’t want a bar of the LIV Golf Tour coming to Christchurch.
The golf tour which is funded by Saudi Arabia. And which has been accused of using sport to cover up Saudi Arabia's appalling human rights record.
Amnesty International says the Saudis are still executing people; they discriminate against women; they treat migrants poorly; they punish and even kill people for being anything other than heterosexual.
But they’re also investing like there’s no tomorrow in sport. Football, Formula 1 motor racing, horse racing, cricket, boxing, tennis, wrestling, mixed martial arts, eSports and golf.
Which is how LIV Golf came about - as an alternative to the staid and traditional PGA Golf Tour. It’s been a disruptor. Just like the Indian Premier Cricket League.
And, as well as being accused of sportswashing —or trying to use sport as a distraction from the way Saudi Arabia treats people— it’s also put noses out of joint by signing mega million-dollar deals with the sport's stars.
And it could be coming to Christchurch as early as next year.
The understanding is that LIV Golf has its eyes on either the Clearwater or Shirley courses. It already has an event in Adelaide which, apparently, went off big time when it was held there earlier this year.
Nearly a hundred thousand people turned up. And I’m no golf expert but, talking to people who know a thing-or-two about golf, they say that LIV Golf is a bit like a cross between golf and the rugby sevens.
Because of the way that it’s all about the experience for the spectators. A bit like SailGP, actually, too. An experience for the spectators as much as it is a sporting event.
With LIV Golf they have music out on the greens. I gather, too, that the crowds are allowed to get closer to the action. So it’s all about putting on a great time for the people who turn up.
And like SailGP, for example, it probably gets your non-golfing types going along as much as your golfing types.
But local golfing legend, Sir Bob Charles —who lives in Christchurch— doesn’t want a bar of it.
He says he wants nothing to do with it because of the way it has divided the sport.
Here’s what he’s been saying to the NZ Herald: “I hope they’re not playing at either of my golf courses. I don’t endorse LIV Golf in any way. In fact, quite the opposite. I want nothing to do with it. I wouldn’t walk across the street to watch.”
But it seems there are a truckload of people who do cross the road to watch. I base that on the turn-out to events LIV has already held.
I mentioned Adeliade earlier - that’s the closest the tour has come to New Zealand. So far, anyway. My understanding is that it wants to have an event in New Zealand that it could run either before or after the one in Adeliade.
There’s been interest from other parts of Australia but LIV Golf doesn’t want to have another event on that side of the Tasman, and New Zealand is its preference. Which is why some of its people have visited Christchurch to check the place out.
LIV Golf has proved hugely popular with younger people, in particular.
In Adelaide, there was partying well into the night. Here’s an idea of how much of a party it was - they sold nearly 120-thousand beers. And it was brilliant for tourism, with 40 percent of people travelling to Adelaide from elsewhere.
So yes, I’m not into Saudi Arabia’s human rights record. Which is putting it mildly. But I think, just by the sheer level of its involvement in global sport, that the horse has already bolted and we shouldn't be turning our back on LIV Golf heading to Christchurch.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings John MacDonald was joined by Labour Leader Chris Hipkins for their regular chat.
He asked his feelings about the ACT party wanting to sanction those who get pregnant while on the benefit, how will that impact families?
Does he support lifting the ban on genetic engineering? And why is crime still going up under National?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When you drive the Southern Motorway between Rolleston and Christchurch, how fast do you go?
According to the mayor of Selwyn, Sam Broughton, chances are you go faster than 100 kph. Which is why he thinks the speed limit on that piece of road should be lifted to 120 kph.
An idea which I think is ridiculous.
I’m thinking it probably has something to do with the come-to-Jesus moment I had about speed limits when I was travelling around the South Island last summer. When I realised that doing 80 kph on a 100 kph is, actually, quite enjoyable. And safer.
I used to be all-for getting back to the old 50 kph and 100 kph. Not so much now.
Where this idea of the Selwyn mayor's has come from, is the work the Government’s doing at the moment reviewing speed limits around the country.
Quite rightly, it’s got its sights set on some of the non-sensical speed limit changes that have popped-up around the place recently.
And some of the speed limits you see are nuts. Case in point: Colombo Street, in Christchurch, heading towards the Cashmere Hills. It reduces for a very short stretch because of a nearby school - which isn’t even on Colombo Street.
Then you go a bit further up the road to where there is a school on Colombo Street, but there’s no speed reduction!
So Transport Minister Simeon Brown has sent around a document to local councils asking for their feedback.
And what the councils are being asked to do is give advice on highways they think should have a speed limit of 120 kph instead of 100.
And Selwyn’s Sam Broughton has told the Government that that beautiful stretch of motorway from Rolleston to Brougham Street should have a speed limit of 120, because a lot of drivers are travelling faster than 100, anyway.
Which is an interesting way of justifying it. ‘Oh look, they're breaking the rule so let’s change it.’
He says in his letter to the Transport Minister: “Whether it is for general traffic, direct public transport services, or moving freight, council considers increasing the speed limit of the motorway between Rolleston and Brougham St will assist in improving efficiency and connectivity while still being safe.”
And he goes on to say: “This is reflected in generally higher average speeds above 100 kms per hour we already observe along the motorway.”
So that’s the bit where he’s saying people break the rules anyway, so let’s change them.
Since the Southern Motorway opened in 2020, five people have been seriously injured in crashes. There have been no fatal accidents.
And the number of vehicles using the motorway is just going to increase. In 2021, there were 21,000 vehicles on the motorway daily. This is expected to jump to 33,000 by 2040.
I’m not the only one who thinks it's a stupid idea to increase the speed limit. Transport expert Professor Simon Kingham —from the University of Canterbury— feels the same. Which, you might say, he would anyway, because Simon’s not big on speed.
He’s probably not that big on vehicles, full stop, to be fair. But I agree with him on this one.
Because he and I only see one outcome from increasing the speed limit to 120 kph on the Southern Motorway. More crashes and more severe crashes.
Because if it’s 100 now and the Selwyn council is noticing that a lot of people are going faster than that, what do you think they’ll do if it’s 120? They’ll go even faster, won’t they?
I remember a few weeks back, we were talking about restricting the engine size for young or new drivers, and there was no shortage of people saying you can drive a Demio or any one of those shopping basket cars upwards of 150 kph.
So if you increase the speed limit on the Southern Motorway, as the mayor of Selwyn thinks we should, then I think we can pretty safely assume that there’ll be a lot of drivers quite happy to nudge it up to 130 kph. And that could be disastrous.
Which is why it’s a “no” from me.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Look out dole bludgers, we’re coming after ya.
That’s the Government’s message to beneficiaries who are being warned that, if they abuse the system, there’ll be limits on what they can spend their benefit money on.
This is all part of the new traffic light system for people on the Jobseeker benefit. Some might say it’s a traffic light system with a green arrow to the right.
Which is what the Opposition parties are getting at, anyway. Saying that all the Government’s doing here is a bit of good-old-fashioned beneficiary bashing.
The Government, though, is saying ‘oh nah nah nah, it’s not like that at all. All we’re doing is sticking up for hardworking taxpayers who provide the money for the benefits.'
And I’m with the Government. Because all it’s doing is setting-out some expectations and what will happen if people don’t meet those expectations.
It’s not beneficiary bashing. If it was beneficiary bashing, the Prime Minister and the Social Development Minister would have come out yesterday and said something like ‘anyone on a benefit is a no-hoper bludging off the system’.
That would be beneficiary bashing.
But the Government didn't say that at all. It’s being claimed by politicians on the left that that’s what the Government is implying. But I don’t buy that for a minute.
What are some of the other words being thrown around about this?
“The Government is waging a war on the poor”. That’s what the Green Party is saying. But I’m sorry Greens, I think you’re talking nonsense there. I don’t see it that way, at all.
Yes, the National, ACT and NZ First parties probably don’t have as much time for beneficiaries as the parties on the left do. But they’re not waging war on the poor.
Maybe I’m sympathetic to what the Government is doing because I’ve never actually been on a benefit myself before. That could change some day, of course. Because none of us really know how our lives might change down the track.
But, even though I don’t have experience of what it’s like to be a beneficiary, I imagine that —if I was— I’d follow the rules, knowing that a benefit is a mixture of being a right and a privilege.
And I can’t imagine myself willingly ripping off the system. Or claiming the dole —or Jobseeker benefit, as it’s known— and not doing anything to try and find a job.
That’s because I have a good understanding of expectations. Just like those of us who have a paid job, we know about expectations.
Example: I know that if I didn’t bother turning up to work every morning, I’d be out the door. I know that if I overstay my welcome in a car park, there’s a pretty good chance of a ticket waiting for me when I get back to the car.
I understand expectations and consequences.
And why shouldn’t it be the same for people on benefits? That’s what the Government is doing with the Jobseeker benefit. It’s setting out its expectation of people and the consequences if they don’t meet those expectations.
The thing I mentioned before about the Government putting limits on what beneficiaries can spend their benefit money on, that’s one of the sanctions the Government is going to use to penalise people who don’t do things like actively look for work.
They’ll have a card that half their benefit money will go onto, and they’ll only be able to use it to buy essential items. Which I actually think is a reasonable way to penalise someone because it wouldn’t be taking money away from a family, for example. From kids.
So if you had a set of parents —or one of them— on the dole, and they repeatedly failed to meet the new requirements, then their kids wouldn’t be punished. They wouldn’t miss out on essentials because there’d be less money coming into the house.
There’d just be limits on what half of the benefit money could be spent on. People will probably find a way of working around that because that’s what us people tend to do, don’t they?
Nevertheless, I think it’s a much more humane approach than cutting benefits.
Of course, if we’re totally honest, we’ll know that the Government isn’t doing this in the interests of the beneficiaries themselves. It’ll say it is. And I haven’t seen anything from the Government about how much money this will save the taxpayer, for example. It’s probably got no idea. Nevertheless, it’s good optics for a centre-right government.
But it isn’t beneficiary bashing.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Can you believe the audacity of the Christchurch Cathedral Reinstatement Project asking the Government for another $60 million?
Quite rightly Finance Minister Nicola Willis has said no and the Anglican Cathedral is now likely to be mothballed.
Which leaves us with the question: what do we do now with Cathedral Square?
There are two options, as I see it. We could leave it to linger as it has since the earthquakes. And keep tip-toeing around waiting for the cathedral to be finished. Which, let's face it, could be another 20 years away.
Or we could forget about what might or might not happen with the cathedral and just get on with redeveloping it. Fixing it up. Bringing the Square back to life. And that’s the option that gets my vote.
Because I think we should stop being hamstrung by the cathedral and get on with the job of making the Square somewhere people go again.
And top of my list, is getting a road going through there. Re-connecting Colombo Street and getting the area back to what it used to be in terms of vibe and energy.
I know that flies completely in the face of what all the urban development people say we should be doing in places like the Square. But what we need in the Square is people. And, in some respects, for the next wee while, anyway - we’re going to have to pretty much force people to go back there. And the best way of doing that, in my opinion, is sticking a road back in.
So we’d have Colombo Street going through the Square, and we’d have bus stops there. I know we’ve already got the new-ish Bus Interchange but I reckon buses going into the Square and having bus stops there would bring people into the area.
Because, if I think about how I want the Square to be in 10 or 20 years time, I want there to be restaurants; I want it to be the place for the kinds of events and activities that don’t need all the space of Hagley Park.
But we are dreaming if we expect hospitality operators to set-up shop in the Square the way it is at the moment. They’re the ones who have skin in the game, who take the risk, who put it on the line.
So the city needs to do its bit, and make the Square a place full of people again.
One of the barriers, at the moment, to having decent-sized events there is the way the Square sits at different levels in some parts - with little stairs. So, as well as bringing traffic back-in, I want to see it levelled-out and I want to see a lot more greenery there.
I’m not just talking trees - I’m talking about grass.
Because people don’t stop and put a blanket down and have lunch on grey tiles, do they?
People are attracted to green spaces. Something the Square hasn’t been for years.
Putting a road back in, levelling it out and making it greener wouldn’t necessarily come cheap. It would still be a decent amount of money. But the time for waiting for the cathedral to be finished is over.
I had a look at the weekend. And, if we wanted to keep the door open for the cathedral to be worked on over the next 20 years or whatever - the road couldn’t just run straight to link up Colombo Street, from where it stops on either side of the Square.
In fact, back in the day when there was traffic in the Square, the road curved around the front of the cathedral anyway. So I reckon we should do the same - but curve it out even wider to leave enough space for the footprint of the reinstatement work.
That way, the option would always be there for the work to crank up again. If that ever happens.
And by doing all this, not only would we have people going into the Square again, the cathedral would also become more of a curiosity than an impediment.
Because I know people bang-on about finishing the cathedral being important because it would be symbolic of a city’s recovery from a terrible natural disaster. But I think that, now things have dragged-on for so long with nothing else happening in the Square, it has become just a big advertisement for lack of progress.
It doesn’t say that we have triumphed over adversity - as much of the rest of the central city does. It just says that adversity has been the winner. And that won’t change, until we get over this idea that nothing can happen until the cathedral is finished.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Come back 3 Waters - all is forgiven.
You might be thinking that, now the Government has told councils they’re going to have to borrow truckloads of money to sort out their water infrastructure problems. Which could impact their credit ratings, increase their overall borrowing costs and increase rates.
So yeah - that’s how I’m feeling. Because I’m now of the firm belief that it would be way better having the state owning and operating and paying for water infrastructure in this country.
Because I think the increased debt that is going to be coming our way at a local level will only mean one thing - higher costs and higher rates.
Just in case you need reminding, 3 Waters was Labour’s policy for reforming waste, stormwater and drinking water services right around the country.
It fell over after people got fixated on the part of the policy that talked about co-governance with Māori. And, suddenly, it became a race issue instead of an infrastructure issue. So Labour tried to re-brand it, tweak it, but a lot of people still weren’t buying it. So, it went nowhere.
At around the same time, National was promising an alternative that it was calling “Local Water Done Well”. That was as much detail as it gave out pre-election but that word “local” was enough for most people to think it sounded like a much better way of doing things.
And that was what councils like Christchurch were banging-on about too. And I fell for the talk - initially, anyway. But I’m actually thinking now that this obsession with the “local” bit is going to be something we are going to come to regret.
The bit that I initially got all fixated on was the amount of money the Labour government was offering to pay Christchurch in exchange for its water infrastructure.
It was $120 million in exchange for $8 billion of water infrastructure assets. Not that I actually think of underground pipes and things as assets. Because, for me, an asset is something you can make money from.
But I fell for all that and I was more than happy to tell the Labour government where to go with its miserly offer.
But then we found out how cruddy the water infrastructure in Christchurch actually is. Because, remember after the earthquakes, we all assumed —or we were all led to believe— that everything under the ground was being replaced and it was going to be gold-plated blah blah blah.
Which wasn’t and isn’t the case at all. As we discovered earlier this year, things under the ground in Christchurch aren’t so rosy and 38-million litres of water is leaking out of the pipes every day.
Not as bad as Wellington, where 60-million litres is going down the drain every day. But it’s not great either and it shows just how much of a repair job is still needed.
Now, under the approach Labour wanted to take, the Government would have owned the water assets —after paying a bargain-basement price— and it would have been responsible for fixing things. And paying for it.
But, because we got all obsessed with locals owning and running water infrastructure, we’re now in the situation where the realities of ownership are hitting home, and councils are being told to borrow truckloads of money to pay for what needs to be done.
And the money is going to come from what’s called the Local Government Funding Agency, which is 20 percent owned by the Government and 80 percent owned by 30 local councils.
So the councils are going to borrow the money from the funding agency. The benefit of doing that, is that the lending rate is going to be much lower than it would be if they had to borrow from elsewhere.
The thing is, though, tell that to the credit rating agencies which look at local councils and decide what their credit rating is depending on their debt levels, revenue streams —all of that— and they set a credit rating which then determines how much councils have to pay for other borrowing.
So council costs are actually going to go up under this plan of the Government’s and, you know what that means, rates increases are going to keep on keeping-on. Because the councils are going to have to pay for it somehow. Or correction - we’re going to pay for it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When you think of military-style academies for young offenders, is the military part of it with a capital M or a small m?
Because the Government’s in the firing line after confirming that there are no military personnel on-site at the trial academy which started-up last week, and that there’ll be no military personnel there on an ongoing basis.
Which, in my mind, makes it a military academy with a small m. Or a nill-itary academy. There’s no way you can say it’s military-style if no one from the military is there.
The Government, though, is saying that the defence force has had back-office involvement in planning things. But that’s a bit like me having a chat to a mate who’s a chef and then inviting you over for dinner and saying ‘welcome to my restaurant’.
You’d be the first to say, ‘hold on mate, this isn’t a restaurant because it’s just you and no kitchen or waiting staff. And the last time I checked, you weren’t a chef’.
And if I said to you ‘oh no, no, no…I’ve got a mate who’s a chef and he’s been heavily involved in planning things for tonight and given me a few pointers so, yes, welcome to my restaurant’ If I said that, you’d laugh at me.
And this is the same. You can’t say you’re setting up a military-style boot camp —or a military-style academy— and then, when it comes to opening up - you have a bunch of social workers running the show with no military there at all.
Because that’s what’s happening. Oranga Tamariki is in charge of the bootcamp.
We know why that is, of course. Because, after all the big talk, the Government was told in no uncertain terms by the Defence Force that it wasn’t interested in looking after and sorting out young criminals.
Possibly because it had had a gutsful of patrolling managed isolation quarantine hotels during the pandemic.
Corrections were the same. They weren't interested. And so Oranga Tamariki was the next cab off the rank. Well, they were the only cab on the rank, to be fair.
But, whatever the reasons why the military aren’t involved, we have our much-hyped military-style academy with no military personnel on the ground. That’s despite Police Minister Mark Mitchell earlier claiming there would be a heavy defence involvement in the boot camp.
Mitchell said 30 New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel were actively supporting the programme, ranging from “back-office” policy work through to delivering it “on the front line”.
But that isn’t the case at all. With the Minister for Children Karen Chhour saying “there will be no New Zealand Defence Force staff working directly with the young people on the pilot”.
So it’s not a boot camp. I even think it’s stretching it to call it a military-style academy.
It was late 2022, when National announced the boot camp plan, calling them “Young Offender Military Academies”. It said the academies would be run by the Ministry of Justice and Defence Force.
Not surprisingly —and I can see why— Labour is going full noise and accusing the Government of misleading the public.
Labour’s children’s spokeswoman Willow-Jean Prime is saying it just looks like window dressing and the Government misled the public.
But, even though I think the military should be involved on the frontline for the boot camp to be what was promised, I don’t think the Government has intentionally misled the public.
I think what’s happened is it was a half-baked idea thrown out there at a time when ramraids were going through the roof and when Mark Mitchell sounded like he had a police radio scanner next to the bed and, every time he heard them heading off to a ram raid call-out, he’d put out a media release.
And, with all that going on, National announced the boot camp or military-style academy idea before actually talking to the defence force about it.
So, in a way, National misled itself in terms of the practicalities of what it wanted to do.
So I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt in that respect.
But, if these academies are going to live up to expectations, then I’m in no doubt that the military needs to be more involved than just giving backroom advice.
And, if the Government can’t get the defence force excited about the idea and willing to be part of it, then it needs to come clean, admit that it was a half-baked idea and stop calling it a military-style academy.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
So the guy running the hospital system says it could go broke within just a few months and we’re going to just keep on doing things the way we have forever, are we?
That would be nuts. Which is why I think we’d be much better off if we just required people to have health insurance.
The public system which Dr Lester Levy —who is the Commissioner appointed by the Government to run Health NZ instead of the Board— says its spending $1.4 billion more than it should.
His job is to get on top of that and get the place running as the Government wants it to be running by Christmas. Which is a pipedream, especially if anyone thinks that amount of money can be saved, services can be maintained —if not improved— and that we can do it under the current funding model.
Which is where Singapore comes into the conversation, and where I think we should be looking for a solution for this health funding mess. Because what other solutions are there? I can’t think of any. You might, but I can’t.
Former politician Richard Prebble has written an interesting piece in the NZ Herald today, where he says that maybe Singapore has the best approach when it comes to paying for healthcare.
Over there, everyone pretty much pays universal health insurance. They have a scheme which is mandatory for all citizens and permanent residents which provides cover for life, for hospital bills and outpatient treatments.
As well as that, they have a compulsory medical savings scheme which people can use on other healthcare expenses for their families.
So think KiwiSaver, but it’s a health fund instead of a retirement fund, that comes out of your wage or your salary and you can call on it when you need it. And just like KiwiSaver, employers are required to top it up, as well.
And what this approach means is that the Government in Singapore doesn’t have to spend as much of its budget on the health system, unlike us here in New Zealand, where health is the biggest single item in the Government’s annual budget.
Percentage-wise: in Singapore, the Government or taxpayers cover just a quarter of healthcare costs. The rest are covered through these insurance schemes they have operating over there.
In New Zealand, it’s around 85 percent.
In his NZ Herald article today, Richard Prebble reckons politicians here wouldn’t have the guts to push for the same thing here. But I say, why not?
Unless you can come up with a better solution, I think compulsory health insurance is the only solution.
The only solution if we don’t want to keep hearing the talk we’ve been hearing from the Health NZ Commissioner in the past 24 hours.
Talk like this from Dr Levy: ““For us, this is not a marathon, it’s a sprint. We have to move really quickly to secure our financial position as quickly as possible in order to overcome this particular cash-flow issue that is hanging over us.”
And he’s got the job of sorting this out before Christmas. Which, in dollar terms, means somehow cutting spending by tens of millions of dollars per month.
How on earth do you do that without cutting services and making people wait longer for treatment?
The answer to that, is you can’t. It’s impossible.
Which is why I’m saying that, if the model is broken —as it very clearly is— then we need to do things differently. And, for me, compulsory medical insurance is the answer. It could be done through existing medical insurance outfits - or it could be a government-run scheme like they have in Singapore.
But, either way, we have to get over this idea of doing things the way we’ve always done them if we are really serious about sustainably funding health services in this country.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
They used to be called school inspectors, these days it’s the Education Review Office and the Government is planning a shake-up, promising that we’re going to know more about what schools are getting right and what they aren’t.
And, when you listen to what the Prime Minister and Education Minister Erica Stanford have been saying, there’s going to be a much bigger focus on results. Which I get. But which I also think is very risky.
I also think it’s pandering to parents who turn everything into a competition, even with their own kids. Because what the Government is doing could take us back to the times when kids were labelled bright or thick from a very young age.
And I know the Government will say ‘oh no, no, no’ we’re going to look at the results these kids are getting and if they need extra help, we’ll be sending extra resourcing in so they can get over any hurdles and catch up with everyone else.
Which is how a middle-aged politician thinks. Because middle-aged politicians are like me —and you, maybe— we’ve had life experience and we know that, just because you’re not as good at maths as some of the other kids in your class at primary school, it doesn’t mean you’re stupid. It doesn’t mean you’re a no-hoper and that you should stop trying.
But tell that to an eight-year-old. Or a nine-year-old or a 10-year-old. And this is the stumbling block I have with all this extra testing of primary school kids that the Government plans to do.
Don’t get me wrong, when our kids were going through school, of course I wanted to know if there were things they might have been struggling with. And, if you’re a parent, you’ll know that sometimes it can be very easy to get sucked into obsessing over every little thing.
I’ll be honest with you. When I think back to some of the things I got fixated on when it came to our kids going through school - in hindsight, it was ridiculous.
Which is why I would tell parents with young kids now to take a bit of a chill pill and not agonise over everything. Because, what I’ve come to realise over the years and through personal experience —both as someone who went to school and as a parent who’s had three kids go through school— is that school is just a stepping stone.
And marks, when it comes down to it, don’t mean much in the bigger scheme of things, especially, when a kid’s at primary school.
I’ve come to the realisation that school doesn’t define a person. It doesn’t decide whether they’re going to make a go of life or not.
But the Government feels a little bit differently about it than I do. Which is why it’s doing the changes with the curriculum but also making these major changes at the Education Review Office.
It wants the review office to focus more on the basics.
I was on a school board in Christchurch for six years and, during that time, we had a visit from the school inspectors. They’re done every few years.
And it was almost like it was back when I was a kid - when I remember the old school inspectors turning up and the teachers suddenly being very friendly and putting on a real show.
These days, though, they look at more than just what’s going on in the classroom and in the playground - there’s a whole lot of data for them to trawl through. And it’s this data that the Government wants the Education Review Office —or the school inspectors— to pay more attention to.
But I don’t judge a school just on the basics. Reading, writing, maths. Those things.
I judge a school on the type of people it turns out. I judge a school on the citizens that walk out the gate each day. I judge a school on the way you feel when you go there for an event. I judge a school on whether you get the sense it’s just going through the motions or actually walks all the talk in the brochures and on the website.
That’s what I judge a school on.
And, maybe, one day, the Government will be able to point to better marks in this and better marks in that. But that won’t tell me a thing about how well-prepared these kids are for life, and all the things that life throws at us.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you ever needed proof that local councils are great at throwing other people's money around, here it is.
Because, even though the reinstatement work on the Anglican cathedral in Cathedral Square could come to a standstill in just a matter of weeks because of money problems, the Christchurch City Council is handing over $7 million. Which beggars belief, doesn’t it?
This is the second payment to make up the $10 million the council pledged back in 2017. The council paid $3 million last December and this $7 million makes up the balance.
Apparently, as it’s being reported today, this $7 million was on the proviso of certain conditions being met. We don’t know what they are. But, even if they have been met, these are provisos that were agreed on seven years ago, at a time when the project wasn’t at such risk of falling over. Like it is now. It could be just weeks away from happening.
That’s why I’m finding the council’s position that it’s going to press-on and hand over the $7 million as “a sign of good faith”, hard to accept. For a couple of reasons.
First: the council is borrowing to pay the money to the cathedral project and is levying ratepayers to repay the loan. So, as soon as the money goes to the church, we’re paying interest.
The second reason: is I feel as if the reinstatement project is holding the city to ransom over the money problems they’re dealing with.
Somewhere around $100 million has been spent so far. But the job is bigger than first thought and, it was revealed in April, the project needed to find an extra $114 million - taking the overall cost to $248 million.
To the church’s credit, in June it agreed to scale-back on some of the work which reduced the funding gap from $114 million to between $75 million and $85 million.
But here’s why I feel we’re being held to ransom. Back in April, the project people said that, if the first $30 million of that $114 million couldn’t be found by September - next month - then work would stop completely and the cathedral would be mothballed indefinitely.
So the Council, in its wisdom, thinks that by handing over the $7 million now, it will go some way towards them getting the $30 million they need by next month to keep going.
Which - if the council was correct - would mean that, in the four months since the money crisis was revealed in April, the project has managed to raise $23 million.
I would be astounded if they’ve managed to do that. Absolutely astounded.
What’s more, the church and the reinstatement people are refusing to say whether or not they have actually managed to find extra money from somewhere and, if they have, how much,
Even council staff acknowledge the risk. In a report for concillors they say: "There is a risk that the granted funds will not allow for the completion of the cathedral reinstatement project.”
They say deferring the payment - which is what they should do - would give the council more certainty. But they also say that, if the council doesn’t hand over the money, it could lead to a loss of momentum and the work stopping.
The Government has already put $25 million into the cathedral, and it’s being asked to provide more taxpayer money.
That’s yet to be considered by Cabinet but Winston Peters has already said that he’d support the Government giving more money to prevent the reinstatement being mothballed.
But remember, he’s not the Finance Minister - and we know how Finance Minister Nicola Willis doesn’t like cost blow-outs.
And it’s not as if Winston Peters is negotiating a coalition agreement where he could make more Cathedral funding one of his non-negotiables. So don’t bet the house on that one happening.
Another reason why I feel like the cathedral people are holding us to ransom over this, is the way in which they’ve been so secretive about the finances right up until the last minute.
And it's not just me saying they’ve been all closed shop. I remember city councillors saying at various points that they had expected - or they would like - a bit more transparency on the finances.
But despite all that, they’re giving over $7 million even though they’ve got no idea whether the project will continue beyond next month or not.
And I think that’s nuts.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, John was joined in studio by Labour's Megan Woods and National's Hamish Campbell. On today’s agenda:
Why, despite multiple reports, are children in New Zealand still being abused and losing their lives? Is it time for a cross-party commitment to ending this?
What can be done about the drinking culture in New Zealand, is it time to look at either increasing prices or raising the drinking age again?
Plus, they discuss the allegations of bullying towards Karen Chourr in Parliament.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You might be thinking the revelation that at-risk kids in New Zealand are no safer than they were three years ago, when a 5-year-old boy was beaten, burned and murdered by his carer, has nothing to do with you. But think again.
Where this has all come from, is a report by the Independent Children's Monitor as to whether the care system in this country has improved since Malachi Subecz died after being abused for months by his “carer”, Michaela Barriball.
She’s in prison. When she was sent away, she was told it would be for, at least, 17 years.
And when that Malachi's story emerged, there was a lot of the tut-tutting and ‘this can’t happen again” talk. But it has happened again. More kids have been injured, more kids have been killed.
The Chief Children's Commissioner Claire Achmad said on Newstalk ZB this morning that an urgent response is needed, But based on past performance and experience, I don't think that will happen.
Because, if we were really serious, we would have done something before now.
We would have done something before this report came out, telling us that at-risk kids are no safer than they were when Malachi was murdered. No safer, despite all the reports and the words and the reassurances that things will change and the serious faces. No safer.
And one of the reasons for that, is the so-called care and protection system in this country.
After Malachi was murdered, a review was done and it came up with 14 recommendations to try and improve things and make kids safer. Guess how many of them have been acted on? One. The other 13 are gathering dust.
If I was to summarise what those recommendations were, a lot of them were about getting all the different government departments and agencies working better together, sharing information, and making sure kids like Malachi don’t fall between the cracks.
And let’s face it, that was never going to happen.
I don’t know if you’ve had experience of how government departments work —I have— and the last thing they do is share information and co-operate with other government departments. They protect their patches and their budgets and all they care about is jumping when the government minister in charge of them says jump.
In recent years they've been banging-on about this thing they call an “all of government response”. Probably one time that actually came close to working was during COVID, rest of the time: if it’s not their department, it’s not their department.
Which is why I have very little faith that our care and protection system is going to get any better than it is now. Where we have, as the Chief Children's Commissioner said this morning, one child on average dying every five weeks from homicide.
But the system isn’t the only problem. You and I - we have to up our game too.
Because we treat care and protection of at-risk kids the same way we treat pretty much everything else in this country. We get someone in to do it, we contract it out. Out of mind, out of sight.
You know: “We’re too busy dealing with our own stuff. We don’t have time to sort out deadbeat parents and caregivers.” That’s the attitude, isn’t it?
But if we keep on having that attitude - that it’s up to the State to sort it; and if the State continues to completely fail these poor little kids; then we can write as many reports with as many recommendations as we like, but nothing is going to change.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How would you feel about rubbish from all over New Zealand and maybe even overseas being dumped in the South Island?
That’s what could be happening with this new waste-to-energy plant that is planned for South Canterbury. And I would be dead against it.
Fine, if burning rubbish to create energy is a good thing and can be done without munting the environment, go for it. But there’s no way I would be wanting rubbish from the North Island and overseas being brought here.
Why? Well, for starters, I don’t want the Canterbury region to be the rest of the country, and the world’s dumping ground. There are enough stories already about countries which accept our recycling waste saying ‘stop, no more’.
I’ve got other reasons too, which I’ll get to.
So Glenavy —on State Highway One, not far from Waimate— that’s the site where an outfit, with a majority shareholder from China, wants to build this plant which would burn rubbish in a giant furnace and convert it to energy.
These plants are in other countries around the world, and they’re seen as a good alternative to landfill rubbish dumps. Instead of sticking rubbish in the ground, you burn it up and make power.
How they work is the burning of the rubbish creates steam which runs the turbines to make power, and whenever power comes up for discussion, waste-to-energy plants pretty much always gets a mention because some people see them as a better option than some of the other electricity generation alternatives that get talked about, such as using ocean currents.
What’s happened though is a few months back, the Overseas Investment Office provided advice to the Government on the Chinese company wanting to buy dairy farmland at Glenavy to put the processing plant on.
In that advice, which was prepared for Finance Minister Nicola Willis, officials say if the plant goes ahead, it should only accept rubbish from within the South Island.
This was advice from the Overseas Investment Office, which officials put together after getting input from Health NZ, the Ministry for the Environment, the Security Intelligence Service and Foreign Affairs and Trade.
So, they said in their report that “feedstock” for the plant —which is the technical term for the rubbish used to run the furnace— should only be sourced from within the South Island.
The reason the report went to the Finance Minister was that, primarily, it was her job to decide whether the purchase of the land by this largely foreign-owned company would be against New Zealand’s national interest.
And, nine days after receiving the advice, she decided that it wouldn’t, and that the Government was comfortable with the Chinese company buying the land.
But, in the process she overrode the advice from officials that the plant only be allowed to truck-in rubbish from within the South Island. Instead, she decided that it should be left to the resource consent process to decide that. And, as far as I’m concerned, that could be bad news for the South Island.
Because, aside from the fact that I don’t want Canterbury becoming a dumping ground for the rest of New Zealand and other countries, can you imagine the truck movements between Christchurch and Glenavy that would be required on that goat track of a road that we call State Highway One?
These trucks would either come from Picton or they’d go from Lyttelton. Can you imagine the extra amount of traffic?
So the idea of this plant using rubbish from anywhere other than the South Island gets a big “no” from me.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How do you think I’m feeling about the Government's Māori wards bill passing its third reading in Parliament?
Which means any local councils which established Māori wards without asking residents first will have to hold a referendum if they want to keep them. The same for any other councils that might want to in the future, as well.
How do you think I’m feeling about that? I’m not feeling how Local Government Minister Simeon Brown is feeling. He’s saying today that it’s “a great day for democracy”.
I don’t think that at all. I think he’s over-cooking that one, big time.
I don’t feel the same way about it as Labour leader Chris Hipkins, either, who is saying that it’s “embarrassing”.
But I am despairing, because this is a piece of legislation dealing with something that hurts no one. Having a Māori ward causes no harm to anyone.
Now I know that some people think having a separate ward for Māori voters does cause some sort of harm. And normally they claim that it causes racial division.
And, if they want to think that, then I can’t stop them. But I would ask anyone who thinks that: what harm does it do to you, personally? Does it make your life any worse? Does the idea of Māori wards make you less likely to get ahead in life?
Does a Māori ward somewhere make the groceries, or the power, or registering the car more expensive? Does it make you more likely to get crook with a serious illness?
The answer to all of those questions is “no”. But, somehow, some people think Māori wards are a threat to democracy. Which is nonsense.
Because how can a constituency of people electing someone to be their representative on a council somewhere possibly be undemocratic? It’s not.
Local Government Minister Simeon Brown is talking nonsense saying that forcing councils to have referendums before they can keep their Māori wards is a great day for democracy.
It’s not about democracy, at all. In the Minister’s own words on radio this morning, it’s about being anti-woke. Whatever that is.
It’s ideology and nothing else. Because Māori wards make no one’s life any worse - and getting rid of them won’t make anyone’s life any better.
And they will fade out because we know who the people are who bother voting in local body elections - because these referendums are going to be done at the same time as local body elections.
We know already, don’t we, what the results of these referendums are going to be because —generally— the people who can be bothered voting in their local council elections tend to sing from the same anti-woke songsheet as Simeon Brown.
What’s more, if the Government is going to sell its Māori ward legislation as a win for democracy, and if councils are now going to have to ask ratepayers for permission before they can keep or set-up a Māori ward, then they should also have to ask for public permission to do anything else they want to do, as well.
Now that would be democracy. But that’s not happening. Which is why it’s complete nonsense for the Government to claim that its crackdown on councils setting up Māori wards without asking for public approval first is a win for democracy.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Canterbury Mornings John MacDonald was joined by Labour Leader Chris Hipkins for their regular chat.
Why does he feel the Māori Wards Bill is an embarrassment? Will National's Tax Cuts prove Labour wrong in the future? And what does he make of the Green Party stating their ambition to be the major opposition party?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Would you rather the police could only search a place for illegal firearms if they believed there were illegal guns there, or would you rather they could search a place for illegal firearms if they suspected illegal firearms were there?
There’s quite a difference. If you believe something, you’ve generally seen or heard information that gives you reason to believe.
But if you suspect something, it’s one of those things where you can’t quite put your finger on it, but you reckon there’s something going on.
And that’s where things are potentially coming unstuck a little bit for the Government’s crackdown on gangs and illegal firearms.
Because Parliament’s Justice Select Committee has come to the conclusion that some changes the Government wants to make in relation to firearms prohibition orders would give the police too much power to search without search warrants.
And my response to that, is “so what?” Because, if we’re going to get serious about getting weapons out of the wrong hands, why wouldn’t we give the police more powers?
The particular piece of legislation that the justice select committee has been considering is the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill.
Prohibition Orders are handed-out by the courts, and they’re supposed to stop people from having a firearms licence, stop them from using a firearm, and stop them from associating with anyone who has a firearm.
And they’re given out to people who the courts believe are high-risk and shouldn’t have anything to do with firearms.
Another change the Government wants to make is to apply the law to more people. At the moment, the bar is pretty high, but the Government wants to see people convicted of lower-level offences also given Firearms Prohibition Orders.
Apparently, this could see three-and-a-half times more people banned from having a firearms licence, banned from using firearms and banned from having anything to do with people who have firearms.
But people like gang members, generally, don’t give two hoots about things like prohibition orders. Which is why the Government also wants the Police to be able to turn up somewhere without a search warrant - even if they don’t have reason to believe there are illegal firearms there.
The Government wants the cops to be able to act on a hunch and go in somewhere without going through the malarkey of getting a search warrant and I’m all for that.
It seems the select committee, which has gone through the proposed changes, is concerned about innocent people getting caught-up in police stings.
They reckon it’s not good enough to search on the basis of suspecting someone might have an illegal weapon. They say the police should only search if they believe it.
Which is all fine and dandy when you’re sitting in Parliament at your select committee meeting, having morning tea breaks and lunch breaks and looking at the proposed changes from a position of relative comfort.
These politicians might think slightly differently if they or someone they know was at the wrong end of a gun barrel.
Because so what if a few innocent people get taken-in for questioning now and then? Surely we should be more concerned about the safety of these innocent people. Not any inconvenience that might be caused if they have to spend a couple of hours down at the cop shop and are then allowed to go.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by National’s Matt Doocey and Labour’s Reuben Davidson for Politics Friday.
They discussed whether the Government should intervene on the replanting regulations for pine trees on the Port Hills after the multiple intense blazes.
It’s been an emotional week in Parliament with the release of the Abuse in Care Report, so what needs to happen now? And, can we really get our response to mental health and addiction services back on track?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
“Pines are one of the most flammable plants on the planet.”
That’s a quote from a plant ecologist at Victoria University, Dr Nicola Day.
And it's why some Christchurch councils went to the Government wanting a change to the forestry rules, to try and stop pine forests being re-planted on the Port Hills after the big fire earlier this year.
The second big fire on the Port Hills in less than 10 years. And the Government has said no. Which I get. It's saying to the councils that it’s not prepared to change the forestry rules just to suit Christchurch. So I get that.
But, at the same time, it’s nuts that more can’t be done to try and make sure we don’t have another big fire in another seven years.
So, what happened is Christchurch and Selwyn mayors Phil Mauger and Sam Broughton, acting Environment Canterbury chair Craig Pauling and another ECAN councillor, wrote a letter to the Minister of Forestry Todd McClay.
And they pointed-out to him that, after the first fire in 2017, there was no way they could stop pines being re-planted. Which meant, of course, that when the second fire broke out on Valentine’s Day this year the pines were back again and, bingo, we know where things went from there.
And within days there were Port Hills residents coming out and saying how crazy it was that the pines had been re-planted after the 2017 fire and asking, you know, when will we learn?
Since then, the councils have gone as far as they can go - and there are some changes proposed to what’s known as the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement.
But the forestry rules, as they stand, get in the way of anything further. Because they allow anyone who has existing rights to have a forestry plantation on the Port Hills to replace it like-for-like if it’s damaged or destroyed by fire.
The adventure park is a case in point. After 2017, the pines were re-planted there because the landowner had an existing right to plant them. There was nothing that could be done to stop that. This is what these local councils are trying to change. But the Government has said no.
When the fire was happening back in February, a director of McVicar Timber Group —which owns the land where the adventure park is— was quoted in media reports saying that planting native trees costs 10-times more than planting pine trees.
He also said that he didn’t think native trees would survive in the Port Hills because the area is dry and rocky.
At the time, there weren’t many —if any— Port Hills residents agreeing with him.
Such as Hannah Miller, who said: “Seven years ago was the perfect opportunity to re-plant in natives. I’m no expert on fires, but we’ve seen what burns in the Port Hills and what doesn’t burn, and the native vegetation does a pretty damn good job of stopping it.”
She went on to say: “What on earth are we doing planting pines right up there? That’s utterly ridiculous.”
And I’m not going to argue with that. Because it was utterly ridiculous that pines were allowed to be re-planted after the 2017 fire and it’s utterly ridiculous that the forestry rules —as they stand at the moment— allow the same mistake to be made again.
But the Government has said “no”. So where do we go with this now?
If the councils here in Christchurch have had no joy with the Minister of Forestry, they need to be contacting his Cabinet colleague Simon Watts - who is the Climate Change Minister.
Because climate change —and more extreme weather— are part of the picture here.
Just over two weeks ago, Simon Watts released the Government’s five-point climate strategy. And one of those five points - under the heading “Nature-based solutions to address climate change” says the Government wants homes and communities better protected against climate change through restored habitats and ecosystems. It also wants more native forests.
So that’s where I think these councils should go next.
I can see why the Government doesn't want to tinker with the forestry rules just because of what we’ve been through here in Christchurch with two big fires on the Port Hills in seven years. But something has to be done to try and make sure we don't have to go through the same thing all over again.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In some way, shape or form, every New Zealander is a victim of the horrific abuse laid bare in the inquiry report released yesterday.
First and foremost - absolutely first and foremost - it is the 200,000 people who were abused while in the care of the state and religious organisations that we are most mindful of. As we should be.
The Government appears to be, as well. The proof of that will emerge over the next few months as it works on a response to the 138 recommendations in the inquiry report.
As far as I’m concerned, there is one that should be prioritised immediately. Because, until this is done, a lot of the other strategies and plans and approaches recommended in the report will just be more paper, more talk, and our trust in the outfits who are supposed to be looking after the people who need it most will deteriorate further.
And that’s this recommendation that all staff and care workers are vetted, registered, and well-trained.
It’s astounding isn't it that this particular recommendation is even needed in 2024?
The Government’s first priority, though, seems to “re-dress”. Which is all about things like financial compensation and other forms of recognition for the direct victims of this abuse.
Even if you’re not one of them. Don’t think for a minute that this doesn’t involve you. Because you’re an indirect victim. I am too. Because, as I say, every New Zealander - in some way, shape or form - is a victim.
Whether it’s the families these kids went on to have or the people they had relationships with. The people who have faced the consequences of being brought up or living with someone broken by what they went through.
The people who have been the victims of crime carried out by the damaged people who finally found the belonging they were craving for in gangs.
The other victims I’m thinking of today, too, are the parents of these kids who were abused.
And if you’re thinking ‘oh none of them are me. I didn’t go through all that and no one in my family did either, so I’m not one of those victims he’s going on about.’ Well, think again.
Because we’re not just talking here about the abuse of 200,000 children and adults. Which is staggering enough, on its own.
We’re also talking about the huge abuse of trust we, as a society and a community, placed in these places that were supposed to protect and look after people.
And, particularly in the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s, our trust in these outfits was rock solid.
I know. Because I went to two Catholic schools in Dunedin where sexual abuse of kids was going on. These were schools run by the Christian Brothers. So it was Christian Brothers Junior School and St Paul’s High School that I went to. This was in the late 70s and 80s.
And since then, some of the people who taught me, have been exposed as sexual predators.
One of them I thought was the best teacher I’d ever had. He was an English teacher and he just brought the whole subject to life and probably had some influence over my decision to become a journalist when I left school. He was amazing.
What I didn’t know, at the time, though was, while "Mr Amazing" was opening my eyes and ears to words and language and stories - at the same time, he was also taking other kids to his place across the road at lunchtimes and abusing them.
As for another one, well, I remember there being talk about him being dodgy when I was there - this was at Christian Brothers Junior School - so kind-of around intermediate age. This guy was a Christian Brother and there was talk about him but in those days, when you were 11 or 12, it was all a bit of a giggle.
Terrible to think that now. And I’m appalled to think about the other kids at both of those schools who must have been living in absolute terror while the rest of us got on with playing four square and handball at lunchtime, and having a giggle about keeping your towel on in the changing rooms at the pool.
This particular guy was moved overseas by the church when he was caught out - on the condition he have no contact with children. The reports I’ve seen say he went to the Cook Islands and Africa; eventually came back to New Zealand and is no longer alive.
Other teachers at these schools I went to have been named publicly over the years, too. And I can only imagine how difficult it must have been for some of these kids.
And I’m not just talking about the disgusting things that happened to them. How their lives were ripped apart. I’m also talking about how much they must have grappled with the fact that these so-called “religious” people were trusted.
And I bet there were kids back then going home, telling their parents what was going on and their parents saying “oh, don't be so bloody ridiculous. Stop that disgusting talk right now”. I bet you there were kids that went through that.
Because the trust in these creeps - however misguided - that people and society had in them and their organisations was rock solid. And they knew it, didn’t they? The animals they were.
Which is why I’m saying today that every one of us - directly and indirectly - we’ve all been affected by this. Nothing like the 200,000 who, finally, are being recognised. Nothing like that. But the trust we - as a society - placed in these people and their organisations was also abused.
Which makes us all victims, to varying degrees.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Irish comedian Ed Byrne joined John MacDonald on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, where he discussed his new show - Tragedy Plus Time.
He explained how he manages to talk about the death of his brother Paul in the show and balance the emotion with humour. Plus his special connection to Kaikoura and Christchurch.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger joined John MacDonald for their regular catchup.
The Mayor gives his thoughts on whether Orana Wildlife Park is in trouble, and how he feels about the council funding for it now.
And, what is the cost to council for the use of road cones in Christchurch? And will he be standing for Mayor in next year's local elections?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Let’s play a little bit of would-you-rather.
Would you rather the country faced a bill of $1 billion per year for the harm caused by drug use? Or $8 billion per year for the harm caused by alcohol?
I know what your answer is. I’m picking it’s the same as mine. I’d rather we had neither.
But that’s the comparison in front of us with these new stats out today in relation to what drug use is costing the country in terms of harm. And I tell you what - nothing’s going to change, in fact it will get worse, if we keep on treating drug users as criminals.
These people need help. They don’t need the big stick.
The big ticket item in these numbers out today - if you can call it that - is the harm that comes from methamphetamine. And the dollar value that’s being attached to that: $19.4 million a week. That’s according to the the National Drug Intelligence Bureau.
MDMA costs the country $857,000 in harm each week. Cocaine, $990,000 per week. But it’s meth that’s doing the real damage.
And what we’re talking about here is the cost of things like people ending up in hospital, dying - all the social harm. Marijuana doesn’t seem to be included in these numbers. But I would argue that we can’t turn a blind eye to the damage that does.
I know the pro-cannabis crowd find it uncomfortable when you talk about the psychotic effect marijuana use can have on people. But it’s real. But that isn't included in these stats.
These numbers also don’t include things like Ketamine, which is that horse tranquiliser that people are getting off on these days. And that can make them pretty unwell.
So, what we’re talking about here is the harm caused by meth, MDMA and coke.
Add that all up to an annual figure and it comes to about $1.1 billion per year. Versus $8 billion for the harm caused by alcohol.
The big difference, of course, is that alcohol is legal. Which, I think we can assume, means there are going to be more people using alcohol than illegal drugs. And so the dollar value of the harm from alcohol is going to be higher, naturally. And the alcohol horse has well-and-truly bolted.
But, is it too late when it comes to the drugs the police are talking about today? In particular, methamphetamine.
In some respects it is too late. But in another respect, it’s not.
It's been about 25 years since methamphetamine really took off in New Zealand. And it’s a great market for the suppliers.
The police have said someone can bring-in 600 kilos of the stuff to New Zealand for a couple of million dollars, sell it and make a profit of around $120 million.
That’s according to Detective Superintendent Greg Williams, who runs the National Organised Crime Group. And he says it’s been the infiltration of gangs from overseas that has really done the damage.
Because, originally, it was the local gangs selling all the meth. Then, with the 501 deportees from Australia bringing their Rebels and Comancheros gang patches with them, that saw things really take off.
Because they had the sophisticated operations and international connections to take it next-level from what it used to be.
And that is not going to change much, is it? Yes, the Police and Customs do amazing work trying to shut down these operations. But I think, as we’ve seen over the years, any so-called “war on drugs” is like a game of whack-a-mole. You shut down one operation here and another operation pops up over there.
So I think, like alcohol, there is an aspect of this that we can’t realistically do much about. And that’s the supply side of meth.
Where I think there is hope, is doing something to deal with the demand for this appalling drug. And that is going to require us to be a bit more open to treating meth use as a health issue - instead of a criminal issue.
I’m saying punish the suppliers and support the buyers. The users. Crack down, as much as we can, on the creeps bringing this stuff into the country and creeps selling it.
But, at the same time, put more effort into helping people stop using it and prevent others from starting. Which would require us talking about it more. Teaching kids in schools about meth. Spending more on treatment programmes for meth users.
And not treating drug users as criminals.
Would you be up for that?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
One headline I’ve read about President Joe Biden quitting the presidential race is describing it as “a shock decision”.
It’s no shock to me. But it was, apparently, to some of his campaign staff.
According to reports, some of them had no idea their man had made-up his mind and was pulling the plug. Which I think is too little, too late for the Democrats. They are toast - just as much as they were yesterday. Possibly more so.
Because, at least they had a candidate that people know. Not only has Biden quit the race for the White House, he’s also endorsed his vice-president Kamala Harris to be the Democrats nominee for president. Someone who, from this side of the world anyway, seems to have been invisible since becoming VP four years ago.
I’ve often wondered whether that’s because she got so much media attention when they won back in 2020, that Joe’s nose was out of joint and he told her to take more of a back seat.
But back to the “shock announcement”. Here’s a quote from someone described as being a Biden state official: “I don’t think a soul in Delaware knew.” Which is where Biden has been, since testing positive for COVID last week.
Apparently, his campaign staff had pretty much just got off phone calls to Democratic Party people making plans for the party’s convention in a few weeks time - as if everything was just rolling-on as usual - and then Joe goes and makes his big announcement.
The question now, is whether Joe Biden has done the Democrats any favour pulling out. And I don’t think he has. The time for him to do his party a favour was way before now.
And I’m not talking about the three weeks since that TV debate with Donald Trump when the world started to sit-up and pay attention to what people had been saying long before then. That he was declining - like we all do when we reach a certain age - and was struggling.
If Joe Biden was serious about doing a favour for the party he has dedicated his adult life to, then he would have done it the favour he thinks he’s doing it, the day after the last election.
Day One of his administration should have included succession planning on its to-do list for the four years it had up its sleeve. But he didn’t - and the party didn’t - and now we’ve had this situation over the past few weeks where criticism has flourished and Joe Biden has floundered.
When all this noise started, I was of the view that a lot of the criticism was nothing short of age-ism. Because, if an 81-year-old is up to the job, why shouldn’t they keep doing it?
“If you’re the best person for the job, fill your boots.”
But, as someone once said, what good is a mind if you can’t change it?
And, while I started thinking Joe Biden was being unfairly treated, I now think that his belligerence in denying the inevitable and saying he was still the best person for the job - in fact, the only person for the job - means he has reaped what he has sowed.
In just a few weeks, my view has shifted from seeing him as someone being targetted just because of his age, to seeing him as someone who just didn't know or wasn't willing to accept that time was up.
Which is professionally tragic for someone so obviously dedicated to doing his bit for society. You can’t argue with his commitment.
He’s had a lot of personal tragedy in his life. And, the way things have played out for him, it’s a tragic way to end his career.
Not surprisingly, Donald Trump hasn’t held back since the announcement and he’s been saying on social media that he thinks it will be easier to beat Kamala Harris than it would have been to beat Joe Biden.
And, I agree with that. As I said earlier, where has she been?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Do you know what the most pointless piece of road safety advice is? Drive to the conditions.
I get it and it’s well-meaning. But it’s pointless. A waste of breath. Because some people are incapable of doing it.
And it would seem from some of the reports in the past 24 hours about those two buses which went off the road yesterday on the Twizel-Tekapo highway after hitting black ice, that perhaps the drivers of those buses knew nothing about how you should be driving in sub-zero temperatures.
So they either didn’t know how to drive to the conditions - or just didn’t care.
This isn’t a one-off, either, by the way, and, I reckon the time has come for us to stop mucking around with this “drive to the conditions” nonsense and do one of two things.
We either follow the lead of some European countries and make winter tyres mandatory on all vehicles. Or, as soon as we know temperatures are going to be sub-zero where there’s a state highway, we close the road. We don’t wait around until the road is frozen over and it’s too late.
I see the guy in charge of the bus company involved in yesterday’s crashes is disputing any suggestion that they were going too fast. He would say that, though, wouldn’t he?
It’s not like he’s going to come out and say ‘oh yeah, those muppets I pay to drive my buses have got no idea about driving to the conditions’.
So, instead of relying on some bus company owner in Auckland, I’m going to give more credence to the eyewitness account of a chap by the name of Tony McClelland, who was on the road at the time. I bet he isn’t buying what the bus company guy is saying, either.
He was driving from Christchurch to Omarama. And he’s been in the news saying that the road conditions on that highway yesterday morning were the worst he’s ever seen.
He hit black ice himself near Tekapo Airport, nearly lost control of his van and almost ended up in a ditch. So he called the police and asked them to close the road.
Here’s a quote from what he’s saying: “You're looking at minus-5, minus-4 degrees, foggy conditions - that State Highway should have been closed. No doubt and it wasn't. There's just a big black sign up by the airfield saying 'dangerous conditions, black ice'. That's how people die."
Thankfully, no one did die. One person has serious injuries and two others have moderate injuries. And thank goodness those buses ended-up where they did - off the road and not in the middle of it.
But back to Tony McLelland. Once he’d called the cops, asking them to close the road, he thought about turning back but decided to press-on. But he stuck to 60kph. And it wasn’t long after that that he saw these two buses “flying out of the fog”. That’s what he’s saying.
And here’s how he describes what he saw. "They were not doing 60. They were not doing 80. They were doing at least 100, probably a little bit more."
And he obviously drives that road quite a bit, because he says it’s not uncommon to see drivers hoofing along at 100 kph during winter, when there’s black ice on the road.
But this sort of nutbar driving happens everywhere. Less than two weeks ago, police caught a driver doing 134 kph in icy, foggy conditions on the road to Aoraki/Mt Cook - with the whole family on board.
This was on State Highway 80. It was around minus-3.
The day after that, the police came out with a warning, saying the number of people driving at “horrendous” speeds in winter conditions is appalling.
Over a two-week period, 26 people had been caught doing speeds over 120 kph in icy conditions.
So what happened yesterday isn’t an isolated one-off. It’s happening on an all-too-regular basis and just telling people to “drive to the conditions” is worthy, but lame.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It seems our local councils are in the Finance Minister’s line of sight.
She’s been saying since the latest inflation numbers came out yesterday that, yes, it is somewhat positive that inflation is at 3.3 percent —just outside the Reserve Bank’s target— but she’s saying it’s not time to take the foot off the pedal.
And she’s made it very clear who she is expecting to go heavier on the pedal, and that’s local councils. But do you really see that happening? Do you honestly believe that local councils are capable of reducing costs to the point that they actually play a role in reducing inflation?
The thing with inflation is that it’s influenced by what’s going on outside the country - oil prices, wars, even elections in some of the bigger countries.
And then there’s what’s going on within New Zealand. And, at the moment, two of the biggest domestic contributors to inflation are insurance costs and rates.
In Waimakariri, rates are going up by 9.39 percent. In Christchurch, there’s a 9.9 percent average increase on the way. In Selwyn, it’s 14.9 percent.
Then, of course, there’s the ECAN regional council rates, which are increasing by 17.9 percent. It could have been worse. ECAN was originally proposing a 24.2 percent increase - but they trimmed the budget and got it down to 17.9. In Westland, people there are going to have their local council rates go up 18.64 percent and their regional council rates increase by 27 percent.
The Finance Minister isn’t happy about that and wants local councils up and down the country to start doing their bit to bring inflation down. But I don’t think that’s possible.
And it’s not about the councils themselves. It’s about us. It’s about you and me.
It’s you and me who expect more and more from our local councils. It’s you and me who bang on about the council not doing enough to clear the leaves from the gutters during Autumn. It’s you and me who —when we see water pouring out of a broken drain somewhere— who want it sorted straight away.
It’s you and me who want to be able to go to the library day and night, even though there might only be a handful of people there when we turn up. But the lights are on, the heaters are on, the staff are there.
It’s you and me who expect our local council to be fixing the potholes in the roads and the cracks in the footpaths. It’s you and me who want to be able to talk to someone at the council 24/7.
See what I mean? Until we start listening and understanding what the Finance Minister is saying about local councils doing their bit to cut costs and help bring inflation down further, nothing’s going to change.
If we understand what she’s saying, we’ll stop criticising our councils from the sidelines and realise that the Finance Minister is talking to us —you and me— just as much as she’s talking to mayors, councillors and council staff around the country.
Until we all listen, councils won’t have a hope in hell of tightening their budgets, cutting their costs, trimming their budgets and getting their costs down.
Because the more we expect and demand, the more expensive things get.
So, no, I don’t have any faith that our local councils can do what the Finance Minister wants them to do. Because we won’t let them, with all our demands and expectations.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Not that long ago, I was talking to a guy who said it was perfectly fine for him to use some old floorboards he’d ripped up out of his kitchen for firewood, because China and India are polluting the atmosphere and so what difference can he make?
These boards were coated in a dark, shiny varnish and they just screamed out “poison” to me.
But, you know, until China and India lift their game and stop spewing toxic stuff into the environment, why should he bother? And, you know, it’s free firewood. That was his attitude.
And he’s the kind of person that the Government will be getting no argument from today over its draft emissions plan which, in my view, is smoke and mirrors and a pipedream.
It wants to do away with some of the big stick stuff that the last Labour government did to reduce emissions and it’s come up with this wishy-washy approach.
Now I’m not saying that everything Labour did on the environment front made sense. But emissions did go down during its time in government.
But the current government is turning its back on that progress because and not only is it saying trees and technology are the answer, it’s also saying that what it wants to do means we won’t meet our emission targets. Which are all part of the bigger global initiative agreed to under the Paris Accord.
The Government’s also pinning its hopes on new technologies that can capture emissions but, generally, it’s all about threes.
As the headline on nzherald.co.nz says this today, the Government is planning a “tree-planting frenzy” to do its bit on the emissions front.
It reckons it can plant 22,500 thousand hectares in trees - 5,000 hectares of indigenous trees in 2027, 7,500 in 2028; and 10,000 hectares in exotics from 2027.
That 22,500 hectares, by the way, is the equivalent of 222,000 quarter-acre sections. Another way of describing it, is the equivalent of 2,220,000 Olympic-size swimming pools.
So where would they go and how would they be paid for?
The Government is saying that it wants to get private investors planting trees on Crown land. So it provides the land but gets others to pay for the rest.
It says this wouldn’t be land that is part of any national park. And it wouldn’t be land that is suitable for farming.
Here’s what the draft plan document itself says about that: “Estimates of the area of Crown land that is suitable for planting are preliminary and conservative. Further analysis will be required to confirm land suitability.
“However, it is likely that more land is available, and the potential abatement is greater than currently projected.”
So it’s going to have half of all these trees planted within four years. It doesn’t actually know where they’re going to - but it’s got a rough idea. And it wants private investors to pay for it.
Really? That’s a credible plan? The guy burning those poisonous old floorboards I was telling you about earlier probably thinks so. But I don’t.
The Government says it wants to take the approach outlined in its draft plan because it doesn't want to sacrifice economic growth to save the planet. And it reckons that, by doing what it’s proposing, it can do both. Do you really believe that?
It sounds ideal. But it’s a pipedream. Especially when you consider that what New Zealand has been doing in recent years has actually made a difference.
Which is why I think the Government is being incredibly reckless with the approach it is proposing.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The 2024 Olympics are less than two weeks away, our athletes are selected and ready to go.
Kiwi High Jump star Hamish Kerr has indicated he was more than ready to challenge for gold at the Games in Paris, with a compelling win in Monaco at the Diamond League.
Hamish joined John MacDonald on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings from France, revealing that he's still got some competing to do before he flies the flag for New Zealand at the games.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins is unwavering on making Treaty considerations an expectation for Pharmac.
His Government required Pharmac to commit to embedding Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Associate Health Minister David Seymour's removed it in his newly-released letter of expectation, calling it a distraction.
Hipkins told John MacDonald Pharmac was engaging more with Māori to improve health outcomes and reduce inequity.
He says Māori weren't accessing medicines at the same rate as non-Māori, and it's perfectly justified for Pharmac to do something about it.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It can be very tricky sometimes getting to grips with who’s twisting the truth, who’s exaggerating things, and who really are the victims and the villains when it comes to industrial disputes.
And this dispute between the Government and the police over pay and conditions is no different. Although it is in a way. And I’ll get to that.
But, for all intents and purposes, this particular pay dispute is over. Because when negotiations were going nowhere, it went to final arbitration and the arbitrator has ruled in favour of the Government’s final offer.
In non-technical terms, the arbitrator has told police they can like it or lump it. Which, not surprisingly, they are furious about. And I think they have every right to be furious. Simply because it’s the Police we’re talking about here.
And I think the Government —with all its talk about law and order— I think the way it is treating our police staff is shameful.
In an industrial dispute, each side have their own axe to grind or barrow to push, which I thought about when I heard Chris Cahill from the police union on Newstalk ZB this morning.
Being from the union, of course he’s going to be saying what he thinks he needs to say to not only make the people he represents feel like he’s out there doing the best for them, but also to try and win-over the hearts and minds of those of us who aren’t in the Police.
Those of us who might look at this long, drawn-out dispute from the sidelines and think, for goodness sake, you cops are on a pretty good wicket and you just need to stop whinging about your pay and your conditions.
And there are plenty of people out there who think that.
I remember someone saying to me once that they see an awful lot of cops in their uniforms at their local fish and chip shop, and fish and chips aren’t cheap, so they can’t be doing that badly.
So Chris Cahill has to try and minimise that kind of talk. Because, if more and more people start thinking that way, then he starts to lose the heart and minds of those who aren’t in the Police and we do start to think that the cops just need to get over themselves.
To like it or lump it, as they’ve been told as a result of this arbitration process.
But, for me, here’s where this situation is different from pretty much any other pay dispute. And I think we all need to think about it in this way too.
For me, the one question that determines whether the cops have got my heart and my mind is this: Would I be prepared to do what they do?
And the answer to that, for me, is “no”. Would I be prepared to take on someone off their face on drugs and get them somewhere safe? No. Would I be prepared to turn up to horrific road crashes and have the job of telling the families of the victims what has happened? No.
Would I be prepared to go to work and not know whether I’m going to be spat at, shot at, at some point during my shift? No. In fact, you name anything that we expect our police to do, and my answer would be the same.
So, if I’m not prepared to put my hand up - who am I to say that they need to pull their heads in, to just get on with it, stop banging-on about how tough life is for them, to say ‘we’re all finding things tough mate”.
I’m not going to say that. And this is why I think police have every right to be outraged about the outcomes of these pay negotiations with the Government.
They’ve been dumped on, as far as I’m concerned.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Joe Biden can’t win. In two ways.
The first one’s obvious. After yesterday’s assassination attempt on Donald Trump, and the imagery and defiance and sheer strength Trump showed, Joe Biden can’t win this year’s presidential election.
Nor can anyone else who might replace him as the Democratic nominee between now and November’s vote.
Trump’s campaign has got money shots coming out of its ears, so to speak. With their man defiantly fist-pumping into the air - just minutes after the shooting - blood on his face, and the American flag flying high under a cloudless blue sky.
I will fight for America. And who wouldn’t believe him after seeing all that unfold yesterday at the campaign rally in Pennsylvania.
Compare the imagery of Trump yesterday with the imagery of Joe Biden. It’s all over for Joe.
The other reason I say Biden can’t win, is that despite all the concern he’s been showing towards Donald Trump after the shooting yesterday, believe it or not - there are some Republicans pointing the finger at him over the shooting.
They’re saying that some of his language in a phone conversation last week with political donors puts some of the blame for what happened on him.
According to the Politico website, Joe Biden said this to his supporters on the phone call: “I have one job, and that’s to beat Donald Trump. I’m absolutely certain I’m the best person to be able to do that. So, we’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye.”
And that’s enough for Joe Biden to be getting some of the blame for the attempt to take-out the yet-to-be confirmed Republican nominee.
Although, that’s just a formality and Trump is expected to be confirmed later this week.
Here’s what Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, who is in the running to be Trump’s running mate in this year’s election, has been saying.
“The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs. That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.”
So Joe Biden can’t win. He can’t win the election. And he can’t win because, here he is showing concern and support for Trump, calling for calm, and some Republicans are saying he’s partly to blame.
He’s also dreaming if he thinks that this is going to be some sort of watershed moment in American politics. A watershed moment in American society full-stop, for that matter.
I get that he has to say something. But the US President is dreaming when he says: “There’s no place in America for this kind of violence. It’s sick. It’s sick. We cannot allow for this to be happening. We cannot be like this. We cannot condone this.”
Another thing he’s been saying since the shooting is that political violence is unheard of in America, which it's not. There’s been no shortage of reports detailing the country's history of political violence.
Joe Biden has also said: "We have to unite this country."
But how many times have you seen Joe Biden - or any other American president - say this sort of thing whenever something like this happens?
Whenever there’s a mass shooting or any other violent incident, there's always the same old rhetoric about putting an end to violence . And we know what happens. It doesn’t end.
Which is why I have very little faith in America’s capability of uniting in the way Joe Biden is calling for. Because, if you've got Republicans accusing Joe Biden of inciting the shooter, what hope for unity is there?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In Canterbury we talk about things happening pre-earthquake and post-earthquake. And I’ve been trying to remember what things were like pre-earthquake when it comes to road cones.
Because after the quakes there were road cones everywhere and, on the first few anniversaries, we had people putting flowers in road cones around town.
I remember on the first anniversary, driving to work and seeing the cones all decorated.
Thirteen/fourteen years on, though, I think it’s safe to say that our attitude towards road cones has shifted a bit. So much so that the Transport Minister is launching a crackdown.
And he has come to the road cone capital of New Zealand to do it. Christchurch is where he’s announcing his plan to have less road cones and less unnecessary disruptions on our roads.
And I say “hallelujah” to that. Especially if it means we have less of those crazy situations where there’s work done on a stretch of road, they finish the job, move on to the next one, but the cones stay there for weeks after.
It’s something Simeon Brown talked about a lot about pre-election. And, since being in government and becoming the minister responsible for roading, he’s cracked on with doing something about it.
The starting point was to find out whether this excessive use of road cones we talk about is just an impression or a perception, or whether it’s real.
So he got NZTA to review 800 road maintenance or road works sites around the country —where there were road cones and all the other traffic-slowing measures in place— and they found that at 145 of those 800 sites, the road cones weren’t actually needed.
So boompha, that was the ammo he needed. Yes, road cone use is out of control. And so he’s doing something about it.
Which will delight the likes of Mid-Canterbury farmer Ray Logan who says he is fed up with the number of road cones around the place.
He says he drove past the Ashburton Domain, where they were putting in a new kerb and channel, and the road cones stretched the entire length of the work site "almost touching each other".
He’s been quoted in the media saying: "It's just excessive, and I see it as having no respect for the ratepayer's money.
"It's already fenced on both sides, so really you only need a few dozen cones as the fence is the barricade but then you have this long line of I don't know how many road cones.
"Completely unnecessary."
The local council has hit back at that saying that the work involves heavy machinery and an open trench. There are kids from the local high school using the area. There’s people using the domain to think about, and there’s a rest home nearby.
So, as far as the council’s concerned, all the road cones aren’t over-the-top at all.
Which the council would say. Because the other thing in all of this, is the health and safety regulations that are at the root of this road cone madness.
The Ashburton council, for example, knows that if it didn’t have that sea of road cones at that work site by the Ashburton Domain —and something terrible happened— it would be in the firing line for failing to keep the workers there safe.
Which is something the Government has committed to looking at. Whether our health and safety laws —like the road cones— are excessive and out-of-control.
But this is a great start. Because the only winners at the moment are the road cone companies.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This week on Politics Friday John MacDonald was joined by Labour’s Tracey McLellan and National’s Matt Doocey to wrap the week that was.
The hot topic of the morning was the comments from Transport Minister Simeon Brown regarding the extreme overuse of road cones in New Zealand. Do we have an obsession?
John asked Matt if he still feels he didn’t need to read a report into abuse in care before attending a meeting with survivors, and is it fair of Labour to want to tax people on inheritance?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I think we’ve reached the point where people are going to be asking themselves not only “if I book a ticket on the Interislander, how confident can I be that they won’t cancel on me?” I think we’re at the point now we’re people will also be asking themselves how safe they feel using the service.
I was talking to someone who said after this news about the autopilot on the Aratere the other week, that’s them done with the Interislander and, if they want or need to take a ferry across Cook Strait, it will be Bluebridge all the way.
And that’s not because of delays. This person has lost confidence in the safety of KiwiRail’s Interislander service.
I’m not at that point - yet. For me, I think I can say that if I jumped on an Interislander ferry right now, I’d be pretty confident about getting there safely.
The reliability of the service going ahead and not being cancelled at the last minute is another thing. But I’d feel pretty confident about the safety side of things. But there’s a key word there: “pretty”.
I reckon 10 years ago there’d be no “pretty” about it and I’d have no qualms at all about safety. Today, I’m still confident - but not as confident as I used to be.
And KiwiRail should be listening to this. Because the reason my confidence in the safety of its service isn't what it used to be, isn’t because of what happened just under three weeks ago when the Aratere ran aground.
It's because of KiwiRail’s “nothing to see here” attitude.
Which New Zealand First leader and Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters says is nothing new. He says the people running the Interislander are just continuing what’s been happening for years. Not being upfront about things.
Now, I know as much as the next Health & Safety and legal person, that KiwiRail has needed to be careful about this from day one. Because the last thing it wants is the crew who were on-board that ferry the night it ran aground feeling as if they’ve been thrown under the bus by their employer - and KiwiRail finding itself being hit with personal grievance cases left, right and centre.
Generally, what happens in these situations, is employers just clam-up and say nothing. They bang-on about following a process and investigations and not jumping to conclusions and not pointing fingers.
But that all means nothing when you have political parties speculating on social media —as New Zealand First has been— and when you get internal reports being leaked. As has happened in the past 24 hours.
KiwiRail would have been far better to say, as soon as it knew about this issue with the wrong button being pressed, that the ship had been serviced recently, that what happened when it ran aground seemed to be related to the steering, but it looks like there was some element of human error involved. So emphasise that the ship itself wasn’t packing a sad.
If they had done that, it would’ve done wonders for public confidence in the Interislander. But instead, we’ve now got people starting to question the safety of the service altogether. Not just its reliability - but its safety.
I hope KiwiRail is listening.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I bet if you drive a petrol vehicle and you’ve said anything about how much cheaper it must be to have a diesel, anyone who does have a diesel has jumped down your throat and started banging-on about road user charges. Or RUCs, as they’re known.
Because when you buy petrol you pay a fuel tax. When you buy diesel, you don’t. But you have to —or you’re supposed to— pay road user charges.
And, as we know, the EV drivers who have been getting away paying nothing are getting brought into the road user charge regime.
So, while the diesel might be cheaper at the pump, it kind of all evens-out once you take the RUCs into account. That’s the thinking anyway.
But the New Zealand Initiative think tank is saying today: “Wrong, it doesn’t even out at all”. They’re saying it’s actually very uneven.
They’re saying today that we need to ditch the current road-user charging model because it's old-hat and isn't a fair way of getting the money needed to build and maintain roads.
And they’re not just saying ‘stop doing what we’re doing’. They’ve also come up with an idea that they think would be fairer - which I agree with, to a point. And I’ll get to where I have reservations about it.
So what the New Zealand Initiative wants to see is a system using things like smart technology to monitor vehicles and set individual charges for every vehicle owner based on the types of vehicles we drive, how far we drive and when we drive.
It says a system like this would also make it easy to bring-in congestion charging, which it believes is also necessary to get traffic flowing more freely in our cities.
So, essentially, what it's proposing is a different type of user-pays system to fund our roads instead of the petrol taxes and road user charges we currently have.
It says it wouldn’t necessarily increase the revenue the Government gets from motorists, but it would spread the cost burden more evenly and fairly.
Example: the impact of flat fuel taxes on people on low incomes. The NZ Initiative makes the assumption that if you're on a low income, you tend to have a vehicle or vehicles that are less fuel efficient than something that’s rolled-of the production line this year.
So you might not actually use the roads any more than the flash Harry with the new car. But you are penalised because your car’s less fuel efficient.
So, generally, I get the thinking and I like the idea. But you’re not going to get me installing devices in my vehicles that keep a record of what I do with them.
Call me paranoid, but I think there is enough monitoring going on. Find my iPhone, cameras everywhere. So, if this went ahead, I’d be saying ‘no thanks’ to the “smart” part of all this —the electronic monitoring— and I'd have to pay my road user charge ahead of time. Just like the system we have in place now.
So, yes, I agree that the way we do it now is cack-handed and clumsy and we need to do things differently.
And, yes, taxing people on the basis of road use instead of fuel consumption makes much more sense.
But it’s a definite 'no' from me when it comes to installing more devices to keep tabs on what I'm up to.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There is a very fine line between being highly principled and high-and-mighty. And I think the Green Party has crossed that line.
Even though the Greens think their now-ex list MP Darleen Tana is so bad that they want her out of Parliament altogether, and even though there is legislation that would enable them to make that happen, we’ve got this circus and the public pleading for her to resign. Simply because it would mean using a law that they never wanted in the first place.
A law that former co-leader James Shaw famously described as a "dead rat" the party had to swallow and support’ as part of its confidence and supply agreement with the former Labour/NZ First coalition government.
But so what? I’d forgive you Chlöe. Yes, it could look a little bit hypocritical. It could look a bit two-faced. But so what?
So the report on the investigation into claims Darleen Tana was aware of complaints of migrant exploitation at her husband’s bike shop business has finally been delivered to the Greens.
And, over the weekend, there were meetings left, right and centre —and yesterday— they announced that Darleen Tana was no longer one of them.
But that wasn’t all. They also pleaded with her publicly to quit parliament altogether because they feel “utterly betrayed” and they don’t think she is fit to be an MP.
And this morning, co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick went next level and told Newstalk ZB that Darleen Tana is a liar.
So she’s quit the party. But can remain in Parliament as an independent MP and is already kicking up a fuss saying she's been hard done by and is not prepared to accept the investigation's findings.
The Greens do have an ace up their sleeve - the waka-jumping legislation. Which they reluctantly supported back in the day when Labour and NZ First were running the shop. And which they also, subsequently, tried to get rid of, in cahoots with National.
But it still exists and it's still available to them and, in my opinion, they should take full advantage and get this person they’ve been betrayed by and who they think isn’t fit to be an MP, out of the place sooner rather than later.
The process they would have to follow would be writing to Tana herself and telling her that if she remains in Parliament (after resigning from the party) she will distort the Green Party’s proportionality in Parliament (as determined at the election).
Tana would then have 21 working days to respond, after which the Greens’ caucus would consider the matter. And if at least two-thirds of the caucus agreed, they could then write to the Speaker asking for the law to be invoked, and she would be gone-burger.
And I think that is exactly what they should be doing.
Darleen Tana is not the first politician to be called a liar. She is not the first politician to quit their party.
But if the Greens genuinely believe she is not fit to be an MP, then they need to stop all the shenanigans, stop all the high-and-mighty nonsense and get on with it.
They might not like the waka-jumping law. But I suspect they like Darleen Tana even less.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I don’t love the idea, but I’m willing to accept it.
That’s how I’d describe my stance on paying a toll charge to use a piece of road.
Just like when pay TV became a thing in New Zealand. I didn’t like it, but I accepted it.
So what’s happened, is that NZTA and the Government have announced that they expect work on the new Belfast to Pegasus motorway - which includes the new Woodend Bypass road - to begin within three years.
Which is music to the ears of people who drive in tha area on a regular basis. For me, I would say that I only go through Woodend when I’m heading away on holidays and coming back again.
So, while I get the argument about how congested things are there, I’m generally in holiday mode when I travel through there. But, if you live in Woodend or use any bit of that road there day-in/day-out, I can see why you might be at your wits end.
Not to mention the safety issues in that whole area.
So, while it’s not quite a new highway to Ashburton, the news that the Belfast to Pegasus motorway is happening is very positive.
Not surprisingly, the Government is talking about using road tolls to help pay for this project and its other roads of significance.
Transport Minister Simeon Brown says all options are on the table, including public/private partnerships.
As for road tolls, he’s got no idea at this stage how much we might be pinged for using these new roads. That will be influenced by what it ends up costing to build these roads.
So mark the date - Monday the 8th of July - which will go down in history as the day the Government started its sell-job on more user-pays roading.
But it doesn’t need to worry about me. I’m already sold on the idea. Because we are dreaming if we think there is any other way of paying for new, decent roads in this country.
As you the Government says, tolls will be charged on roads where there is a non-tolled alternative. So you won't be forced to pay. It will be your choice.
If I’m honest, chances are I’ll end up paying the road tolls not because I make some sort of proactive choice to. I’ll probably use the new Belfast to Pegasus motorway and only remember the toll once I’m on it.
But, even then, I won’t get annoyed. Because I know that road tolls are the only way to go.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Even though the air temperature was down around the minus-4 mark in Canterbury this morning, there would have been no shortage of muppets driving as if it’s the middle of summer.
You know, the speed limit’s 50kph or 80kph or 100kph and that’s the speed I’m going to go.
Don’t worry about the fact that there’ll be some other clowns driving around with their windscreens still frosted over. Or people driving east into that low winter sun, struggling to see what’s coming towards them.
Only problem is —and this isn’t limited to days like today— is how confident we can be that we know what the speed limit actually is whenever we’re driving somewhere.
Once upon a time, you’d be driving around town and you’d pretty much know it was 50 kph. And then, once you got onto the open road, it was 100.
I know there were things like Limited Speed Zones, but I think we can agree that it was much clearer what speeds we were expected to be travelling at.
These days, it can be a guessing game. I know the NZTA people would probably poo-poo that and say ‘it’s very clear what the speed expectations are’.
But tell that to the person I know who was pinged for speeding just outside Motueka a couple of summers ago.
It looked like a 100 kph zone. Felt like a 100 kph zone. But wrong! It was an 80 kph zone. Nevertheless, I’m not in favour of this one-size-fits-all approach the Government wants to take.
I get that the Government wants to deal-to the confusion that there can be about what speed limits apply where, by reversing some of the changes brought-in under the previous administration. Essentially, back to what they were four years ago.
This would include having “variable speed limits” around schools. So, instead of it being 30 kph outside schools all the time, the Government wants to make it 30 kph during school drop-off and pick-up times, and 50 kph the rest of the time.
And, not surprisingly, there is push-back coming from local councils, who say they know best when it comes to setting speed limits in their areas.
Auckland Council has already put it to a vote. 18 councillors don’t want the Government poking its nose-in and raising speed limits. And only three Auckland councillors do. A pretty overwhelming rejection.
Meantime, here in Canterbury, the Christchurch City Council is starting to flex its muscles too, saying that bringing-in variable speed limits around schools would require it to spend about $7 million of ratepayer money on new signs that could show different speed limits at different times.
Councillor Sara Templeton is in the news today saying that local communities have asked the council time-and-time-again to make streets safer and, if the Government thinks it can just go holus-bolus and put in a 50 kph speed limit everywhere, then it’s ignoring what the local people want.
She says people who support lower speed limits are always accused of being “ideologically driven”, which she rejects.
According to Councillor Templeton, it’s the people who want to increase speed limits who are the ones driven by ideology. Because —by her definition— ideology is “opinions with no evidence”.
The question to consider in all of this, though, is who knows best when it comes to setting speed limits. Is it the Government in Wellington? Or is it the people on-the-ground locally? Your local councils.
The people who get their ears chewed all the time about unsafe roads outside schools. Hoons causing trouble on Saturday nights. That sort of thing.
So it’s a no-brainer, isn’t it? Well, for me, it is.
What makes Wellington think it can set a blanket speed limit that will be appropriate everywhere? As Christchurch councillor Sara Templeton is saying today, “for a Government that talked about localism and councils taking responsibility for their communities at the last election, it seems to be mandating a lot of stuff from Wellington.” And I couldn’t agree with her more.
I also couldn’t agree more with those 18 Auckland councillors who voted in favour of telling the Government to butt-out when it comes to setting speed limits.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday John MacDonald was joined by Labour’s Megan Woods and National’s Hamish Campbell to dig into the biggest topics from the week.
With Newshub airing its final broadcast tonight, they reflected on the media landscape and discussed the new Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill.
Who is responsible for speed limits, local councils or the central government? And Megan offers a new name for the stadium.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There are going to be some noses out of joint today, with this announcement from the Government about what it’s going to do to try and sort out the shortage of houses in this country.
In Housing Minister Chris Bishop’s own words, the Government is going to “flood” cities with more land so that more houses can be built, so that supply can go up, and so that more people can afford a roof over their heads.
But that’s not all. It’s also going to stop local councils from mandating balconies or minimum floor areas for places like apartments. Instead, property developers and the market are going to decide that.
Which sounds like good old fashioned ‘supply and demand’ at work, doesn’t it?
So how is it going to do this “flooding of the market” with more land so that more places can be built?
Well again, this is going to be another thing that gets local councils brassed off. It’s going to tell councils that they can no longer set fixed urban-rural boundaries.
Which will have some people upset about productive farmland being sacrificed for housing. But what is a government to do?
Which is why I think we need to, at least, give the Government’s ideas a chance. To give it a go.
But don’t expect councils to be so open-minded. Because you can bet your bottom dollar that they’ll be banging-on about the Government over-reaching. Poking its nose in local business when it shouldn’t be.
They’ll be telling the Government to butt out. Which Chris Bishop fully expects, of course.
I can think already of one council, in particular, that will be pushing back.
The same council that —as one of its members said at the time— “flipped the bird” at the last government over its housing intensification plans.
Christchurch city is the one I’m referring to. And I’m picking that it will be lining-up to butt heads with the Government over this latest attempt to sort out the housing situation in New Zealand.
But we know what will happen. It will just turn out to be bluster and noise. And the Government will get its way. Which, in my opinion, it should.
Because any opposition —from local councils, anyway— is just about patch protection. That’s all it is. They don’t really give a damn about amenities and solving problems.
What’s more, I think we have to move on from this idea that you’re not living unless you have a standalone house on a quarter-acre section. That you haven’t made it in life if you can’t walk out the back door and feel grass under your feet - grass that you own. Or the bank owns, anyway.
It’s a fallacy. It’s a dead-end street. And when you see your local councillors —and I’m not just talking about Christchurch here, either— when you see your local councillors jumping up-and-down saying the Government is pouring cold water on the quarter acre dream, cover your ears.
Because they’re not worried about your dreams. They’re not worried about realistic, sustainable solutions to the housing shortage. They’re not worried about your backyard. They’re just worried about their own.
And the Government is doing way more than any council will to fix the housing crisis.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There’s a thing in politics called “optics”.
Which is exactly what it sounds like. It’s all about being seen to do something. It’s also about how people see whatever it is you’re doing.
You know: “Mmmm, how will this look, do you reckon? What will people think when they see us doing this, do you think?"
And that is exactly what’s behind the Government’s Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. Which is politico or legalise-speak for making the big social media companies pay a fee if they want to make money off the news and current affairs content made by our local media companies.
On the face of it, it’s a perfectly reasonable thing to do. To expect people who make money oft of a product other outfits spend money making or producing, to pay something for the privilege.
That’s on the face of it. But, in reality, this is going to go nowhere.
They're already doing this in Australia with the likes of Facebook and Google but, at the end of this year, Facebook is pulling out. So, if Mark Zuckerberg reckons he can live without news from Australia, will he feel the same about news from New Zealand? Of course he will. And this will end up going nowhere.
Funnily enough, that’s what National thought last year too when Labour came up with pretty much this very same piece of legislation.
Last year, National said it was a “shakedown”. Which is slang for extortion or blackmail. By yesterday, though, it had changed its tune and was saying it was “something worth doing”.
That’s what Media Minister Paul Goldsmith was saying.
I thought Labour was dreaming when it started flogging this idea last year too. But I’m not going to pile on National and accuse it of doing a U-turn or giving in because, as I’ve said before, what good is a mind if you can’t change it?
What’s more, I don’t think National —in its heart of hearts— has done a U-Turn at all. Because I actually don’t think it has changed its mind. All it’s doing here is dealing with the optics.
Because, think about it, come Friday, the ratings for the news on TV3 are probably going to go through the roof. Because, on Friday night, Newshub is going to put-out its last-ever TV news bulletin.
The same thing happened when TV3 pulled the plug on Campbell Live. In its last weeks, that show had some of its best ratings ever. It’s classic rubbernecking. People love to watch something going down in flames. And this Friday will be no different.
So you can you imagine the heat coming the Government’s way, the closer we get to Friday and the closer we get to Newshub’s demise. Can you imagine the heat it would be getting if it hadn’t come up with something that made it at least look like it was doing something to help-out the media sector?
To make it look like it was doing the complete opposite of what the former Media Minister Melissa Lee did —or didn't do— and who got kicked out of that role for being completely hopeless at the optics. That’s what it came down to.
Which, by the way, if you’re Paul Goldsmith and you’re told you’re the new Media Minister and you have to do a better job than Melissa Lee - well, probably not too difficult.
So, what he did yesterday - 72 hours before Newshub turns off the studio lights for the very last time, is he dragged out something Labour tried to sell previously just so he can say "da-da, we care, we’re doing something, we love the media just as much as you do, and we ate Facebook just as much as you do blah blah blah blah blah.”
One problem, though. National’s coalition partner ACT can see through the optics —just like I can— and is pulling out the old “agree to disagree” clause in its coalition agreement. Just like New Zealand First did the other week.
Which means National now has to go cap-in-hand to Labour, to get it to support the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. Which Labour will do. Only because it’ll give it the opportunity to crow about its great idea and how the Government has done what the social media nasties are doing - stealing other people's ideas and content.
When what Labour should really do, is be gracious. Accept that it’s an idea that was never going to work when it was pushing for it and accept that it’s still an idea that’s never going to fly.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When I heard on Friday morning that the cops had been out in force the night before cracking down on boy racers, I thought two things.
My first thought was ‘that’s great, I hope they do it again right through the weekend’. And the reason I thought that - and it was purely selfish - was because, with the kids home from uni, I knew a couple of them were planning to drive out to a party with mates on Saturday night.
At that point, I had it in my head that the party was up Kaiapoi-way, so I had visions of them shooting up the motorway on Saturday night.
Turns out I didn’t quite have my finger on the pulse and the party was in town. Either way, that was one of the things that went through my head when I heard the police had interrupted eight “skid Meets” - as they’re known - on Thursday night, involving more than 100 cars. Six in Christchurch. Two in Rolleston.
Three cars were impounded on Thursday night for sustained loss of traction. I think we can assume that’s official ‘police-speak’ for burn-outs.
Eighteen infringement notices were issued to drivers; two cars had green stickers stuck on them, which means there are compliance issues; and another car got a pink sticker - which meant it just shouldn't have been on the road, full stop. You get a pink sticker and your car’s going nowhere.
And it was all part of a nationwide blitz on the boy racers.
So, like I say, when I first heard about two things went through my head. I hope they keep doing it right through the long weekend. Which, it turns out, they did.
And the other thought I had, was that they - as in the Police - and “we”, are dreaming if we think a one-off sting on a long weekend is going to make any long-term difference. Because it’s not.
That didn’t stop acting Canterbury district commander police superintendent Lane Todd from doing a bit of the old chest thumping on the TV news last night.
In another report I’ve seen, the superintendent says: “Our staff did an excellent job identifying potential hotspots and consistently targeting participants in unsafe vehicles.”
No argument from me there. They didn't just do an excellent job - they did a brilliant job. And I reckon, because of it, the roads in Canterbury were much safer than usual over the weekend.
But, whether we like it or not, boy racers are here to stay. And, unless the police are going to do what they did at the weekend every weekend, or maybe even every night - then the success thry had at the weekend will just be a one-off.
I’ve had a gutsful of boy racers. We had that tragedy last September when an 18-year-old woman died after the car she was in crashed into the side of a house in Rangiora.
They’d been at an illegal street racing event and, when the police turned-up just before 5:45am, the driver took off and ended-up crashing.
The cops started following but gave up after a while because of the way the car was being driven and because they got into a built-up area. Not long after that, the driver lost control and crashed.
And, just weeks before that happened, there was all the fuss about boy racers causing mayhem for some of the animals at Orana Park. Because that stretch of road at McLeans Island is your boy racer’s idea of heaven.
And all the revving and screeching of tyres had some of the animals so freaked-out that they panicked and they ran around their enclosures and got injured.
But just because we’ve had a gutsful of boy racers. And just because the cops decide to do a surprise crackdown over one long weekend. It’s not going to make any long-term difference.
The only way the police could make any real difference, would be to do what they did at the weekend 24-hours-a-day, seven days a week. But that is never going to happen.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger joined John MacDonald for their regular catchup.
The Mayor is currently in the midst of long term plan discussions, and gave his thoughts on the rates residents can expect, funding for the Arts Centre, and Orana Park.
And, the Government is looking to make it so Māori wards are up for a vote, what are Mauger’s thoughts? Does he think the bill is needed?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Moses Mackay of Sol3 Mio fame is in Christchurch, performing Le Comte Ory with the New Zealand Opera.
He joined John MacDonald to discuss the show and his life in Italy.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This might be because I’m still recovering from the Bird Flu/Man Flu combo that had me stuck in bed last week. Or maybe, on this occasion, Winston Peters is actually making sense.
Either way, I agree with him that it’s Mickey Mouse that we have an epidemiologist who was involved in our COVID response, leading the inquiry into it. The Royal Commission.
Which, by the way, I think is critical. I know it would be very easy to decide that we are all over this COVID thing and what good is a royal commission going to do? And who says that when another pandemic happens we’re going to even bother using what we’ve learned this time around?
They are all risks. But, as far as I’m concerned, they are not reasons not to have an official inquiry.
But back to Tony Blakeley. He was one of those people along with the likes of Michael Baker etc who were on TV night-and-day talking about all the modelling and how sick we were going to get blah blah blah blah blah.
And being humans, we all had our favourites, didn’t we? And there were others, of course, that some of us couldn’t stand. And when it comes to my personal favourites, Tony Blakely was one of mine.
He’s a kiwi but he’s based in Melbourne and he always seemed to do his TV interviews in front of one of those glass block walls that were the in-thing back in the 80s. And I could never work out whether he was in some 80s-throwback hospital or whether he had some funky 80s-inspired apartment.
And I’ll admit that I probably got so distracted by the glass block wall thing that I probably missed a lot of what he actually had to say. Either way, I liked him. I thought he was a good guy who seemed to know what he was on about.
But, as well as being one of the media’s COVID rent-a-mouths, he also had the ear of the Labour-led government - which asked him for his advice on how New Zealand should be responding to the COVID pandemic.
And, when you think about it, it does seem crazy that he’s now the guy in charge of running a fine tooth comb through New Zealand’s COVID response so that we can learn some lessons and do a better job next time around. Because, if there’s one thing we can all agree on, there will be a “next time around”.
So Winston has never been happy that one of Labour’s COVID mates has had the job of leading the COVID-19 Inquiry. And he’s not happy that Tony Blakely is going to stay in charge, either.
Which is why he’s pulling out the “agree-to-disagree” clause in his party’s coalition agreement with National.
Which is somewhat academic. Because what the Government has done is split the inquiry into two phases. So Phase 1 is what we’ve had up until now and which will continue until November - with Tony Blakely in charge.
And then, in November, Phase 2 will begin. Which will look into things such as the vaccines and vaccine safety; the extended lockdowns in Auckland and Northland; and the extent of disruption to people’s lives and businesses.
And it’s not going to be an overnight thing. Phase 2 of the Inquiry will begin in November and final recommendations are expected to be delivered in February 2026. About 20 months from now. Just shy of two years.
And I’m happy with that. Because I think it is critical that this work is done. It would be a wasted opportunity if we didn’t put a spotlight on how New Zealand handled the COVID pandemic and commit ourselves to learning from the cock-ups.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When I was off sick last week, I was crook enough to need to see a couple of doctors. And I’m very glad Chris Hipkins wasn’t one of them.
Because, if he had been and if he was true to the noises he’s been making about the Government’s big cancer drugs announcement yesterday, then he’d probably spend all his time apologising to me for taking too long to work out what was actually wrong with me.
Which I wouldn’t give two hoots about as long as I knew what it was that was making me crook and how I was going to get better.
And I’m picking that’s how most cancer patients and their families will be feeling today, with the Government confirming more than $600 million will be going to Pharmac to fund around 26 cancer treatments.
Do you think the people who are going to benefit —and their families— are going to quibble over the timing?
If you’re expecting me to pile into the Government —like Chris Hipkins and Labour have been since yesterday’s announcement— then maybe you don’t know me as well as you think you do.
Because, if I wanted to, I could very easily say that the Government is just doing what the patron saint of Prime Ministers used to do back in the day - this is Sir John Key I’m talking about. If I wanted to, I could very easily say that Christopher Luxon is just doing what his old mentor did back in the day, and he’s just using the cancer money to take our attention off other stuff like ferries breaking down.
I could say that. But I wouldn’t mean it. I’d just be saying it.
Just like I could say that the Government’s only coming up with the money for the cancer drugs now because it’s listened to the old talkback focus groups and realised —after the fact— that it dropped the ball not including it in the Budget a few weeks back.
I could say that. But I wouldn’t mean it. And I wouldn’t believe it.
What I do believe, is that the Government has done the right thing and who cares about the timing?
And if you want a less sugar-coated description, let’s bring-in medical oncologist Chris Jackson who told Newstalk ZB that the cancer funding announcement is “an excellent outcome from a terrible process”.
But again, so what?
Because all of us, we have all known someone to varying degrees who has been affected by cancer.
Next month, it’ll be 25 years since we lost dad to cancer. Mum’s had her own cancer scares. Someone else in the family had a brush with it last year.
So this is something that affects all of us and will be of benefit to many of us. And that’s why I think Chris Hipkins is being miserly and why I think he’s only doing what he’s accusing the government of doing - playing politics with cancer.
In fact, I remember when he was in government and his party had the chance to splash the cash on cancer treatment, and it didn’t. I remember it distinctly. It was a couple of Budgets ago and a bunch of cancer survivors made the trip to Wellington expecting a big spend-up on cancer drugs.
And what happened? They left town bitterly disappointed that only half the amount they expected was in the Budget. That was when Labour decided it was better to spend the money merging our public media companies.
But Chris Hipkins seems to have forgotten about that.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Resources Minister Shane Jones... He was full of it when he was on with Mike this morning.
This was all about the government's plan to lift the ban on oil and gas exploration. He said that you and I, we've got two choices: We can either go with the people he calls the ‘Lotus Eaters’ - these are the people who are outraged that the government’s lifting the ban. The people he says have been fed and swallowed a diatribe about climate change and oil and gas being the bad guys.
Or, he says we can go with the government, which is going ‘Well you can't stop progress on it.’ And I'll tell you right now, I'm with the Lotus Eaters. I'll tell you why shortly, but a bit of a bit of background first: You remember how. Back in what, 2018, the former Labour-New Zealand first government pulled the pin, saying it didn't make sense to cry about tackling climate change and allow the energy companies to keep plundering the natural environment.
And before the election last year, noises were made about ditching the ban. And so yesterday the government delivered. Well, it announced or confirmed its intention to deliver. And the government reckons that we'll have it across the line sometime later this year, which has the energy companies delighted, of course.
Someone who isn't delighted, though is Megan Woods. She was Energy Minister back in 2018, when the Labour-New Zealand First Coalition government put the kibosh on further exploration.
Shane Jones claimed this morning that took him and Winston by surprise. When that happened back in 2018. And he doesn't want to take anyone else by surprise this time round. Which is why the ban won't be lifted overnight. But, as we say here in New Zealand, it will happen.
So, as soon as the government made the announcement yesterday - Megan Woods was on the fax machine, she was on the attack, saying that the government is continuing what she called quote, “It's mindless charge toward giving fossil fuel companies free reign”. I'll quote a few more things from her. What she's saying on the fax machine, she went on to say, quote, “Climate change is the number one issue facing New Zealand and Minister Jones is hell bent on ignoring options of energy that are future-proofed and up to global standards.” She says, “New Zealand has been taken backwards. This government is being cruel to future generations. This will take decades to undo, if the damage can be undone at all.” End of Quote. A fiery talk from Megan Woods yesterday.
Not surprisingly, the Green Party - just as fired up. Not that that has Shane Jones worried in any way, shape or form. Who, as I said earlier - when it comes to oil and gas exploration, he says New Zealand has two options. Here's how he described those two options to Mike earlier.
“You either take the Lotus Eater, Green approach, or people who want to tranquillize the economy, or you stand with us. We're going to turbocharge the economy. You've got a clear choice.”
So, I'm with the Lotus Eaters. Which, if you were listening to the conversation, we had a few weeks back about extracting more minerals on the West Coast and here in Canterbury, and also further up the South Island. If you're listening, you might think that's a bit contradictory of me to say that. Because I'm all in favour of us taking a look at what's under the bonnet when it comes to minerals under the ground, because that is where the future is. So much so that Middle Eastern countries want to pour money into mineral extraction in Australia because they know that oil is a dead-end game to be involved in long-term anyway.
And it's for that very same reason, that I think the government is barking up the wrong tree, giving the green light for more oil and gas exploration. It's doing it really, because it was part of the coalition deal. But it's not going to attract that big investment. Shane Jones seems to think it will. Because in three year's time, if we have a change of government, the ban will be back in place and the energy companies will know that. And do you really think they're going to fall for all the bluster and all the torque from Shane Jones? Of course they won't. And I think Shane Jones knows that himself too. But he can't say it, of course, because he was talking this morning when he was on with Mike about wanting to secure long-term contracts with the oil and gas companies. Which I tell you what, smells to me like Rio Tinto and the aluminium smelter all over again.
Because if these big companies are going to sign long-term contracts, knowing the political risk involved involved. Then they're going to be wanting all the sweeteners in the world, aren't they? And the ministers talk about securing long term contracts. It is just code. It is code for New Zealand giving the oil and gas companies whatever they want, just to get some ink on the dotted line.
LISTEN ABOVE.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National’s Vanessa Weenink and Labour’s Reuben Davidson joined John MacDonald to dig into the biggest political stories of the week.
Nicola Willis believes that it is a politician's job to provide hope for their citizens, do they agree as we head towards next week’s Budget?
Is mining on the West Coast a good idea to boost the local economy, or does there need to be more consideration of the environmental impact?
And it looks like the first home buyers grant is set to be axed in favour of funding social housing, are people being let down?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Who would think that former Finance Minister Grant Robertson and current Finance Minister Nicola Willis could agree on anything? But it seems they do.
Both of them think that it’s the job of politicians to give people hope. I think that’s wishful thinking on their part.
When Grant Robertson gave his valedictory speech two months ago before leaving Parliament to become Vice-Chancellor at the University of Otago, he said: “You’ve got to give them hope”.
He said: “That is our job in this place: to give people hope. To give hope to those who seek a better tomorrow for their families and communities, to give hope to everyone that they can be who they are and live free of discrimination, and to give hope to those who have none.”
And then yesterday, in her pre-Budget speech, Nicola Willis said the thing New Zealanders need most right now is "hope that tomorrow will be better".
Well I tell you what, unless Nicola Willis announces next week that the guy with the thick accent who called her on a crackly line from Nigeria saying he had $200 billion to gift to New Zealand - unless she announces that it wasn’t actually a scam and the money’s already in the bank, then don’t expect me to say today that I’m hopeful about where New Zealand is heading.
And, as for what Grant Robertson said about it being the job of MPs to give people hope - well, that might be the theory, but we’re deluded if we expect politicians to change our worlds.
I remember on the night of the 1984 election, and I was just about to drop out of school. I say “drop out” because, now that I look back on it, that’s what I was doing.
I had scraped through three school certificate subjects, failed two, and the last place I wanted to be was school, especially the school I was at. So, my parents agreed to let me leave and start working at the little shop they ran in Dunedin.
And I remember on the night of that 1984 election, we were all sitting around the TV watching David Lange make his big victory speech and I remember my mother turning around to me and saying that if Labour hadn’t won, I wouldn’t be leaving school.
That was the hope she had that the change in government was going to make it a better place. As we know, though, that night in 1984 was the starting point in a time of significant upheaval and turmoil.
Forty years on from then, here we are in another state of upheaval and turmoil.
And I think Nicola Willis is dreaming if she expects us to have hope. And I think Grant Robertson was big on theory when he said it’s the job of politicians to give people hope - but he was dreaming too.
Because what gives people hope is sentiment. Not policies, not slogans, and certainly not politicians. And anyone whose hope level is dictated by the weasel words of politicians is only setting themselves up for disappointment.
So, on the basis of hope being based on sentiment, you’ve got to say that the sentiment right now in New Zealand is far from hopeful.
And I’m not just basing that on how things are for me, personally, because I’m actually at a stage in life where we no longer have all the expenses that come with having kids at school. We own a house. The big $400-$500 shops at Pak ‘n’ Save only happen during the university holidays, not all the time.
Yes, things are blimmin’ expensive and we’ve done what a lot of people seem to have been doing recently and we’ve ditched Netflix and Neon and all those things. But that’s largely because we can - not because we have to. Not because it comes down to Netflix or a loaf of bread.
So you could say that I have more reasons than a lot of people to be hopeful.
But I don’t. Because I’m looking at this obsession with government cost-cutting and I’m asking, ‘where’s the thinking behind it, other than simplistic numbers and percentages?”. And the answer to that, is there isn’t.
I’m not hopeful because I look around and see infrastructure falling to pieces around our ears.
I’m not hopeful because businesses are in survival mode, trying to stay afloat in an oily rag economy.
And I’m certainly not hopeful when politicians tell me that hope is what I need most, and that they’re going to deliver it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mining is on the way back.
That’s the message today from Regional Development and Resources Minister Shane Jones who is on the West coast to announce the Government's proposal to double mining exports (which are already worth $1 billion) by allowing mining in some conservation areas - not just for coal, but other minerals too.
The Government says one of the big selling points is the number of jobs it would create. About 2,000 new jobs it reckons. And not just on the Coast, either. Because the Government thinks there are opportunities here in Canterbury too, as well as Marlborough.
Not that the protesters, who are going to be all over this today, are buying that. They don’t want a bar of it.
Which is the challenge we’re always going to have with something like this, isn’t it? Cover your ears, no-no-no, not interested, mining is bad, blah blah blah.
But I tell you what, I’m willing to hear the Government out on this one. It’s not like Shane Jones is going to be telling us that it’s all-go from tomorrow, that he'll be sending the trucks in at dawn.
What he is saying is let’s have a look at this and see if we can make it work. Let’s investigate what we’ve got under the ground and work out if we can make a go of it. And he’ll get no opposition from me on that.
Not that a few protesters will be an issue for this particular minister. Shane Jones being Shane Jones, he’ll probably be right up for a bit of korero with the anti-mining crew.
He might even trot out that line he used recently when he said (quote): “If there is a mining opportunity and it's impeded by a blind frog, then goodbye, Freddie.”
So, what this is all about today isn’t just coal and gold. It’s about all the other minerals under the ground on the Coast, in Canterbury and in Marlborough, that the Government reckons could be a goldmine for the New Zealand economy.
But, of course, what today will inevitably lead to is a battle of ideologies. It’s probably underway already, actually, which doesn’t help anyone. And it’s something I’ve seen before.
I remember in 1999 and 2000 when I was working as a journalist and spending a lot of my time on the West Coast reporting on the stoush over the then-Labour government’s move to end native logging on Crown-owned land.
The people on the Coast went berserk because they saw jobs and businesses going at the expense of Labour’s ideology which said taking trees away was bad. Which also put a lot of the locals up against the environmental crowd, who thought no tree should be touched.
What kind of got lost in that row was the fact that the trees weren’t being felled with chainsaws, they were being pulled out of the ground using helicopters in a way designed to let new trees grow and to allow the forests to keep regenerating.
But Helen Clark and Michael Cullen got their way and the native logging on Crown land came to a halt.
What I learned from that experience is how limiting ideologies can be and I hope we don’t repeat the same mistake this time around. Because I say ‘let’s take a look, let’s see if we can get a slice of the minerals pie that Shane Jones is talking about’.
Because who wants to be saying coulda, woulda, shoulda in a few years time about another billion dollars in earnings for our mining sector? I don’t. Do you?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
So, it looks like the Government is going to ditch the First Home Buyers Scheme which gives people up to $10,000 to help get them into their first home.
All up, it costs the Government $60 million a year. It seems that money’s going to go into social housing instead.
And it’s tick, tick, tick from me. That’s because, even though I think there is a place for government involvement in helping people get ahead in life, buying assets is not one of them.
I was talking to someone who was saying that the First Home Buyers Scheme can be one of the only bits of government help some people get - over and above the usual public services. That would be aside from the pension, too, of course.
And that’s government with a small g. This person wasn’t talking about the current government. They were about the government, in general. Or taxpayer support, to put it another way.
But what I say to that is, just because you might never be on ACC, or you might never be on the unemployment benefit, or you might never need a sickness benefit, that doesn’t mean you're owed anything.
And you’re certainly not owed anything to help you buy your first home.
But, of course, there will be people who will be outraged that the scheme is going. Yes, they’ll be unhappy. And that’s because home ownership has come to be seen as something of a basic human right. When it’s not.
Having a roof over your head is a basic human right. Owning that roof, isn’t.
Interestingly, it was a National government in the 1950s which had the thinking that living in a state house should only be for people who needed it, and not for everyone.
So, what it did is it set an income limit and told all the so-called middle-class people that they could forget about getting a state house and started championing home ownership, instead, saying that was what New Zealand aspired to.
And so, it did a couple of things. It said to state house tenants that if they wanted to buy the house they were in, they could. And it increased the availability of what were known as state-advanced loans to help people get into their first homes.
Which meant, within a very short time, 34% of all home loans were from the state. And, of course, what happened was demand outstripped supply and the real estate merry-go-’round got going.
Over the years, it wasn't just National that fuelled this obsession with home ownership. The Labour government that came in after National in 1959 allowed low-income families to have their Family Benefit paid in advance, to help them get a deposit together for a house.
Fast-forward to 1984, and things changed a bit under David Lange’s Labour government. It deregulated the banking sector which brought more competition into banking, stopped the scheme that allowed people to put their Family Benefit towards a deposit, and started introducing market rental rates for state houses.
And, by that time, the horse had well-and-truly bolted and home ownership was the be-all and end-all for a lot of people. As it still is today.
But even though we have a relatively long history of governments helping people out financially if they want to buy a home —to varying degrees, certainly— it’s not a reason to keep doing it.
And the obsession with home ownership certainly isn’t a reason to keep giving taxpayer money to people to buy houses.
And good on the Government —or National anyway— for being true to its word and, in relation to this anyway - being true to its word and basing its housing support on need.
Because no one needs to buy a house. They might want to, but they don’t need to.
Unlike someone on the bones of their backside and on the edge of society, who does actually have a need. They need a roof over their head. And, if the Government is sitting there trying to work out the best way to spend $60 million - then, as far as I’m concerned, that $60 million has to go towards addressing people’s needs. Not subsidising their wants.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined this morning by Chris Hipkins for their regular catchup.
Labour's leader is warning the Government it shouldn't can a grant for first home buyers.
An inquiry led by former PM Sir Bill English has found Kainga Ora needs to find significant savings to be financially viable.
The Housing Minister says every programme the state housing provider runs will be checked for cost value.
Chris Bishop won't rule out dropping first home buyer grants.
Chris Hipkins told John MacDonald that it would be the wrong move.
He says the scheme is a modest contribution to people being able to buy a first home and is not a big chunk of money in the budget process.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What an absolute shambles Kāinga Ora sounds like.
But, let’s be honest, even though the Government is making noises about what a shocker this investigation and report by Sir Bill English is - it’s probably quietly quite pleased with it, don't you think?
And, for me, the key thing it all comes down to is how involved a government, of any persuasion, should be in providing housing for people who need help to get a roof over their head.
Is it the Government’s job to be a developer and a landlord? Or just a landlord?
And I think the smoke signals from Wellington are very clear in that, as far as the current government is concerned, if it could get out of building state houses it would, and it would just focus on being the owner and the landlord.
Which is why I say I reckon it’ll be quietly pleased with what Sir Bill English has delivered in the report he’s written on his investigation into our state housing provider.
But I think we’ll be heading down the wrong track completely if we think the best or only way to get out of the Kāinga Ora shambles is to do the old outsourcing trick.
That’s not to say that Kāinga Ora is a poster child for state or public housing. It’s not. As Sir Bill has highlighted, it’s a shambles. Or as Sir Bill’s report said —echoed by the Housing Minister Chris Bishop yesterday— Kāinga Ora is not financially viable nor socially viable.
Here are some numbers which show how dire things are on the financial front.
Kāinga Ora is staring down the barrel of a $700 million annual deficit.
Its debt level has gone through the roof. In 2018, it had $2.7 billion in debt. By 2023, that had increased to $12.3 billion in June 2023. And it’s now forecast to get up to $23 billion within four years.
Apparently, it has had easy access to debt but has done a completely cruddy job of keeping checks on things with “insufficient focus on fiscal discipline, and low levels of accountability leading to growing annual losses.”
What’s more, Kāinga Ora says it needs $21.4 billion in cash from the Government over the next four years, which the Housing Minister says equates to about $4,000 for every New Zealander.
So, if Kāinga Ora was your business, you would have been shut down by the bank long before now.
Sir Bill English’s report also has harsh things to say about how Kāinga Ora has expanded from being a state landlord to a developer and running schemes to help first-home buyers.
And fair enough too, because that is nuts. I bet that wasn’t what Michael Joseph Savage had in mind when he opened New Zealand’s first state house in Wellington in 1937.
David and Mary McGregor were the first people to live in that house. As well as Prime Minister Savage, 300 other people were at the opening ceremony, and they all trudged through the house in dirty shoes and eventually had to be asked to leave by the McGregors.
And sightseers were still turning days after that, having a nosey through the windows.
Today, there isn’t the same level of fascination with state houses. But interest in the shambles Kāinga Ora has become will be going through the roof after this report that came out yesterday.
One of the real shockers for me, is this finding that the Board —so the people right at the top of the organisation— didn’t seem to be all that concerned about the money side of things.
Chris Bishop said yesterday it was evident that the Board had been acting more as an advisor to management instead of governing the place and telling management what to do and what not to do.
Example: Bill English found that in the papers prepared for the May 2023 Board meeting, there was no Statement of Financial Position. Chris Bishop sys the Board just assumed new lending of several billion dollars from the Government would be approved and didn’t even think about what they’d do if the Government said “no”.
Again, I’ll compare it to the private sector and say that if the Board of a company acted that way, they’d be out on their ears. And they’d probably take the business down with them.
But now the chickens are coming home to roost. A new Board chair has been appointed and the Government is promising a complete shake-up, with Kāinga Ora building fewer houses and the Government getting what are called “Community House Providers” more involved in providing social housing. More often than not, these are charitable organisations.
But is that the answer? I don't think it is.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Heath Franklin will return to Christchurch in June as ‘Chopper’ in his latest comedy tour on June 7. John MacDonald spoke to Heath about his career as Chopper, what it was like to meet the man himself - which turned out to be rather underwhelming, and why he walked away from a career in law to become a comedian.
LISTEN ABOVE.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Shock horror from the OCD today. Shock. Horror.
It's saying that New Zealand has one of the highest rates of homelessness in the developed world. All right, that's what it's saying. But if you dig a little deeper, you find that our definition of homelessness is broader than most other countries, and I think we're a bit quick to classify someone as being homeless here.
I'm not saying it's a low bar, but I do think the definition is broader than it should be. We include refugees and asylum seekers looking for temporary accommodation. We include victims of domestic violence. And people living in housing that isn't really up to scratch, as well as rough sleepers. And what I'm keen to find out today is: what someone's situation has to be for you to consider them to be homeless.
This is at the same time as we have people begging in Richmond in Christchurch saying in the news at the weekend. You might have seen this. They do actually have somewhere to live, but they're struggling to pay for food and power. And so they hit the streets and ask other people for money, which we could all say we struggle to pay the bills to varying degrees, of course. But not all of us sat down the street asking for money. Even your old woke mate here doesn't take kindly to people asking me for money on the street.
As for the way we define homelessness: It's a little bit like the way we define obesity. You know, once upon a time, obese people were obese. These days, it seems we're all being told that we're obese. Even the slim-jims. “Oh, no, you're obese. Really? Yeah. You're obese.”
And I think that's where we've got to with the way we define the homelessness here in New Zealand. Well, I get the argument that if you don't have somewhere regular to put your head down at night, maybe you're doing a few nights at one person's place and a few nights atsomeone else's place. If you're living like that, you can probably say you don't have a regular place to live. But can you say you're homeless? In my in my old school, ‘you're only homeless if you sleep in a sleeping bag on Colombo St.’ way of thinking, I don't think you can.
In my view of the world: if you’ve got a roof over your head, you are not homeless. Because you think of example, you think of all those people in Canterbury. Right now, who have had a relationship break up, for example? Controversial to say? Most likely they're men. So think of someone in that situation. They've had a relationship break up and the start of out having a few nights here and a few nights there, maybe on someone's couch or on a pull-out bed in their lounge. And then bingo, a year down the track they look up and realise they're still doing the same thing. They're still on people's couches, different couches, different nights of the week. Would you consider them homeless? I wouldn't.
And what about the guy back in November last year? Remember this? There was all this excitement about this homeless guy in Petone putting a $5 bet on the Melbourne Cup and winning just over 100,000 bucks. Remember that? Homeless man turns $5. Bet $5 bet into $106,000 - was one of the headlines. And we all thought, oh, brilliant, couldn't think of a better winner. Well, I did anyway.
And then, when you started reading all these stories, you found out that he'd been living in a garage for nine months. That he had a TAB account. He was at the Workman's club watching the race and he realised how much he'd won when he went out to the beer garden for a cigarette and had to keep refreshing his TAB account on his phone to make sure he wasn't dreaming when he saw how much he'd won.
Now I'm not saying just because someone's homeless they shouldn't be allowed to place a bet on the Melbourne Cup. I'm not saying that just because someone's homeless, they shouldn't be going to a bar for a drink. I'm not saying just because someone's homeless, they shouldn't be blowing money on cigarettes. Or that they shouldn't have a smartphone. But what I am saying is we need to have a bit of a rethink as to what we consider homelessness is and what it isn't.
Example: The guy I mentioned - he'd been sleeping in a garage. Did that make him homeless? Well, according to the formal definition we use here in New Zealand and according to all the headlines last year, yes it did. But if you use my definition, he had a roof over his head. I don't think it did - It didn't make him homeless as far as I'm concerned.
And the thing about this OCD report is that it has used data from the 2018 census and so with the explosion. In the number of people living in emergency accommodation and motels, for example. Since then, people are saying the numbers are probably worse. And Housing Minister Chris Bishop say he's acknowledging that and he's promising that help is on the way. But he's also saying that part of the problem in terms of the stats and our placing them that OCD is, is part of the problem, could be the way we define homelessness here in New Zealand and how it differs from other countries. And I'm in no doubt about that. And I reckon we are far too quick to label someone as being homeless in this country.
LISTEN ABOVE.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you talk to anyone who has been a manager and you ask them what’s the best thing about being a manager and what’s the worst, the answer will be the same for both. The people.
I know, because I’ve been a manager before, and I know exactly how brilliant it can be when things are going great with your people. But, when they’re not, it can be a nightmare.
And a new report out today from the Human Rights Commission and KPMG shows just how much of a nightmare it can be when those problems are caused by bullies. They’ve actually put a price tag on it.
Which has prompted someone who says they were bullied out of a job —and who is something of an anti-bullying campaigner— to say today that they think bullying is part of New Zealand’s culture.
And I agree. We like to think we’re a bunch of good sorts, but if you start to think about it for even just a minute or two, you start to realise that we are deluded on that front. And that bullying happens everywhere.
Now it’s no coincidence that this report has come out today, because it’s Pink Shirt Day which is one of those annual awareness things.
But, when it comes down to it, do you think everyone turning up to work and school in pink shirts and maybe having a morning tea together is going to change anything? Good on you if you are getting involved in all of this today, but I think it almost trivialises bullying.
Because there will be no shortage of people today who are being bullied —in workplaces, for example— who will see people in the office running around in pink shirts and they will just know that, come Monday, it will all be back to normal. And the bullies will be back to normal transmission, and nothing will have changed.
So, this report by the Human Rights Commission and KPMG says bullying in the workplace collectively costs employers $1.5 billion every year.
They’ve worked it out by measuring things like people taking more time off work because of bullying, people not performing at their best because of what’s going on, higher staff turnover, and the time it takes to deal with complaints about bullying.
Anti-bullying campaigner James Hilford says he was bullied out of a job and says it's rife everywhere.
When I first heard what he was saying, I thought ‘oh here we go’. But then I thought about it, and he’s right.
When we’re out driving, we’re bullies. Parents, at times, bully their kids. The All Blacks, we bully them endlessly. Social media. Whatsapp groups. I’d go as far as saying that we even bully ourselves. That’s how ingrained it is.
You’ve got your passive aggressive types, they’re bullies. Then you’ve got the people who don’t even try to hide their bullying behaviour.
I remember working somewhere once —and I wasn’t the manager— and they had a thing up on the wall recording how much money everyone was bringing into the business. That was bullying.
They probably thought it was about driving performance. But it wasn’t. It was bullying. It was shaming the people who weren’t bringing-in as much revenue as some of the others.
This isn’t to say, by the way, that things haven’t changed. Things have changed in terms of bullying, at least, being talked about, which is a start. But I reckon that might be as good as it gets.
And we can have Pink Shirt Days until we’re blue in the face. But with bullying so ingrained in pretty much everything we do —so ingrained in our culture— I think we’re stuck with it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by National's Vanessa Weenink and Labour’s Duncan Webb this week for Politics Friday.
They discussed the bullying culture in New Zealand, is it rife in workplaces? And does it come from the top, given the environment in Parliament?
Will the Government's charter schools really be the answer to our education issues?
Is the South Island being ignored when it comes to roading infrastructure?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Things are really packing a sad at Christchurch City Holdings Limited - the commercial outfit that looks after the city’s assets such as the airport, Orion electricity, and the port company.
There are others as well, but the big ones are a 75% stake in Christchurch Airport, 89% of the Orion electricity distribution company, and 100% ownership of the Lyttelton Port Company.
Four directors —including the chairperson— quit suddenly yesterday, saying the relationship between CCHL and the council has broken down because the politicians are sticking their noses into things they know nothing about.
And those resignations were effective immediately. So, the organisation that is responsible for $6 billion of public assets in Christchurch has no chairperson and only half the number of people that normally sit around the board table.
There are four left. Two independent directors and two city councillors who represent the council.
So, a real hissy fit, if you want to call it that. But I’m not surprised, and I don’t blame these people for quitting, especially when you consider why CCHL exists.
It was set-up in 1993, so more than 30 years ago. And the reason it came about in the first place was to create what CCHL itself describes as “an independent non-political buffer between the Council and the companies it owns”.
As it says on its website, it ensures that a commercial approach is taken to managing the Council’s companies.
So, what that essentially means is Christchurch City Holdings exists to make sure that there is no political interference in the running of the council’s commercial operations, and that the companies are left to do whatever they think needs to be done to make a profit and return a dividend to the council.
But those good intentions appear to have become just weasel words, especially when you consider what Abby Foote —who, as of yesterday, is the former chair of the board— says in her resignation letter. Which I'll get to.
But just so you know what’s behind the four board resignations, you might remember how late last year CCHL wanted to take a long-term view and look into ways it could reduce some of the debt it’s carrying. Which some interpreted as code for selling-off some of the assets to pay down some debt.
I see Abbie Foote, in her letter to the mayor, pushes back a bit on that. But I think that’s definitely what we should be doing, whether they were thinking that or not. We need to sell some of these assets because it’s crazy how much debt CCHL is carrying. It’s a truckload of debt. $2.3 billion.
So CCHL wanted to clear some of that debt. But a majority of city councillors felt differently and decided just before Christmas that, instead of paying off debt —instead of even thinking about selling any of these assets— it told CCHL to forget about that and just deliver higher dividends. Essentially, to make more money.
And that is what led to what happened yesterday. With Abby Foote —speaking on behalf of herself and the other three directors who have quit— saying there has been a breakdown in the relationship between CCHL’s board —and its management— and the council.
And here’s one of several stingers in the letter she wrote yesterday to the mayor. She says recent decisions by city councillors in terms of the direction CCHL should be heading have “caused us to lose confidence in Council’s ability to responsibly own core strategic infrastructure”.
Now I would like to think that this is something that can be fixed, but I don’t think it can. Not with this current council, anyway. The council, by the way, that voted yesterday in favour of looking further into spending ratepayer money buying or leasing the earthquake-damaged Dux de Lux pub, for goodness sake.
And the question I’ve got in my head is this.
Knowing how politicians can’t keep their noses out of anything, even when most of them don’t have a business bone in their body, and even when there are structures in place like we have here with an independent outfit to prevent political interference in commercial decision-making, should local councils really be involved in running commercial entities? In particular, should the Christchurch council continue to be involved in running commercial entities?
And my answer to that is, no they shouldn’t.
And what I think we should be doing here is accepting what the now former head honcho at Christchurch City Holdings is saying, that the council is incapable of responsibly owning these kinds of assets, that it’s a hopeless business operator - and we should be getting rid of them. Because they are proving to be more trouble than they are worth.
What I think we should be doing is following the lead of Auckland, which is looking at selling its shares in Auckland Airport to create an investment fund.
That makes much more sense than what we have at the moment, which is an outfit that exists to prevent political interference in commercial decision-making about billions of dollars of council commercial assets, being stymied by the thing it’s supposed to prevent - political interference.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
First we had roads of significance. Now we have roads of insignificance.
And top of the list is Brougham Street, in Christchurch, with this decision by the Government to pull the plug on a $90 million upgrade of what would have to be one of the most congested and dangerous roads in the city.
Because, up until yesterday, it was all-go. It was due to be underway by the end of the year and would have meant there’d be an overbridge for pedestrians and cyclists, lanes for car-pooling and buses and motorbikes, and a shared pedestrian-cycle path.
And I don’t think anyone here would disagree that it’s desperately needed. Because even though, technically, it’s a road more often than not it’s a car park, isn’t it?
Not that that’s a concern for the Government. You know, the government that likes to bang on about getting people moving, doing away with stupid speed limits, lifting productivity, but, at the same time, decides it’s a yeah-nah for Brougham Street.
Not surprisingly, there is a lot of anger. And justifiably so. There are a few city councillors, for example, saying today that it just shows that the Government has forgotten about the South Island and is giving higher priority to North Island roads.
Now, normally, I’m not one that buys into that whole North versus South thing. But, when it comes to this one, I agree. If the Government hasn’t forgotten about us, then it’s certainly turned its back on us with this decision which seems to have taken people completely by surprise.
I see Labour MP Megan Woods is saying it’s a “slap in the face” for Christchurch. She’s particularly concerned about the kids going to-and-from Addington Primary School. Because, as part of the upgrade, there would have been an overbridge to get them across the road safely.
She’s saying it’s not a luxury to ask for a safe crossing to get primary-aged children across a major state highway with trucks barrelling down it. And she’s right.
Because Brougham Street is part of State Highway 76 and it’s a key link for freight going to-and-from the port at Lyttelton. That’s why there are so many trucks on it, let alone the cars.
Guess how many vehicles go up and down Brougham Street on your average day? 45,000. That includes 4,500 freight vehicles and trucks.
There is a crossing the Addington Primary School kids can use but parents are saying it’s frightening, given the volume of traffic, especially with all the trucks.
So, the overbridge would have been a game changer in terms of pedestrian safety. Now, though, the kids are going to have to keep crossing the road, which the principal at Addington Primary is “hugely disappointed” by. Donna Bilas says it’s only going to get worse, and more dangerous, with increased housing density and more kids on the roll. And she’s spot-on.
Another thing about this decision by the Government that people are commenting on is that, even though the upgrade itself isn’t happening this year —as it was supposed to be— it's still going to be spending $20 million on work behind the scenes to get the upgrade to what’s called “pre-implementation” stage.
NZTA says it’s doing that so the upgrade can be “delivery ready” in the future “subject to affordability”. So, there you go. That’s what a $20 million sop sounds like.
Because do you really think the Brougham Street upgrade is going to go anywhere anytime soon? Of course, it’s not.
Which is why I agree with Megan Woods that it’s a slap in the face for Christchurch. Why I agree with the principal at Addington Primary that it’s hugely disappointing. And why I agree with a cycling advocate in the news today who is saying that the Government is focused on Auckland-centric policies at the expense of the South Island.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
People are getting very excited - not in a good way - this plan in Auckland to start charging people 24-hours-a-day, seven days a week to park their cars in the CBD.
Apparently, mayor Wayne Brown isn’t even happy about it. But I don’t know why. I think it’s a great idea and I think we should be doing it in Christchurch.
Now, when I say I think it’s great, I’m not saying I love paying money to park. Who does?
But I think we’re getting to the point where we can’t avoid doing what Auckland is doing. And I’ll tell you why.
For starters, in Christchurch, have you seen the never-ending line of people with their hands out to the council for money?
Example - In the news today, we’ve got the people behind the restoration of the jetty at Governor's Bay wanting more money from the council. This is all part of the Long-Term Plan process, where councils put their budget together for the next ten years.
So, today it’s the jetty people. Who else have we got wanting more money from the Council?
There’s Orana Park... the Arts Centre... they’re just a couple who have turned up at the council in the past week pleading their cases for more money.
Now, I could be wrong. But, I bet no one has turned up so far - and I bet no one is going to turn up at the hearings this week, either - begging the council to charge more for anything.
There’s no shortage of people telling the council not to charge them 13 percent more in their rates bill. And there’s no shortage of people who think they deserve to get their hands on more council money.
But, they’re all dreaming if they think more money can go out the door without more money coming in the door.
This is not just a Christchurch thing. The same thing’s going on at councils everywhere.
And if you want more money from the council and you don’t want to pay higher rates, then the only solution is for the council to look at ways it can get more money in the pot.
One way it could do that is to follow the lead of Auckland and start charging parking fees 24-hours-a-day, seven days a week.
I think Auckland Transport is being refreshingly real. And I think instead of criticising them for it, we should be doing the same thing here.
So, what would be the downsides? There’d be a few. I’ll admit that.
For example, if you have an apartment in town and, instead of spending $100,000 more to get your own private car park, you’ve got a place with no car park - you’d be impacted.
Because there are plenty of people living in apartments in the central city who don’t have their own car parks and park out on the street overnight instead. Doesn’t cost a thing at the moment. If we did what Auckland is doing, though, they’d have to pay.
But they would have other options - Monthly rentals at some of the car parking buildings are pretty reasonable. I've heard of someone paying about $180 per month. What’s that? About $6 a day. That’s for the whole 24 hours.
Some people will say, too, that if they had to pay for parking at nighttime - for example - businesses would be badly affected. I don’t buy that, because I have never made a decision whether to go to a particular restaurant or bar, or a movie, or concert, based on what it might cost me to park.
If someone wants to take their car into the CBD, they will pay. Whatever day and whatever time. Trust me.
Yes, there would be a lot of noise about it, but that would die away and we’d have more money coming into the council coffers so that, when all these people turn up asking for money, they’d have a much more realistic chance of getting what they want.
More money has to come in the door before more can go out. It’s simple.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I could be wrong. But I reckon most of us wouldn’t have done what Transpower wanted us to do to try and avoid power cuts.
I could be wrong. You may have dutifully done what Transpower wanted you to do. Which was to use as little power as possible by not charging your phone and not having heaters and lights on in rooms you’re not using between 7am and 9am today.
But I reckon most people would’ve either forgotten, or just thought everybody else would be doing it so they wouldn’t need to. And why’s that, do you think?
Well, it’s because New Zealand is not what ACT leader David Seymour says we’re becoming with things like this warning about power cuts.
He’s saying that it’s all “third world stuff”. But, I think that’s overboard. Because, if we were Third World, we would have heard that warning from Transpower last night and every one of us would’ve done exactly what they wanted us to do.
Because, if we were Third World, power cuts would be a regular thing. So, as per, I think David Seymour is exaggerating, a little.
As it turned out, there weren’t any power cuts. But, listening to the head of Transpower on Newstalk ZB, we were cutting things a bit fine.
I won’t get into megawatt this and megawatt that - for two reasons. One: I’d be running the risk of sounding like I’m pretending to know what I’m talking about. When I don’t. So I’ll put it out there right now - I am not an electricity expert.
The other reason I won’t start throwing around megawatts is because I think your eyes would glaze over faster than mine. When all we need to worry about, is that this early in the year they’re talking about power cuts and telling us not to put our phones on charge.
And, even though I think David Seymour’s talk about us being Third World is nonsense, don’t think for a minute that I think this is good enough. It’s not.
Because here we are just over a week into May and already we’re being told that to save power to prevent blackouts.
When I heard the head of Transpower saying that this weather is unseasonably cold, I questioned that a little bit. But, I’ve looked up some of the stats, and it is a bit older than usual. Nevertheless, I don’t think that’s enough of an excuse.
Because the real excuse for what’s happened, is that we have continually turned a blind eye when it comes to investing and maintaining our electricity infrastructure.
Back in February, Transpower announced a plan to spend $400 million to strengthen the nationwide electricity system. Or the grid, as it’s known.
They also want to spend another $100 million upgrading the Cook Strait Cable.
Don't get too excited. Because, even though they announced it in February, they’re now doing the whole consultation thing with people in the energy sector. So that’ll take yonks.
And, I don't know about you, but I reckon that spending $400 million strengthening the national grid and $100 million upgrading the Cook Strait Cable sounds like chicken feed.
Especially, when you consider how electricity usage is expected to go through the roof over the next few years.
Transpower reckons that by 2050, electricity demand or usage will have increased by 70 percent, compared to what it is now. Which is why I think Transpower is just tinkering at the edges with this $500 million it wants to spend on the grid and the cable upgrade.
We are going to have to spend truckloads more than that if we are going to remotely cope with a 70 percent increase in demand for electricity.
But we won’t, of course. Going by how we’ve done things up until now. Which is to under-invest and hope for the best.
To under-invest and then, when things look like they might go pear-shaped, to go into panic mode and to tell us not to charge our phones and to turn the heaters and lights off.
So even though I disagree with David Seymour’s view that the threat of power cuts this morning is Third World, what I will say is that it’s third rate. And we must do better. Otherwise, we will start to look a bit Third World on it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by Labour’s Megan Wood and National’s Matt Doocey to break down this week in Politics Friday.
This morning’s situation with the power grid sparked a lot of chatter, are we really in a third world state as David Seymour claims?
Megan Woods revealed that support for the families impacted by the mosque attack will be cut this afternoon, is this really the time?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
David Seymour is a muppet. I bet that’s what the Prime Minister was thinking yesterday when reporters were asking him if he agreed with Seymour’s view that sushi is “woke”.
The ACT leader and the Associate Education Minister made the claim about sushi after he’d announced that the Government is revamping the school lunches programme by getting back to the basics, like sandwiches and fruit, and saving about $100 million in the process.
So out with the butter chicken and the hot meals, and in with the sandwiches and a piece of fruit, and I think the Government is making a big mistake. And I’ll tell you why.
I think it’s making a big mistake because I’m listening to what the people who really know a thing or two about this are saying. The people at the coalface. The principals and the teachers.
I saw one principal on the news last night saying it might have been useful if David Seymour had spoken to them first about what was and wasn’t working before making these changes.
Another —Lianne Webb, Principal of Aorere College in Papatoetoe— says, for some students the lunch is their only meal of the day.
Which kind of stops me in my tracks because I’m as old school and I tend to think that if I grew up eating luncheon roll sandwiches for lunch when I was at school, why can’t other kids?
But then, on the other hand, if these lunches are the only meals some kids are getting then a sandwich and an apple at lunchtime isn’t going to cut it, is it?
And I think what this all comes down to, is whether it is the job of the Government to feed kids full-stop, or just provide them with something to eat at lunchtime when they’re at school - or pre-school as well. Because that’s another change the Government is making. They’re also including some early childhood centres in the programme.
So, is it a school lunch programme? Or is it a ‘make sure these kids at least get something to eat’ programme? And, in my mind, even though I’m old school and even though a hot meal might seem over the top to most of us, I think we have to listen to what the schools are saying and accept that this is more than just feeding kids at lunchtime.
As for the woke sushi thing, that all started with a social media post by the ACT Party which said the Government will be doing more with less money to feed kids fruit and sandwiches, not "woke food like quinoa and sushi.”
And Seymour repeated it when he was talking to journalists at Parliament.
And, of course, what happened next was they all chased down the Prime Minister to see if he agreed with Seymour that sushi is woke.
Christopher Luxon tried to fob them off, but it was obvious that he thought Seymour had been a muppet. Eventually, though, he gave in and told the reporters that he doesn’t think sushi and quinoa are woke.
But what David Seymour is missing, when he says that the school lunch programme will be delivering the type of lunch that 75% of kids get from home, is that they’re the ones who go home after school and do have an after-school snack and do have an evening meal.
The other kids don't, necessarily. And I think that’s it’s appalling the Government is turning its back on these kids - just to save a lousy $107 million.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How about this? I found myself agreeing this morning with someone who has been described as a racist dinosaur. To a point.
This lefty wokester, that some people seem to think I am, actually agrees with this Kings Council lawyer who disagrees with tikanga Māori being compulsory for students doing a law degree at university from next year.
I agree with someone who has been described as (quote) “a racist dinosaur who should quietly go and die in a corner”. How about that?
But to a point. That’s the key bit.
Gary Judd is his name. Or Gary Judd KC to be precise. And what he’s done, is he’s made a formal complaint to the Government’s Regulations Review Committee over this new requirement that’s due to come into force next year.
Now, for the purposes of this discussion, the general understanding of tikanga Māori is that it’s the way of doing things within Māori society.
So, it’s about principles, processes, procedures, and traditional knowledge. The customary rules which govern Māori life. Broadly, it’s what’s known as customary law. Law based on customs. As opposed to common law.
Gary Judd KC says tikanga actually has nothing to do with Common Law. And Winston Peters is an instant fan, saying that forcing law students to study tikanga Māori is just what he calls "woke indoctrination".
He says: “Law students should not be force-fed this kind of woke indoctrination from some culture warrior’s slanted version of what tikanga means.”
Which is kind of what Gary Judd KC is saying too. Although, the complaint he’s made to the Government’s Regulations Review Committee seems to be focussed on tikanga being what he calls “a belief system” and not what he calls a "proper law subject".
And because he sees it as being a belief system, he doesn’t think it’s relevant to be a compulsory element of a law degree.
And I agree with him. On the compulsory bit.
But I think any law student worth their salt would be an idiot to think they can ignore tikanga. Which is why I think it should be voluntary, not compulsory.
And I say that because I think tikanga Māori is something of a horse that has already bolted. What I’m getting at there, is that Māori principles, processes, procedures, and traditional knowledge can’t be ignored.
You might be someone who wants to ignore them. But if you’re happy living under a rock, then good luck to you.
But if someone reckons they’re going to make a good fist of being a lawyer in New Zealand in the 21st century, then they can forget about landing a job at any of the big law firms if they don’t understand Māori customary law.
They can forget about getting involved in environmental law. They can certainly forget about becoming an in-house lawyer at any of the government departments, or local councils. They can forget about getting involved in criminal law.
That’s because Māori customary law —or tikanga— has become so entwined in our legal system.
If you want a recent and very local example, here it is: Peter Ellis who was convicted for offences at the old Civic Creche, in Christchurch.
In 2019, the Supreme Court allowed him to appeal his convictions but he died a few months later. Nevertheless, his sexual offending convictions were quashed after he died, because the Supreme Court considered his appeal —even though he was no longer alive— based on tikanga.
Normally, a person's legal proceedings die with them. But Ellis' lawyers argued that tikanga, the customary rules which govern Māori life, was part of New Zealand's common law.
Under tikanga, Ellis had the right to clear his name or re-establish his mana, even after he died.
The Crown did not oppose the argument, agreeing that tikanga had a place in New Zealand law, and his name was cleared. Even though he wasn't alive to see it happen.
So that’s why I think anyone wanting to be a lawyer should study tikanga Māori. But only if they want to. And I agree with Gary Judd KC who says it shouldn't be compulsory.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour Leader Chris Hipkins joined John MacDonald for their regular catchup on Canterbury Mornings.
The compulsory inclusion of tikanga Māori in law studies has ignited debate. Does Hipkins feel it has a place in our legal system? Should its study be compulsory?
He was quick to make an assessment of the Government’s plan for a 'mega-prison' out at Waikeria and voice his views on Mark Mitchell being out of his depth.
And finally, will he confirm what Carmel Sepuloni was up to whilst on leave?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Don’t go thinking that I’m soft on crime or pro-criminal or anything like that. But I think this idea the Government’s got of having a mega prison as part of its investment in the Corrections Service, I think it’s an idea that sucks.
What it’s doing is it’s reviving a plan to build a mega-prison in Waikato with an 810-bed extension of Waikeria Prison. Which means, all up, there will be 1,865 beds.
At the moment, the prison can hold 455 inmates. In two years’ time, according to the Government, there will be another 1,400 prisoners there.
The announcement itself yesterday was a bit of a shambles with the Prime Minister and the Corrections Minister both unable to clarify how much of the increased Corrections investment had already been announced by the previous government.
But the main thing for me is this idea of a mega prison.
As soon as I heard it yesterday, I thought of a caller we had the other week when we were talking about the Three Strikes legislation making a comeback.
I remember this guy saying the answer to fixing the crime problem lies in El Salvador. And what he was talking about there was this new mega-prison they’ve built over there which sounds like a complete nightmare.
There are 12,000 prisoners there. It’s got space for 40,000. The inmates aren’t allowed to have any visitors and there are no rehabilitation programmes of any sort. Essentially, if you’re a ‘lock ‘em up and throw away the key’ type, then you would love it.
Not that Mark Mitchell and Christopher Luxon are talking about anything like that, of course. But I thought of that call about El Salvador when I heard them making their announcement yesterday.
And even though our mega prison isn’t going to be anything like that hellhole prison in El Salvador, I don’t think it’s going to make us any safer from crime.
Even though that’s what the Corrections Minister Mark Mitchell was going on about yesterday when he put out a media release with this headline: “$1.9 billion investment to keep New Zealand safe from crime”.
Nonsense. It’s not going to keep us safer from crime at all. Especially this mega-prison. That’s just going to be a disaster waiting to happen. And I’ll tell you why.
If you’re not familiar with Waikeria Prison, it is 16 kilometres south of Te Awamutu.
So, I think we can safely say that it’s in the wops. And, right now, it can hold between 400 and 500 inmates.
But you know as much as I know that, at your local prison, it’s not just local crims locked up there. Crims from all around the country are locked up at prisons all over the country.
And by the time Waikeria becomes this mega-prison in two years’ time —and there’s 18-hundred crims inside— what that will mean is more prisoners further away from the people who keep them connected with the outside world.
Because all 1800 of them won’t be from Te Awamutu. There’ll be 1800 bad eggs from all over the country. And most of them will have to kiss goodbye to the prospect of any visits from those people who keep them connected with the outside world - their families.
Now you imagine someone isolated from their families —because of the practicalities of them living miles apart and the impracticalities of travelling to somewhere 16 kilometres south of Te Awamutu— who are they going to turn to?
Easy. Their fellow prisoners. And what we’ll have is a mega-prison turning offenders into hardened criminals. I guarantee that’s what will happen.
We won’t be safer from crime at all, as the Government wants us to believe. We’ll be worse off.
But, you know, the politicians will be able to say they’ve delivered on all their tough-on-crime posturing. But that’ll be about it.
If they were really serious about trying to reduce crime —or, in particular, increase the chances of someone not re-offending after they’ve been on the inside— they wouldn’t be building a mega-prison.
If they were serious, they’d be building more, smaller prisons all around the country. Because, if they did that, we’d be sending criminals to prisons where they could stay in touch with families and whanau - and at least have a bit of hope.
Because, yes, criminals need to face consequences. But if they don’t have any hope, do you really think they're going to stay on the straight-and-narrow? Of course they’re not. Especially if they’re stuck in the wops, 16 kilometres south of Te Awamutu.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It’s time to get nervous. Very nervous.
I’m talking here about the Government’s big water announcement. It’s starting with Auckland but, right around the country, changes are on the way.
Auckland is first cab off the rank because it already has an outfit separate from Auckland Council’s other operations running drinking water supply. That’s Watercare.
But, once it gets the laws it needs, the Government is going to be rolling this out everywhere. And council controlled organisations - or CCOs - will do the same thing as Watercare.
And the gist is that if you have a separate outfit running water, it can borrow money specifically for water. It is ringfenced. It isn’t money that disappears into the big black hole of the council coffers.
It’s National’s arms-length alternative to 3 Waters.
The reason I say it’s time to get nervous, is that Local Government Minister Simeon Brown was on Newstalk ZB this morning likening the Government’s water reforms to what a previous National government did with the electricity sector back in the day.
For some reason, I can still remember Max Bradford standing at the lectern promising us that his power reforms were going to mean cheaper electricity for everyone. Cheaper electricity for everyone. And we all know what happened there.
Which is why, when I saw Simeon Brown, and the Prime Minister and Auckland mayor Wayne Brown on the news last night banging-on about this new deal meaning lower water bill increases, it took me right back to the cheaper electricity promise.
And the only reason they can promise lower increases now, is because this new thing the Government’s bringing-in is going to enable them to borrow more money specifically for water infrastructure and to take longer to pay it off.
So maybe ratepayers might be slightly better off now. But not in the long run.
The immediate increase in their water rates has gone from 25.8 percent to 7.2 percent under the Government’s new model, which will mean more borrowing to pay for water infrastructure and services.
Which will probably be attractive to some people. For a couple of reasons.
One: we are so shortsighted, aren’t we, that we only care what we’re paying right now?
The other reason some people will like this, is that councils don't tend to invest properly in water infrastructure because it’s pretty much out-of-sight, out-of-mind.
So ratepayer money gets spent instead on flashier stuff.
The Government’s thinking is that, by allowing councils to borrow more specifically for water infrastructure and pay it back over a longer period of time, then money will get spent fixing the pipes and keeping them up-to-scratch before they start to fall apart.
Either way, it will mean ratepayers burdened with more debt for longer.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Come Together tribute series continues in Christchurch this week, with a group of superstar Kiwi musicians performing The Joshua Tree.
Milan Borich, lead singer of the band Pluto, joined John MacDonald on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings to talk about the show, his favourite U2 song of all time, and the intimidation of paying tribute to a band like U2 and those 'hero notes'.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday John MacDonald was joined by National's Vanessa Weenink and Labour’s Duncan Webb.
They discussed the recent behaviour from MPs, will complaints be laid?
Education is getting a facelift, is it time for a combined plan for a long-term approach to education in New Zealand to prevent our young people becoming guinea pigs?
AUKUS: should New Zealand be seeking to join it or steering clear?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
One of the cliches people often use when they’re talking about politicians and the way they behave in Parliament is that they behave like “a bunch of kids”.
I’ve been hearing people say that forever. And, of course, what they’re talking about is the way politicians sometimes lose their rag when they’re debating things in the House.
But Green Party MP Julie Anne Genter went next level last night, walking across the debating chamber and going-off at National's Matt Doocey.
She was waving a pamphlet and yelling right into his face. You can see it online, it’s everywhere, thanks to Parliament being filmed all the time these days.
Now she’s apologised and could face further action. And I think she should face further action. In fact, I don’t know why she hasn’t been suspended by the party, that’s what I think they need to do ASAP.
And she wouldn’t be the first. You’ll remember that another Green MP is currently suspended. This is Darleen Tana, who the Greens suspended after allegations that she was linked to migrant exploitation at a business her husband runs.
And Golriz Gharaman, of course, was suspended after the shoplifting accusations started to emerge at the beginning of this year.
Now you could say there’s a difference here because with Darleen Tana, she’s been linked to potential illegal activity. And Golriz Gharaman was accused of illegal activity and subsequently admitted her guilt.
Whereas Julie Anne Genter just lost her cool in Parliament last night. Which is putting it mildly.
And you’re not going to hear me defend what she did but I’m sure, like me, you can appreciate that politicians are pretty highly skilled when it comes to getting under each other's skin. And I know from our dealings on the show, that Matt Doocey is pretty skilled in that department.
Nevertheless, she lost it. And she should be stood down because of it.
I see one of her fellow Green MPs, Steve Abel, is saying there was no physical contact and Genter had returned to her seat as soon as the Deputy Speaker —who was running things at the time— asked her to.
Which is nonsense.
To say there was no physical contact so nothing to see here, is just ridiculous. Because you imagine if I went out into the office at work with a piece of paper and started waving it around and yelling into someone’s face.
Do you think my bosses would say to the person ‘oh yeah, but he didn’t actually hit you, there was no physical contact, so stop your whinging’? Of course, they wouldn’t.
And I think National MP Vanessa Weenink is making a very good point today, saying that if it was her (instead of Matt Doocey) and a male MP had confronted her in the same way as Genter did, then things would be viewed differently.
And I think, sadly, that would be the case. Because, unless the Greens do suspend her, what they’re doing is they’re telling Matt Doocey that he’s a big boy and he should be able to handle a woman going off at him.
Now chances are, Julie Anne Genter will be referred to Parliament’s Privileges Committee - which, like all select committees, is made up of MPs from across Parliament and considers complaints made about the way MPs behave.
Recently, we’ve had the likes of Jan Tinneti and Grant Robertson referred to the Privileges Committee. Back in 2008, Winston Peters was referred for failing to disclose a large donation.
Speaking of Winston, you might have heard him saying on Newstalk ZB this morning that he doesn't think Julie Anne Genter’s apology cuts it.
He said: ”I think she just lost the plot.” And her saying “I made you feel unsafe and I’m sorry” just ‘doesn’t cut it’." And I agree.
So, she is likely to end up in front of the Privileges Committee, providing there’s a complaint from another MP about what she got up to last night. But that’s not enough, as far as I’m concerned.
What needs to happen is, behind the scenes, the Green Party needs to tell the likes of its MP Steve Abel to stop trying to defend what she did. To stop this nonsense about it not being so bad because she didn’t actually hit Matt Doocey. That’s behind the scenes.
And publicly, it needs to come out today and announce that it is suspending Julie Anne Genter for her behaviour, because just leaving it to the Privileges Committee isn’t enough.
If she isn’t suspended, then the Greens will be saying loud and clear that what she did last night is fine by them.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Back again for his regular interview, Christchurch’s Mayor Phil Mauger joined John MacDonald in studio on Canterbury Mornings.
They dug into the funding issues plaguing Christchurch including updates on the Arts Centre and Cathedral and got the mayor’s thoughts on the Waimakariri and Selwyn Councils’ refusal to contribute to the new stadium.
Plus, are the new East Christchurch liaison staff going to be money well spent in improving things for the community?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Remember it wasn’t that long ago that, if you saw someone doing some dodgy driving, you’d wonder whether they got their licence in a WeetBix box.
I haven’t heard anyone use that line for a while.
But what it meant, of course, was that someone’s driving was so bad it looked as if they didn’t have to do anything to get behind the wheel, to get their licence.
Just like a rugby card or whatever else you get in a WeetBix box, that’s how they got their driver’s licence - for free.
And it’s still a little bit like that with this crazy regime brought in by the last government, where you can sit your driving test as many times as you like without having to pay extra.
I think it’s crazy because there’s a flat fee - which came in just before the election last year - and Labour thought it was a good idea because of the thinking that having a driver’s licence opens up a whole new world of opportunities and there shouldn’t be any barriers stopping people from being able to drive.
Especially when it comes to employment and getting a job, which is true. If you can drive, there are more work options open to you.
But, you know, talk about unintended consequences. Or maybe they did know this when they brought this policy in and didn’t do anything about it.
But what it has meant, not charging extra if someone doesn’t pass the first time, is that we now have so many people not passing their practical driving test the first time that there’s a huge backlog of people waiting.
Here’s a stat for you. Last month alone, there were 2,000 no-shows. And why’s that, do you think? It’s a no-brainer: it’s because when it doesn’t cost you anything to re-sit, it doesn’t matter whether you turn up to a booking or not. Does it?
And so, all the driving test people can do is just shrug their shoulders and look at the waiting list getting longer and longer.
We can’t just blame the system, though. Even though it backfired. People are part of the problem here too.
Because what we’ve got happening, is someone sees there’s a booking available at one testing centre. Then, they see some spaces have come up somewhere else more convenient so they book in there. But they don’t bother cancelling the original booking.
Then you’ve got the types who decide on the day they can’t be bothered. Or a better offer comes along, and they’re no-shows as well.
In fact, I heard from someone who does driving tests, who said that not only are people not turning up, but they also have people using the driving testers as instructors.
So, they obviously can’t drive to the standard required, and they use the driving test as a lesson of some sort. So, there’s a real issue.
They said they sometimes have people who re-sit the test three times and they’re no better at driving the third time than they were the first time. And this person made a very good point that these driving testers are being put at risk because of these muppets turning up not able to drive in the first place - let alone being good enough to get their licence.
Average waiting times at the moment, for the whole of the country, are 44 days for a full licence test and 55 days for a restricted test.
And I reckon the only solution is to make people pay for every test they sit. And that’s whether they turn up or not.
And the reason why it should be that way is simple. It comes down to this - driving a vehicle - having a driver’s licence - is a privilege, not a birthright. That’s how I see it.
When you arrive on this planet, there are things you’re naturally entitled to. Food, shelter, medicine. They’d be the basics.
When you arrive on this planet, you are not entitled to have a driver’s licence. It needs to be earned.
But under the current system, which lets you re-sit the tests as much as you like without paying any extra for it, what that is doing - is treating driving as if it is a birthright. And that’s wrong.
So, I hope the Transport Minister does do something about this. And I hope he gets rid of this dopey system and makes people pay for every driving test they sit.
That way, they’ll have some skin in the game, they’ll take it more seriously, and they will - genuinely - have earned the right to drive.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It feels to me like big brother is being put in his place. And I think it’s brilliant.
Well, maybe not completely in his place. But we’re getting there, with this announcement by the Government that it’s going to make it easier for us to get loans and mortgages by giving banks and finance companies more flexibility to decide how they assess whether someone can afford a loan or not.
And it’s going to do that by getting rid of 11 pages of stupid regulations that were introduced in December 2021. You know the ones I’m talking about. The ones that made it quite alright for banks to check how often you use Uber Eats and Netflix when you want a loan..all that nonsense.
The last government brought them in to crack down on loan sharks. Eventually, realised it was a bit of a cluster. Eventually, started to ease things a bit. But the current government is stepping in and getting rid of all that nonsense completely.
I saw a guy on the news last night involved in the lending game and he said when those rules came in two-and-a-half years ago, the time it took to process a loan application went from about two hours to eight hours.
But that’s just the mechanics. The more important thing in all this for me isn’t about how long it takes to process a loan application, the important bit for me is how the Government is basically saying ‘if you think you can do it, then go for it’.
I mean, it’s the banks and other lenders that will have the final say, of course. But with all these checklists put in place by the last government getting the heave-ho, hopefully, we’re heading back towards times a little bit like when we bought our first place.
We weren’t all that long back from living overseas. The money we’d made over there was spent doing stuff - so we didn’t come back with any big nest egg to spend on a house. Maybe we should’ve. But let’s not get into woulda coulda, shoulda.
So we had a chat to the bank. Found a house. Went to the auction. Ended-up buying the thing and managing to pay what, compared to the deposits that have been required in recent times, a pretty small deposit. And there we were, in our first home.
And we did it because we backed ourselves. Yes, the bank backed us too. But we knew that, if we needed to cut back on spending to pay the mortgage, that’s what we would do. We didn’t have the bank saying ‘how many flat whites did you buy last week?’
Bear in mind that this was about a million years ago and things like Uber and Netflix hadn’t even been invented. But you get the gist. We backed ourselves. The bank backed us. And sometimes the way things were done in the past aren’t always bad.
I don’t know if the Government has thought about it this way, but these changes in the lending rules actually deliver on all the rhetoric we heard from National, especially, before the election - about New Zealand needing to back itself more.
And when you back yourself, you don’t overthink things. Because when it comes to buying something like a house, you actually don’t have to go overboard on the over-thinking.
Yes, the local schools can be an important factor. Transport routes. All that stuff. But, when it comes down to it, keep it simple.
Do you like the house or the apartment? Yes. Do you want to buy it? Yes. Are you confident you can pay the mortgage? Yes. Do you know what will happen if you can’t pay the mortgage? Yes, the bank will take it off me. Great. You’re good to go.
But with these 11 pages of regulations that the Government is getting rid of…with these, it’s over-thinking central. And good on the Government.
Labour doesn’t think so, of course. It's saying today that these changes are going to put people at greater risk of being ripped off by loan sharks.
My response to that: is that if decent lending operators are more free to lend money, then people won’t need the loan sharks. Which is exactly what Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly is saying. And I like what I’m hearing from him.
But. And there is a but. Although, it’s not a big enough but for me to say the Government’s doing the wrong thing.
The question I’ve got is whether this is actually the right time to be making it easier for people to go into debt or to increase their debt.
You might have seen what New Zealand Herald Business Editor-at-Large Liam Dann was saying over the weekend about the potential for 30,000 people to lose their jobs over the next year.
He reckons the 3,000 that are already earmarked to go in the public sector are just the beginning. Which is pretty grim.
But, overall, I don't think this is the wrong time to be making it easier for people to go into debt or to increase their debt.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You know how you hear people talk about “the million dollar question”? Today, it’s a $13 million dollar question that needs answering.
It’s all to do with the streets around the new stadium in the centre of Christchurch: Te Kaha. You might remember, a while back, how the council came up with this idea of spending $34 million getting the streets ready for the stadium opening in 2026.
And how it wanted to do daft things like widen the footpaths, take away car parks and slow-down speed limits in the area —even more— to as low as 10 kilometres per hour. There was some underground infrastructure stuff, which is the boring stuff that usually makes the most sense.
But $34 million, and we said to the council, ‘what the hell are you thinking?’ They said, “good point guys” and pulled the pin on it. But then, a few weeks later, they had a re-think and it was all-on again.
They did listen to some of the big property developers around town who weren’t happy with the original idea of making Lichfield Street one-way, between Manchester and Madras. But, apart from that change, it was all-go.
And, at the time, what made it so attractive to the council was that $13 million of the $34 million was going to be coming from the Government.
But the city council has just found out that that money from central government is at-risk, because NZTA says it has no idea whether the work will be a priority spend for the new government.
And the council is going to have to wait until October to find out whether the $13 million it was expecting to come from Wellington for the project, is still going to be coming.
But here’s the tricky bit. And this is where the $13 million dollar question comes into it.
If this work on the streets around the stadium is going to be finished in time for when the stadium is due to open in 2026, the work has to start in July. Three months before the council will know whether the government money is still coming - or not.
And the decision facing the council now, is whether to press-on with the work in July —and risk NZTA and the Government saying in October that the $13 million isn’t happening anymore— leaving ratepayers to pay the extra.
Or pause the work until it knows what the central government funding situation is. Or come up with a cheaper option.
I’m in no doubt what the council should do. I think it needs to find a cheaper way of doing it.
Because do you really think the Government’s going to see this as a priority, when it’s already pulling funding from all sorts of things? And when it has said time-and-time again that taxpayers have put enough money into Christchurch’s recovery?
So of course it’s not going to be a priority. And, in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if NZTA tells the council —at some point— to do exactly what I’m saying today. Go away and sharpen your pencil.
And if it was me who was given the job of sharpening the pencil - here’s what I’d do.
I would forget about all the beautification and footpath-widening stuff. Because you might remember Annabelle Turley from the Central City Business Association saying when this all first surfaced, that the council planners seemed to have forgotten our old friend the easterly wind.
They want to widen the footpaths around the stadium to six metres so people can do things like go to restaurants and sit outside and have dinner. As Annabelle said back then, they seem to have forgotten about the wind blasting from the east.
Although, maybe the stadium is going to act as some sort of windbreak. Either way, I’d ditch all that stuff.
Another way I’d cut costs, is to do away with this idea of permanently reducing the speed limit around the stadium to 10 kilometres per hour. Because the process of doing that will cost money.
I know previously the council’s transport manager has said the speed limit should be permanently reduced to 10 kilometres per hour so the council doesn't have to spend money on expensive traffic management plans when big events are held at the stadium.
If that’s the trade-off, then so be it, I say.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday National’s Matt Doocey and Labour’s Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald to dive into this week’s biggest political stories.
Christchurch City Council will soon be making decisions surrounding the funding of the new stadium: should the $13 million price tag be paid by ratepayers? Or should the project be put on hold until NZTA can come up with the funding?
The Reserve Bank is looking into digital currency, is New Zealand ready to let go of cash? And what’s their thoughts on the huge number of job cuts sweeping through the public sector?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Savage and rushed. That’s how the Public Service Association is describing the Government’s crackdown on public sector spending, after another 1,000 job cuts were announced yesterday alone. Taking the total so far to more than 3,000.
I’m going to add “flying blind” to that description. Because I think these cuts are starting to look like cuts for the sake of cuts.
And I think everyone involved —the Government, the bosses of all the government departments, the unions— I think they’re all flying blind. More on that shortly.
But first, I’m going to do my Nicola Willis thing. Although, she’s not the only politician who does this.
What I’m talking about is the way the Finance Minister and other politicians sometimes describe running the country as if it’s the same as making decisions in our own personal lives.
Example: Remember when the Government pulled the pin on the contract for the new inter-island ferries, and Nicola Willis was talking about buying Toyota Corollas instead of buying Ferraris? That’s the sort of thing I’m talking about.
So, I’m going to do the same thing and tell you how the Government’s obsession with not wasting money is similar to the way I run my life.
I’ve got an iPhone, right? Couldn’t even tell you what model of iPhone it is. I got it in December 2019 - so it’s not far away from being four-and-a-half years old. And the kids have been telling me for ages that it’s way past its use-by date and I should be getting a new one.
But I’m like the Government and I don’t want to blow money on a new iPhone, so, I’ve stuck with it. I don’t want to waste money.
Only thing is, it’s reached the point now that whenever I make a call on it, I either sound like I’m underwater or people can’t hear me at all. Or I keep cutting in and out.
So, I’m at the point now, that —whether I like it or not— I’m going to have to go and buy a new phone. I’m at the point now where my stinginess is backfiring on me.
The point I’m making is that there are some things we just have to keep spending money on. And whether we like it or not, we have to spend money on the public service. And, whether we like it or not, the public service is expensive.
And I think the Government needs to look very carefully at what it’s doing with all these public sector job cuts. Because I think it’s starting to look just like me with my phone.
Not wasting money. That’s been the reason I haven’t replaced my phone. But now I have to go and buy a new one which might have been cheaper if I’d done it ages ago. And I have to do it now because it’s packed a sad.
And, just like me, not wasting money is the sole driver behind the Government putting the screws on the public sector.
If you want proof of that, consider what Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said yesterday in Thailand when reporters brought up the job cuts announced by Oranga Tamariki and the Ministry of Education.
He was asked what he thought about claims by a children's advocate that the cuts at Oranga Tamariki would, ultimately, impact on the kids who depend on our child welfare agency.
He said he didn’t think the cuts were excessive and that “New Zealanders expect us to cut the waste”. Which seems to have become the excuse for anything.
Yes, he’s right. None of us like money being wasted, especially our money. But, with respect, I reckon you personally have no idea what is waste and what isn’t waste when it comes to spending on public services. Just like I don’t.
I also don’t think some of the people jumping up and down about the cuts know, either.
Yesterday one of the union people was describing the 1,000 cuts announced yesterday as “savage” and “rushed”, and that it was a black day for the public service.
But, again, do they know what waste is and waste isn’t? Probably not. They just want to save jobs.
So, if the only way we have to measure the Government's waste-busting is by the number of public sector jobs that go, how will we ever know that what’s being cut is actually wasteful? The answer to that, is we won’t.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Funding issues have struck Christchurch, with the Cathedral, the Arts Centre, the A&P Show, and Orana Park all facing financial strife.
Mayor Phil Mauger joined John MacDonald to dig into the issues, touching as well on the issue of begging on the streets of Christchurch and the timeline of the Council’s new CEO.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Every time something terrible or tragic happens you hear people trot out a line which, I think, is totally meaningless.
Maybe I’ve just become too cynical in my old age. But it was trotted out again on TV last night by a reporter talking about the appalling knife attacks at the mall in Sydney at the weekend.
He was talking about an investigation that’s being launched to look into what happened in the lead-up to the attacks, the guy’s mental health history, all of that.
And there he was, this reporter, and he just couldn’t help himself. Right at the end of his live report, he came out with it. He said the investigation was being done so that “this sort of thing never happens again”.
I mean, think about it. Never happens again? Tragically, it will happen again. Because that’s just how society is these days. It is impossible to stop this sort of thing happening again.
Not that Westfield —the crowd that runs the mall in Bondi— thinks so.
Because it’s announced that at its malls in Australia and New Zealand, it’s going to be beefing-up security. So, in Christchurch, there’s going to be more security at Riccarton Mall after what happened in Bondi.
My question is: why? If the answer is to ensure that this sort of thing never happens again, then forget about it.
The other question I’ve got is: how? Because, as far as I’m concerned, whatever they do will just be a band aid that won’t make us any safer than we have been up until now.
Unless, they really go full bore, and start x-raying our bags before we’re allowed in. And start checking our ID.
More security guards aren't going to make any difference. Because, as you and I know, all security guards can do these days is walk around pretending to look tough.
Some of them wear all sorts of vests and things —just like the cops— but, at the end of the day, they can’t do anything. They can just walk around looking tough.
Which is why I think that this talk from Westfield about beefing-up security is just PR. It’s just marketing. Because if a mall company thinks it can stop this thing happening again, then it’s dreaming.
And you’re dreaming if you expect outfits like Westfield to keep you safe.
I reckon the only realistic thing Westfield and other mall operators could do would be to stick a sign up at the door saying: “Enter at your own risk”.
And that’s not only because I don’t think beefing up security can stop tragic events like the one at Bondi at the weekend from happening, but also because I think we have to accept that we go into places like malls at our own risk.
I think what Westfield is doing is it’s giving-in to this expectation that seems to be out there that we need to be protected from every possible bad thing that could happen to us. That we deserve to be protected from every possible bad thing that could happen.
Because it's an impossible task. Just like it’s an impossible task to prevent things like the knife attacks at the Westfield mall in Bondi from “ever happening again”.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It seems to me that the rough sleepers are back on Colombo Street, outside Ballantynes.
I went past this morning on the way in and there were a few of them there in the doorway. They were there last week, too. After what seems like ages.
But, it doesn’t seem to be the central city where homeless people are causing the most problems at the moment. Or, more correctly, it doesn’t seem to be the central city where people who want us to think they’re homeless are causing the most problems.
With news today that aggressive beggars in Addington are making some people fear for their safety. Which has got community leaders - like community board people - saying that urgent action is needed to sort it out.
Now, you might have heard me say in the past that, when it comes to begging, perhaps one solution could be requiring people to have begging permits - which would only be given out once authorities could determine that someone is genuinely homeless and genuinely in need.
But I’ve moved on from that. And I think begging should be banned altogether. This would have to be done at local authority level - so it would have to be something the Christchurch City Council did itself. Or Selwyn or Waimakariri.
The downside of local bylaws, though, is that the Police don’t enforce them. We saw that with the Cranmer Square occupation a couple of years back.
There’s a bylaw against camping in public spaces but, when we started saying that the cops should get into Cranmer Square and clear them out, they said it wasn’t up to them - the council had to do it. Because it wasn’t a law of the land. It was the local council’s by-law.
So, if your local council had a bylaw against begging, it would have to be enforced by the council itself.
I actually think the real benefit of something like this wouldn’t be someone from the council turning up and moving beggars on - because, let’s face it, you might find it difficult finding a council staff member willing to take that on.
I reckon having a bylaw would at least enable people - like you and me, like the people in Addington - to say, when approached by a beggar, that it’s unlawful.
You could say: “You know you’re not allowed to do that mate.” Or: “You know there’s a law against that.” See what I mean? You can’t do that now.
It would actually empower people to feel like they at least had something up their sleeve when they feel brassed-off or intimidated by a beggar.
Because, wherever you sit on the compassion spectrum, beggars can be challenging to deal with.
They can be challenging because you might be really compassionate and you feel like you have no option but to give them a bit of money - even if you know it’s not going to make any difference to their life.
They can be challenging because you might be the type that thinks that, if you can support yourself without asking strangers for money, then why can’t they?
And, at the other end of the spectrum, you just might feel intimidated or scared of a beggar. And that’s what’s going on in Addington, according to the news today. And it won’t just be Addington. This will be happening everywhere. You see it. I see it. It’s everywhere.
But in Addington, at least, it’s apparently got worse over the last few months with parents taking the long way when they’re taking their kids to school, so they can avoid the beggars. At least they’ll have a couple of weeks off having to worry about that, with the school holidays starting today.
I see that the chair of the local community board is saying that some beggars are coming up to people at ATM machines and standing over them, asking for money. Which is just cruddy, isn’t it?
I mean, yes, you might be on hard times, but there’s no excuse for going up to someone getting money out of the ATM and demanding they give you some. That’s just next-level. It’s not even begging. The community board guy is right, it’s intimidation.
I see Megan Woods is getting involved, having meetings with people. She’s saying today: “Unless you do something to actually address the problem, then you’re just going to move them on from one place to somewhere else.”
Which is fine. And true. But “addressing the problem”, as Megan Woods puts it, is a huge task. And why should people intimidated by beggars be expected to wait - and continue to be intimidated - while society comes up with some sort of gold-plated solution?
That’s why I think begging should be banned.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday John MacDonald was joined by National’s Matt Doocey and Labour’s Megan Woods to discuss this week’s biggest stories.
They discussed Puberty Blockers, and what the Government will do about us prescribing ten times the number they do in the UK? Will National’s tenancy laws make life worse for renters? Is it time to build more houses? And what does Matt, as the Mental Health Minister, make of his party’s new stance on mental health services?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It happens all the time in New Zealand, doesn't it? Something goes pear-shaped and people start banging-on about the Government needing to step-in and do something.
And the banging-on is loud in relation to the job losses confirmed by Warner Brothers Discovery and TVNZ.
Newshub is closing, as proposed. And TVNZ is ditching the Sunday programme, as proposed. As well as other bulletins and the much-loved Fair Go programme.
You might have heard Newshub’s Paddy Gower on Newstalk ZB. One of the things he was saying the Government could do, is stop charging transmission fees.
Kordia is the state-owned enterprise which broadcasting companies pay money to, to transmit their programmes around the country.
But, as far as I can make out, that is the only tangible, realistic thing the Government could do, and I don’t think that is enough to warrant any government intervention. Any why’s that? Because I think it would be a band-aid.
The social media companies are in the gun too, for taking content produced and created by media companies in New Zealand for free and making money out of it.
Other countries have tried to sort that mess out and have failed. Because the social media giants are just that - they’re giants, and they don’t give a damn. And they’re going to keep on taking our news content and making money out of it.
But bring-in Media and Communications Minister Melissa Lee. She was saying this morning that maybe little old New Zealand could do what has never been done anywhere else in the world.
She was talking nonsense of course. Because that’s never going to happen. Never.
I’m pretty sure she didn’t say anything about the idea of ditching the transmission fees to try and make TV news more sustainable. Maybe because that could be one of the things she’s floating in her Cabinet paper, which she can’t talk about. For a couple of reasons.
One: it hasn’t been to Cabinet yet, so of course she can’t talk about it.
And two: it hasn’t been to Cabinet yet because Winston Peters is out of the country thumping the table at the United Nations in New York and nothing can go to Cabinet until he’s seen it and has had a chance to make changes, kick it for touch, or whatever.
So, I’m not going to say I feel sorry for Melissa Lee for the pressure she’s getting from the TV and news people, because I don’t think she’s done herself any favours in the way she’s handled all this.
She was quick to trot out the empathy line when she was on this morning. That was probably a few weeks too late.
So, I’m not going to say we need to give the minister a break. But I am going to say that we need to calm the farm a bit here.
Yes, there is an uneven playing field with the way Facebook and all those outfits just come in and take content and do what they like with it, without paying anything. But that’s nothing new.
And yes, I hope the Government does do something to sort that out.
And yes, it is incredible to think that the likes of the Sunday program and Fair Go —let alone the whole Newshub operation— are going to be history very soon.
And yes, I am gutted for those hundreds of people who are going to be out of work very soon. Who wouldn’t be?
But this is not a national crisis. I know some people are saying as much, but it’s not. And yes, the media is critical to holding the powerful to account and all of that. You’re not going to get any argument from me on that one.
So, a lot of yeses there. But where the “no” comes into it —as far as I’m concerned— is this idea that, because commercial TV operations are struggling, the Government needs to rush in and fix it.
The Government can do some tweaks, sure, but it’s not going to fix it. It’s never going to fix it. And, as our current government would tell you, it is the market that decides. And the market has decided that we are not a place that can sustain the amount of TV we have had, up until now.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Instead of banging-on about things like fining parents who don’t send their kids to school, the Government should be finding out what’s already working to sort out school truancy.
They won’t do that, though, because some of the things I’ve been reading about would go down like a cup of the proverbial with voters. And you’ve got to keep the voters sweet, don’t you?
The one truancy initiative that’s really caught my eye is something that’s been done in the UK, that has actually reduced truancy levels by about a third in some places.
And it’s a little bit like what happened here after the Canterbury earthquakes when some schools in the central city and eastern parts of town were so munted they couldn’t keep operating and had to share sites and facilities with other schools.
I remember our local high school sharing with another school. Which meant that some of these kids didn’t have to turn up to school until around lunchtime.
And, believe it or not, it’s this kind of start time that some schools in the UK are crediting for reducing truancy levels.
One school doesn’t start classes until 11:30. And they say that, not only do they have more kids turning up (we’re talking teenagers here, by the way), but the kids are actually more involved and engaged because they’ve had a decent amount of sleep.
With school not starting until 11:30, they can have a lie-in, do things at their pace and then head off to school.
We seem to be all about allowing adults to fit work around how they operate best these days, don’t we? So why not school kids as well?
I don’t think you could have parents of primary and intermediate kids heading off to work and leaving the young kids at home on their own to get themselves to school.
But I reckon this could be a game-changer for reducing truancy rates at high schools.
But do you think politicians would go with it? I don’t think they would because I reckon most people —as in voters— would go nuts if we told teenagers they could do things in their own time, and they didn’t have to get to school until lunchtime.
Which is why I think that, if politicians are really serious about getting more kids in school, learning, and being prepared for a productive adult life, then they have to be prepared to go with ideas that might go against the grain a bit. Especially if they’ve got more chance of fixing the problem than what’s currently on the table.
I like the idea of school boards having to make truancy and attendance rates front and centre in their thinking and planning. That’s one of the things the Government’s talking about. But school boards are oldies like me too. When I say “oldie”, I mean anyone over the age of about 20.
Because I was talking yesterday to someone who has been out of school for two years and they were saying to me that they can’t believe how out of touch they feel with school life after just two years - and how anyone older than them, must really be out of touch.
Yesterday, it was 51 years to the day since I started school. So I’m really out of touch in terms of what it’s like to be a school student. Which is why I’m more than open to ideas that might seem a bit weird, that might seem like they’re just pandering to teenagers, if there’s a decent chance they might actually work.
Which is why this idea of high schools not requiring students to turn up until they’ve had a bit of a lie-in really appeals.
It feels odd, but I like the sound of it. It goes totally against my inclination to see school as the foundation for forming good patterns and habits to set you up for life. But what do I know? I started school 51 years ago yesterday and it’s more than 35 years since I was a teenager.
And one of the things that’s changed massively since then, is the time our teenage kids actually get to sleep. And that’s because of technology. They’re up all hours of the night on devices and they’re a disaster in the morning because of it.
And teenagers just naturally need more sleep, anyway. So that’s why I’d be right up for this approach. But what about you?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Chris Hipkins says it's important to look beyond school attendance headlines to what's behind the numbers.
The Government's unveiled plans to improve reporting of attendance data and bring in a traffic light system of interventions for truant students.
It will also release new public health guidance about when a student is well enough to go to school.
The Labour leader told John MacDonald that there's a group of kids who are absent more often than previously, but for good reason.
He says parents are more inclined to keep children home when they are sick than they were previously, and that shouldn't be criticised.
He also said that the Government will be able to meet all of its 2030 targets because they aren't very big.
The nine goals include shortening emergency department and elective surgery wait-times, raising school attendance and slashing youth crime.
The coalition also wants 50,000 fewer people on the job-seeker benefit and to reduce households in emergency housing by 75%.
Hipkins said the targets are realistic, but they're missing a lot of detail.
He says that, for example, the emergency department targets fail to address why so many people show up to hospital with an avoidable illness.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Do you reckon politicians stay in the job too long? Christopher Luxon thinks so. And I agree with him.
Some of them, anyway. They’re a bit like the milk that no one chucks out of the office fridge and one morning you turn-up, go to make yourself a cuppa and there are little floaty bits in your cup.
That’s kind of what the Prime Minister was getting at yesterday with a comment he made when he was announcing the nine big things he wants the government to achieve over the next six years.
Targets for government departments to be held accountable to in terms of things like reducing crime, reducing hospital waiting times, improving things on the education front - all that stuff.
Now you could say Christopher Luxon was being somewhat presumptive giving the current government six years. Because we’ll decide whether it gets six years, won’t we? At the next election.
But I think, more to the point, he was giving himself six years. Six years to do the job and get out of there and onto the next thing.
There’s a comment he made yesterday that got my attention. This was during the post-Cabinet media conference.
He said: “I'm coming from a CEO background, I make no apologies about that. Because it hasn't worked for us the last six years. Having career politicians isn’t delivering results or improved results for New Zealanders.”
So, there he was telling the country that, if we give him two terms, that will be him done. He’s not interested in making a career out of politics. He wants to do what he can and move on.
Who knows if he’s thought about it this way. But it’s kind of like he’s approaching things like the US presidency, where a person can have no more than two terms.
There’s only been one US president who has served more than two terms, by the way. That was Franklin D. Roosevelt. He completed three terms and died just weeks into his fourth term. He’s the only one, though, because shortly after he died the rule was changed to two terms only.
But back to what Christopher Luxon said yesterday about career politicians not delivering results.
The politicians he was getting at there are the likes of Grant Robertson and Chris Hipkins, who have been politicians forever. Although old Grant is warming his feet under the desk at Otago University.
But those guys pretty much went to university, graduated, started working for some MP at Parliament and eventually made their way to being selected as a candidate and —boompha— away laughing. Career politicians.
Unlike Christopher Luxon, for example, who reminded us again yesterday that —compared to others— he’s only been an MP for five minutes. And he reckons that’s a good thing. Because people who make a career out of politics aren’t actually all that interested in making too much of a difference too soon, because they want a job for life.
And you can understand why some people would see it that way. Your basic backbench MP for example is on just over $160,000. Travel paid for. Accommodation paid for. Pretty sweet deal. And, for some of them, a much better deal than they would get anywhere else. Out in the so-called “real world”.
But politicians who stick around just to draw the salary don’t do us any favours, do they? And that’s what Christopher Luxon was saying yesterday. That the career politicians who were running the show before now failed to deliver, and they failed us. And he’s here to change that.
So, I agree with him that some reach the point well-beyond their use-by date. But I think that needs to be balanced a bit too.
For example, I don't think anyone should be a Cabinet minister until they’ve served at least one term. That’s because it would give them at least three years to get their head around how Parliament works, all the rules and processes, before they find themselves having to make some big decisions.
So, I don’t think we want our government ministers to be too inexperienced. But I do agree with Christopher Luxon when it comes to things at the other end of an MP’s time in Parliament. And I agree that politicians who do end-up making a career out of it can be absolutely hopeless, can’t they?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I am calling time on my support for the reinstatement of the Anglican cathedral in Cathedral Square. Because we now know that what we suspected is, in fact, true and the whole project is in financial strife and may be about to come to a complete standstill.
The job is bigger than first thought and the project needs to find an extra $114 million - taking the overall cost to $248 million.
And here’s the crucial bit. If the first $30 million of that $114 million can’t be found by September - five months from now - work will stop completely and the cathedral will be mothballed, indefinitely.
If that isn’t bad enough, it seems the people running the project are still somewhat delusional. How do I know that? I’ll get to that shortly.
But I should tell you first that, for me, this is another one of those “what good is a mind if you can’t change it” situations. And my confidence and support has gone.
Because it was only about six weeks ago that I was saying that, if we really want to finish this reinstatement once-and-for-all, then more ratepayer money is going to be the only option.
So far, $30 million of public money has gone into it. $10 million from ratepayers and $20 million from taxpayers. And six weeks ago, I said that more public money is needed because expecting people to donate money is just daft. And it’s not going to come from taxpayers. Which just leaves ratepayers.
But I didn’t know six weeks ago that costs have gone through the roof and the project is now short of $114 million. That’s even with the church putting in another $16 million of its own money.
So, let’s do some numbers. There are about 184,000 ratepayers in Christchurch. And if the extra $114 million was going to come from us, it would equate to around $700 each. More if the council borrowed the money and there was interest on top of that.
I actually think $700-per-ratepayer doesn’t sound too bad when you consider how much of a handbrake the cathedral is on future development in and around Cathedral Square.
That’s because the reinstatement work isn’t limited to the land the cathedral sits on. There’s a lot of space around the cathedral that can’t be used because it’s also needed for the reinstatement work. And this is stopping any other developments from happening.
But, six weeks on, I’ve changed my mind. And the reason for that is that I’ve lost confidence. For a couple of reasons.
First - and this is where we get to my point about the people behind the project being deluded. Despite announcing this $114 million funding hole and saying that, if $30 million of it can’t be raised in just four months, then the whole thing will be mothballed - despite all that, they’re still banging on about fundraising.
Here’s what the Chair of the project, Mark Stewart said at the weekend.
“We are confident we can raise a further $26 million of fundraising, on top of the $24 million raised so far.”
Now they’ve done well raising $24 million, don’t get me wrong. But they’re dreaming, thinking they’re going to get another $26 million. Because, if it was do-able, it would have been done by now.
Originally, they set out to raise $51 million by the end of last year. But they’re only around the halfway mark and that’s because people with truckloads of money don’t give it away for buildings anymore. Let alone a building that is a miniature copy of hundreds - if not thousands - of vastly more impressive cathedrals around the world.
So, they need to give up on this pipedream that more fundraising is part of the answer.
The other reason why the reinstatement project has lost my confidence, is what an economic impact report done by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) says. Its report was released by the cathedral people on the weekend, at the same time they were announcing the funding crisis.
There are a couple of comments in that report that caught my eye. But first, here’s what it says about the possible economic benefits for Christchurch of a reinstated cathedral. The NZIER reckons it could mean up to $20.8 million in additional tourism spending every year.
But they then go on to say this: “The most important benefits arise from the building’s non-use value. Non-use value mainly consists of the value people gain from knowing that the cathedral has been reinstated, even if they do not visit it.”
And the other line that caught my eye, says: “There is a high-level of uncertainty around both the number of people who will benefit from the reinstated cathedral and the value of the benefit.”
Now the reason why the cathedral project sent this report out with its media release on Saturday morning, was to try and build confidence and justify more public money going into the reinstatement.
But it’s had the complete opposite effect on me. Because, while the idea of $20 million in increased visitor spend is not to be sneezed at, the fact this report also says there is a high level of uncertainty about the benefits and who would actually benefit, is incredibly flimsy as far as I’m concerned.
And, I've come to the conclusion that the reinstatement should never have been allowed to start in the first place, and the cathedral should have been demolished all those years ago. And if there’s a way of making that happen now, then just do it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Some things should never be put to a vote. Because, if they were, nothing would happen. Nothing would change.
I’m not the only one who knows this. The Government knows it too. That’s why it’s telling local councils that, if they want to set-up a separate ward for Māori voters, they have to have a public referendum first.
The councils are telling the Government to butt out. And I agree with them.
Similar to Māori parliamentary seats, Māori wards establish areas where those on the Māori electoral roll can vote for their own representatives on the local council.
But the Government doesn’t want a bar of that. Which is why it’s saying to councils ‘if you want a Māori ward, put it to the vote first. Find out if it’s what the people want before you go ahead and do it.’
It’s even telling councils that already have Māori wards that they can only keep them if they go to their ratepayers and ask for their approval.
Not surprisingly, the councils are pushing back. As they should. Sam Broughton is the head of Local Government New Zealand, which is the outfit that represents local councils.
He’s saying today that, before the election, National talked a big game about local control for local councils and all of that. Much of that was to do with control over water assets.
But Sam Broughton is saying, now that it’s in government, it seems to be a different story. With this big edict coming from the Local Government Minister Simeon Brown.
And you know why the Government’s doing this, don’t you? It’s because it knows that, when councils do that —when they have these referenda— the Māori wards will be gone by lunchtime. Which is exactly what coalition partners ACT and New Zealand First want.
And here’s how I know that any referendum on Māori wards would give the Government exactly what it wants.
17.3%. That’s the proportion of New Zealand’s overall population that is estimated to be Māori.
You often hear people banging on about Māori being 15% of the population. But the latest numbers from Stats NZ say it’s 17.3%.
But the numbers that really show why any referendum on Māori wards would be a disaster for anyone who thinks they’re a good idea, is the pitiful number of people who actually give a damn about local government.
And that’s measured by voter turnout or participation in local body elections. It’s pathetic.
In the last elections, there was a record low turnout. In Christchurch, 10.9% of eligible voters bothered to take part. It was even worse elsewhere.
In Auckland, turnout was 8.8%. Wellington 4.9%. Taupo 3.9%.
What’s more, according to data from the New Zealand Electoral Commission, the entire Māori voting roll was just over 10% of the voting population in 2020. So, you mix all those numbers together, you're not going to get a lot of people taking part in these referendums and even less voting in favour of Māori wards.
And I’m going to go a bit unscientific on it here, and I’m going to pick that the majority of those people who do even bother taking part - because, remember, these will happen at the same time as local body elections, which most people can’t be bothered with - I'm going to pick that the vast majority of people who do vote in these referendums, will be the types who think Māori wards are "an attack on democracy".
The types who like to bang on about Māori having just as much of an opportunity as the next person to put their hand up and stand for election. The types who go on about Māori being a minority who want to run roughshod over everything as if they’re the majority.
So, it’s obvious, isn’t it, that if we’re going to have to have a referendum every time a local council gets an idea in its head about having a Māori ward, then it’s going to go nowhere.
But what’s to be sacred of? In my mind, there’s absolutely nothing to be scared of.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday John MacDonald was joined by National's Hamish Campbell and Labour's Duncan Webb to dig into the biggest topics from the week.
They discussed Māori wards and the need for a referendum, is the central Government interfering in locals' business?
What chance does the Christchurch City Council have of changing the Marine Mammals Protection Act to keep the SailGP in Lyttelton?
Is the education system focusing too much on local history?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When it comes to history lessons, our schools are focussing too much on local and Māori history, leaving out things like national and global history.
That’s what’s come through in a report out today from the Education Review Office. But, as someone who studied history at school and came away ignorant of a lot of New Zealand’s history, I don’t see what the problem is.
When I first went to live in London, it used to amaze me talking to English people about stuff they did at school and how —when it came to history— whole classes would shoot over the English Channel to European countries on school trips.
And when it comes to history, Europe is full of it, isn't it?
And when I think back to my history lessons here in New Zealand, all I can remember is studying the apartheid system in South Africa during the 5th form, and there was a bit of European history in there somewhere, as well. Stuff that went down in Constantinople - that sort of thing.
This was in Dunedin. And do you think there was anything in those history lessons about the Otago gold rush or anything about Ngāi Tahu?
I did know about the first shipment of refrigerated meat from Port Chalmers in February 1882 that Mike Hosking mentioned when he was talking to Education Minister Erica Standford this morning. But that wasn’t something I learned at school. I just picked that up. Like you do with a lot of history.
But was there anything in those history lessons I did about the gold rush or Ngāi Tahu? Of course, there wasn’t. Which meant that people of my generation grew up not knowing what we should know about our country’s history.
Fast-forward 30-plus years, and it was only when I was doing some te reo lessons that I heard anything about Ngāi Tahu's history on Banks Peninsula.
And that experience of mine is exactly why the history curriculum in New Zealand schools was changed. To make sure that we don’t have future generations of New Zealanders growing up, like I did, pretty much ignorant of a lot of New Zealand’s history.
Problem is, the curriculum teachers have been working to isn’t really a curriculum. It’s more of the usual head office education waffle. Which has meant it’s been up to schools themselves to develop their own history curriculums and it seems that their default has been to focus on local and Māori history, leaving out things like national and global history.
That’s what the Education Review Office is saying today.
But, as far as I’m concerned, what kids need to know is the stuff I didn’t know about when I left school.
Example: Parihaka. Nothing was taught to me at school about the invasion of the western Taranaki Māori settlement of Parihaka by about 1600 government troops.
The settlement was where Māori had gone to be part of a peaceful resistance to the confiscation of Māori land. But on 5th November, 1881, the troops were sent in.
How ironic is that? On 5th November we get the fireworks out because 400-odd years ago old Guy Fawkes tried to blow-up the British Parliament. But, on the same date, it’s the anniversary of the Parihaka invasion.
But do we ever hear anything about that on 5th November? Of course, we don’t. That’s because we’re obsessed with the history of other countries - when we should be more obsessed with our own history.
And we’re not. Because we haven’t been taught it. Until now. But, apparently, that’s not a good thing.
Where I would agree with the Education review Office, is that there needs to be some sort of re-balancing of the history curriculum. Because you’re not going to hear me argue that kids shouldn’t be taught about things like the Holocaust, or 9/11, or the ‘87 sharemarket crash and what it meant here in New Zealand. And yes, maybe even the first shipment of refrigerated meat from Port Chalmers in February 1882.
But you’re also not going to hear me argue that we should be ditching Māori history or really local history.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Canterbury tourism officials are in talks with the Government about how to make it easier to host SailGP races in the future.
A dolphin sighting forced the cancellation of one of the two days of races at last month's Lyttleton event.
Christchurch’s Mayor Phil Mauger says that changes may be needed.
He told John MacDonald that that could include looking at the current marine mammal legislation.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When I was in Wellington a few weekends ago, a couple of things happened.
One: I was walking down Cuba Street in the central city and it occurred to me how ironic it is that we have probably one of the most conservative governments we’ve had in New Zealand for quite some time, and it’s based in one of the country’s funkiest cities. If not, the funkiest city.
The second thing also happened when I was walking down Cuba Street.
I was crossing at the lights, and I saw a guy and I thought ‘Oh, there’s Razor”. As in Scott Razor Robertson - former Crusaders coach and now coach of the All Blacks.
But then I saw that this guy was walking with another guy, and they were holding hands. So, I did a double take and could see it wasn’t Razor, but he was a pretty good look-a-like.
The reason I’m telling you this is because a guy who grew up in Christchurch but who now lives in Wellington —where he moved to study— thinks Christchurch isn’t a welcoming place for the LGBTQIA+ community, or the queer community as it’s come to be known. And he reckons if we had one of those rainbow pedestrian crossings here, it could make quite a difference.
In fact, he’s saying today it could have “a profound impact”.
His name is Claude Tellick, and he’s 20-years-old. And he’s got me listening because, as a middle-aged straight guy, who am I to say whether he’s right or wrong?
In fact, I’d go further than that and say that, if he thinks it would make a difference, then I’m sold on the idea.
Because again, as a middle-aged straight guy, it’s very easy for me to go into default mode and say, ‘what the hell is a multi-coloured pedestrian crossing going to do?’. And, in some ways I do think that, because do you really think someone who is all anti-gay or anti-queer people is going to change their thinking because of one pedestrian crossing?
From my view of the world, I don’t see how it could make a difference - or have the “profound impact” that Claude Tellick says it would.
But that’s because I don’t know what it’s like not to be straight. I might like to think I do know what it’s like. But I’ve got no idea.
I’ve got no idea what it’s like to realise you’re queer. I’ve got no idea what it’s like to tell people you’re queer. And I’ve got no idea what it’s like to try and form relationships when you’re queer.
And I’ll be a hundred percent honest with you, I even find using the word “queer” a bit odd. For me.
Another thing I’ve got no idea of, is what it’s like to be gay, or bi —or any LGBTQIA+ person— and not see myself reflected where I live.
You know, the world is made for straights like me. Especially in places like Christchurch. But, for others, it's a different story.
Claude Tellick —who’s pushing for a rainbow crossing in Christchurch— says the city doesn’t feel a very welcoming place for queer people. He thinks a lack of visible diversity is part of the problem.
And his view of Christchurch is that, even though there are many people and organisations who work hard to make it a safer place for non-straight people, he felt forced to leave and go to Wellington to live without prejudice.
Again, if you’re heterosexual like me, you might be quick to say “oh, he’s just being too sensitive that young fella. Some of my best friends are gay. Love them like a brother - or a sister.”
But again, we don’t really know what we’re on about - because we haven’t lived it.
And, certainly for me, I don’t have the lived experience that some parents have —probably a lot of parents— who find out that their child is queer. Back in the day, some parents cut their kids loose if they came out. Couldn’t handle it.
Things are a bit different these days. But don’t underestimate the impact on parents of queer people, when society is quick to dismiss their desire to be seen as normal. And quick to dismiss their desire to see themselves reflected in the communities they live.
Which is why I hope we —as in our local community here— aren't too quick to dismiss the issue that Claude Tellick is raising. And which is getting more support by the day. Already around 1200 people have put their name to his petition.
Because if he thinks a rainbow pedestrian crossing would make a difference, who am I to argue?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It was a tragic Easter for some, with seven people dying on the roads - the highest Easter toll in three years, and the second highest in 14.
The worst was on State Highway 8 at Pukaki. Three people died at the scene and a fourth person died in hospital.
I know exactly where that crash happened because we drove that stretch of road countless times when the kids were rowing, and we were up and down to Twizel almost every second weekend.
And I saw some shocking driving on that road. Not just at Pukaki. But in that general area.
Now I’m not having a go at anyone involved in that crash —or anyone involved in any of the crashes, for that matter— because I don’t know what happened, what caused them, all of that.
But I do know something, and it has struck me that it is absolutely nuts. And it’s the fact that, whether you are experienced at driving or not, you can drive a car on the open road as soon as you get behind the wheel.
On a learner licence? As long as you’ve got a licenced driver with you, go for your life. On a restricted licence? You don't even need a licenced driver with you if you drive between 5am and 10pm, and you can do that on the open road at speeds up to 90kph or 100kph.
Often, when we come back after a long weekend —or even during the holiday periods themselves— we talk about what could or should be done to make our roads safer.
And most of the time people talk about higher fines for speeding, more cops out on the road. Essentially, the big stick approach. Get tough and people will think twice before they do something crazy behind the wheel.
Median barriers are another thing we often end up talking about. So, it’s either scare people into driving safer with tougher penalties, or keep them away from each other, as much as possible with median barriers, which I'm a big advocate for.
But has it ever occurred to you how nuts it is that we train and test new drivers on urban 50kph roads, but don’t do any training to prepare them for driving at high speed on highways and motorways?
I don't think it’s ever struck me before. But it did after seeing where the Easter road toll was at and hearing the cops say they are exasperated by what’s happening on the roads. Especially by what happened at the weekend.
Road policing director Superintendent Steve Greally is someone you would expect to be upset. He says he’s “utterly disappointed”. Here’s what he said to media yesterday.
“It beggars belief. I guess that some people just don’t understand the basics - even though they are really simple. Slow down - we can’t say it any other way.
"This has blown my mind a little bit, we don’t want anymore. This is enough carnage for people to bear.”
And who isn’t going to agree with that? I’m not. Are you?
So, if we’re not going to argue with the cop in charge of road safety, who says enough’s enough, what do we do about it?
One of the things that Superintendent Steve Greally has been talking about is “red mist”. This is where anger clouds our judgement. And he was saying that, if people get affected by red mist when they’re behind the wheel, they should take an extra day’s leave.
But, if you’re someone who loses their rag behind the wheel, it’s not going to make any difference whether you drive back home during the holiday weekend or after it.
I think we should be focusing more on whether we do enough to prepare people for driving on the open road. Because I don’t think we do. In fact, I know we don’t - because we don’t do anything!
We teach people how to use a vehicle —generally on 50kph roads— we make them learn the road rules, then they sit a test on those road rules, and then we test their driving on the 50kph roads they learnt to drive on. If they do all that, away they go.
Which is nuts. We can dish out as many speeding tickets as we like but, if we’re going to keep on doing things the way we are now, in terms of preparing people for driving at high speeds on open roads, then Superintendent Steve Greally is going to be just as exasperated in five years time, as he is now.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
One thing I know with absolute certainty is that I could never be a schoolteacher.
A few more people might be saying that today after the news that the behaviour of school kids in New Zealand has worsened over the past two years, making them among the worst-behaved in the OECD.
And I hope that parents around the country are hearing this news and thinking about what they can do to sort out this mess. Because, as far as I’m concerned, it all starts with us - the people who bring these kids into the world.
It’s not the schools’ fault. They just deal with what they’re given. Just like it shouldn’t be the schools who are left to come up with a solution to the problem being highlighted in this report out today from the Education Review Office - or ERO.
They’re the crowd that go around schools, checking they’re doing what they’re supposed to be doing.
Back in the day, they used to call them the School Inspectors. These days it’s a little bit more touchy feely. But, having been on a school board when ERO was on the way, they might not call themselves school inspectors anymore, but the schools still get a bit antsy about being under the microscope.
Today, though, ERO is speaking out on behalf of the schools - telling us about the nonsense teachers and principals have to deal with on a daily basis.
One stat in this report that caught my eye, is the 3-out-of-4 teachers who say they have students refusing to follow instructions every day. So, you imagine that - unless you’re a teacher, and you won’t have to imagine it.
But you imagine turning up at work everyday, knowing that you’re going to have kids ignoring you or just outright refusing to do what you want them to do. It would drive me nuts and I’d probably end-up being hauled in front of the Teaching Council. Because I know I’d lose my rag.
But that’s a daily thing for about 75% of teachers. Not to mention the violence, thieving, and vandalism going on.
I was talking to the principal of a school the other week, and he was telling me that he has full-school assemblies every week or so. And what he has to do there, is stand up and give the kids some sort of motivational talk.
He was telling me that he can really struggle with that sometimes. Because sometimes all he wants to do is get up in front of all the kids and say ‘for God’s sake, stop smashing up the toilets’.
And that’s the reality. Vandalism, violence, disrespect. And the Education Review Office says things need to change and something has to be done about it.
And if we think we can leave it to the Government and schools to sort out, then we’re dreaming.
Because nothing is going to change if parents don’t up the ante as well. And what I’m talking about here are simple things like making sure kids get to school and into their classroom on time. In fact, ahead of time.
Anyone who knows me will know that I’m terrible at being on time for things. But if you have a kid turn up at school late, they go into the classroom on the back foot, they start talking to other kids trying to find out what’s going on, and the behaviour of everybody in the classroom spirals downwards from there.
Another thing is this easy-osey attitude that parents have to turning up at work since COVID. The old working-from-home thing has had massive repercussions around the world —not just here in New Zealand— with parents getting a bit slack about turning up when and where they should.
And that’s coming through in parents’ attitudes about the need for their kids to even actually go to school five days a week, let alone turn up there on time.
Then you think, well - what about the 75% of teachers who say they have kids refusing to do what they’re asked, every day? Parents can’t be blamed for that, can they?
Well, yes, they can actually. Because, unfortunately, too many parents have given up. Which probably sounds harsher than I mean it to sound, because I know full well that some kids are just out of control. And, for some parents, there seems to be nothing they can do to get their kids under control.
I’ve had parents call up and say they’re at their wits end. They’re good people these parents. But there are bad ones as well.
These are the parents who were probably the bad eggs when they were at school, and who have had no clue from the outset. And these are the parents who will have very low expectations when it comes to how their kids behave.
Problem is it’s their kids who are going to go, have kids of their own, and repeat the cycle over-and-over again.
So, what do we do?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. We are the People’s Republic of Pushovers.
This time, we’ve been pushovers over this apparent cyber-attack on Parliament and spying on our politicians by China.
It happened two-and-a-half years ago, but it was only yesterday when we heard about it. It was something of a staged announcement with the United States and Britain, which were also targeted.
Not that China is putting up its hand and saying, ‘fair cop gov’. It reckons we are “barking up the wrong tree”.
But I’m willing to take our spy agencies and the Government on their word and accept that this did happen.
What I’m not so willing to accept, though, is our weak-kneed response. Which all comes down to the difficult balancing act we have when it comes to China.
On one hand, it’s our biggest trading partner and so, you know, you’ve got to keep China sweet. It’s got all the power when it comes to trade.
On the other hand, we’re trying to balance this bromance the government seems to be intent on fostering with the United States and Britain. Which are, of course, having a major lovefest with our old mates Australia. Buying nuclear submarines and all of that as part of the AUKUS alliance.
So, it’s tricky for us. It’s like we’re having a party and inviting different groups of friends who don’t actually get on with each other. We want to be mates with China, who can’t stand America. But we also want to be mates with the States, and their bestie, the UK, but they’re not up for hanging out with China.
And what’s taken the balancing act next level has been what China is up to in the Pacific. And we’ve got mates there too. In fact, the Pacific nations and New Zealand, we’re almost family.
But recently, China (who we want to be mates with), has been buying presents for our cuzzies in the Pacific. And America —which we also want to be mates with— isn’t happy about that. And we’re almost in a position where the United States is saying, alright New Zealand - who are you with? Them (China) or us?
And we just want everyone to get on so that everything can be awesome. But that’s not reality. And so, when the US and Britain decided they’d had enough of being hacked by China too, they decided to hit back with sanctions against two individuals and a front company linked to a cyber-espionage group associated with China’s Ministry of State Security.
And in its official announcement yesterday the US accused China of perpetrating what it called an elaborate and invasive state-backed hacking program going back more than a decade.
Merrick Garland, the US attorney general, called the hacking operation proof of “the ends to which the Chinese government is willing to go to target and intimidate its critics”.
Meanwhile, here in New Zealand, we did the kiwi thing. We kept it on the down-low, had a bit of a chilled-out vibe, and what that means is, whatever you do, don’t mention the hacking when you have an opportunity to mention the hacking.
In fact, not just one opportunity - two opportunities.
Last week, the Prime Minister met in Wellington with China’s Foreign Minister. There were all the usual smiles and photo opportunities. And it was all about trade, trade, trade. As it should, of course. But was anything said to China’s Foreign Minister about the cyber-attack? Not a dickie bird.
Then last year. Chris Hipkins was Prime Minister and he went on a trip to China with a business delegation. Which meant that, just like Christoher Luxon’s meeting last week with China’s Foreign Minister, the talk was all trade, trade, trade.
But again, absolutely nothing was said about the cyber-attack. And now that we are talking about it. We’re not doing what the States and Britain are doing. We’re not imposing sanctions. All we’re doing is calling-in the ambassador for a chat with Winston. What a bunch of pushovers we are.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The leader of the Opposition says he finds the West Coast Christian community Gloriavale abhorrent.
A new documentary series exploring the origins and controversies surrounding the secretive commune has begun airing on TVNZ.
Some members have fled in recent years and several are taking Gloriavale to the Employment Court over claims of mistreatment.
Labour's Chris Hipkins told John MacDonald his government set up an oversight group to keep an eye on Gloriavale.
He says he understands the current government has disbanded the group, which is needed now more than ever, in light of what we've seen on TV over the past few days.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I am astounded by what’s come out of this review into how well-prepared Civil Defence was prior to Cyclone Gabrielle and its immediate emergency response.
It wasn’t well prepared at all, it seems. And the worst-case scenario was not planned for.
How many years is it since the earthquakes in Canterbury? Thirteen years since February 22nd. Longer since the September quake.
And here we are in 2024, and Mike Bush —who led an independent review into the Civil Defence response to the cyclone in Hawke’s Bay— has found that the National Emergency Management System sets-up good people to fail.
You know that phrase: “When will we learn?” It seems we are incapable of that. Because, back in 2010 and 2011, the country had so many opportunities to learn.
Who knows how many academics and experts were poking their nose into Christchurch, wanting to interview people and find out their experience and their “learnings”.
After 2010 and 2011, it was going to be the big opportunity to make sure we set ourselves up to deal with major disasters and Canterbury was going to be the learning ground. But it seems we’ve learned nothing, because Mike Bush said as much yesterday.
Here’s another thing he said: “We see the critical lessons for the future that can be drawn from this event falling into two broad narratives.
“One should inform improvements at local and regional levels. The other speaks to the need for new investment in enhanced national coordination, assurance, consistency and depth of professional leadership in response to emergencies.”
Thirteen years on from the country’s biggest natural disaster and we’re being told that our national emergency management system isn’t up to it, it needs more investment to bring it up to scratch, and it sets people up to fail.
Astounding, don’t you think?
I had suspicions that we hadn’t learned a thing before all this came out, when I saw people after the cyclone saying they’d been let down by their insurance companies and EQC.
Now we’re hearing that the system designed to co-ordinate responses to national emergencies is a dud.
Funnily enough, I was going through Christchurch's CBD just the other day and I looked at all the building work still going on and I thought back to how people responded that day back in 2011. How Civil Defence and council people set themselves up in the art gallery building. And they were there for weeks.
How, in the chaos of the moment, they didn’t put themselves first. They put their city and its people first. And you would think, wouldn’t you, that if we were to get some good out of all that - it would be making sure that people all around the country who might find themselves in the same boat one day, didn’t have to pretty much start from scratch like our responders had to.
But no. Mike Bush has looked into it. And it seems we —as a country— are no better prepared for major disasters than we were thirteen and fourteen years ago, when disaster struck for those of us here in Canterbury.
And it astounds me.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Do you know what Sir Russell Coutts needs to do?
He needs to pull his head in.
Because if his behaviour on Friday wasn’t ungracious enough - saying that a lack of flexibility and what he called “minority groups” having too much say, made Lyttelton non-viable for hosting the SailGP races - yesterday was just nuts.
What happened on Friday was a bit of a bombshell, because no one knew it was coming. I think I heard the mayor saying that he only knew about it 15 minutes beforehand.
So, on Friday, Sir Russell was saying that the minority groups had too much say and it was only going to work for SailGP if they could have the regatta in February next year, and they were told, apparently, that the last day of February might be the only option.
I’ll quote what he said on Friday: “Like a lot of things in New Zealand these days, there’s a few minority groups that have a huge say in what happens and that’s the way it works.”
And we know what he was getting at there, because he spelt it out when he really threw his toys out of the cot yesterday after racing on Saturday was cancelled because of the protected dolphins.
And I’ll get to that. But I thought when I heard him on Friday, that you couldn’t get a more ungracious way to behave when Christchurch bent over backwards to make this year’s New Zealand leg of SailGP happen after Auckland pulled the plug.
You’ll remember how Auckland has got contamination issues with the site that SailGP wanted to use for the spectator zone.
So, after the brilliant event here last year, ChristchurchNZ whipped into action and - hey presto - we had it here again this year. Not only that, we paid for the privilege, as you do with these things.
It was at a discounted price. But ratepayers paid money to SailGP nonetheless. So I thought Coutts was incredibly ungracious when, the day before racing was due to start, he was having a whinge about minority groups and Christchurch making it all a bit too difficult for him.
But then yesterday, he went full noise. Lord knows what Jason Pine was making of it when that ramped up. I’m not sure whether he’d seen a copy of the statement beforehand or not.
Coutts singled out the Lyttelton harbour master who, he said, was “extremely restrictive”. He also mentioned a marine biologist by name, saying she had lied about the Hector's dolphin being endangered.
But Sir Russell, between now and the next event in Bermuda, you might want to take some night classes in diplomacy. Because the way you behaved yesterday - Friday too, but yesterday in particular - is not the way you treat a city that came to your rescue just months ago and made this event happen for you.
He put a dampener on things right from the start. And no one knew it was coming.
And I just hope like hell that Christchurch doesn’t start falling over itself now to try and get him to bring SailGP back here.
If he wants to throw his toys out of the cot - that's his problem. Not ours.
He knew what he was signing up to. He’s signed a few contracts in his time. And, yes, maybe the Harbour Master might have been a bit difficult. And yes, he’s obviously got a beef with how much say iwi can have over things.
But, as someone from the iwi pointed out yesterday, they were only involved in things when the management plan to protect the dolphins was put together. They weren’t out on the water saying ‘no, no,no.”
That’s what Sir Russell probably wants us to think. But not the case.
I thought he behaved like an entitled muppet at the weekend. And I don’t think it’s going to do us any harm at all around the world. You might have heard people saying yesterday how embarrassing it all was, scrapping racing on Saturday because of dolphins.
But I think they’re wrong. Because not everyone in the world is a sailing fan. And, for a truckload of people, New Zealand might have actually gone up in their estimations for prioritising wildlife over a yacht race.
But we know, don’t we, why he was so fired up yesterday. It wasn’t because he loves New Zealand and all that. He didn’t go on air yesterday to tell us what a great bunch we all are here in Christchurch.
He went ape because Big Larry - Larry Ellison, the billionaire pouring the money into SailGP - he would’ve been on the blower on Saturday night after the dolphin thing, going nuts.
And even though I’ve been a big advocate for SailGP coming here (I was out watching both days at the weekend, just like last year; and I really pushed for us to get it here when Auckland couldn’t do it.).
But I’ve got no time for the behaviour we saw from Coutts at the weekend and, if that’s our turn at SailGP done for, so be it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Josh Junior is a member of the New Zealand team competing in the Sail GP this weekend.
A former Grinder onboard, Josh has recently taken up a newly established role in the 'coaching box'.
Josh explained the role and how technology is helping sailors go faster than every before.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Andrew Thompson is the Managing Director of Sail GP World Wide, quite the title to hold.
He joined John MacDonald live at the Sail GP village ahead of a huge weekend of racing.
Thompson talked about the evolution of Sail GP, why it has become so popular, and the journey to get to Lyttelton this year.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It was only November last year when the owner of the Marsden Point oil refinery told the incoming government to forget about any idea of re-opening the Marsden Point Oil Refinery.
The Government obviously wasn’t listening though, because the Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones has announced an inquiry into getting the refinery up-and-running again.
He says: “Despite the desire we all share to see New Zealand free of its reliance on fossil fuels, that is the stuff of fairy tales. New Zealand will continue to need gas and oil to keep our economy moving for decades to come.”
But I’ll tell you right now. This inquiry will go nowhere. Because, while the Associate Minister thinks we’re dreaming if we think we’re going to end our reliance on fossil fuels, he’s dreaming thinking that the thing can be kicked back into gear.
Maybe I was slightly unfair to the Government just then, saying that it wasn’t listening when the outfit which owns Marsden Point told it back in November to forget about trying to bring the refinery back to life.
The Government probably was listening but, to get the coalition deal across the line, Christopher Luxon had to go with NZ First’s idea of making Marsden great again after it was shut down by Refining NZ in April 2022.
And that’s a key thing here. Marsden Point wasn’t shut down by the government as some people seem to think. It was shut down by Refining NZ which, these days, calls itself Channel Infrastructure.
240 jobs went and, ever since, the closure has been blamed for all sorts of things from high fuel prices to cruddy roads.
That’s because, when it was operating, Marsden Point produced about 70% of the bitumen used in New Zealand for roads. Now we have to import 100% of the bitumen we need.
So, prior to the election, NZ First picked up on all the talk about Marsden Point and that’s why we had this announcement yesterday of an inquiry into re-opening it.
Which, I tell you, will mean a truckload of time and taxpayer money going into something that will go nowhere. It will come to nothing.
That’s because the people who know a thing-or-two about running Marsden Point say it would cost billions to get it up and running again because there is nothing there that can just be plugged-in and cranked up again.
Here’s what the chief executive of the company that used to run it and shut it down two years ago said just last month. Rob Buchanan’s his name. He said: ‘There is no part of the former refinery that can be re-started.”
What’s more, he said that re-opening it would cost billions of dollars, it would take years, and then, once it was open, would require specialist staff to work there. And they’ve all moved on to other things.
So, as far as I’m concerned, we need to forget about having an oil refinery here.
Because, if the people who know a thing-or-two about running refineries think it’s a stupid idea - then who am I going to listen to? The people who know what they’re on about? Or a politician who has heard a bit of noise and reckons there might be some political mileage in it?
I’ll go with the refinery experts any day, thanks.
What’s more, a new report says if we got into offshore wind energy production, it could contribute $50 billion to GDP between now and 2050.
It was done by PWC for several energy and infrastructure sector players, including Bluefloat Energy which wants to put 65 fixed wind turbines in the South Taranaki Bight.
The report says offshore wind could directly contribute to a 26% reduction in New Zealand's energy emissions by 2050. It also says if we really got into wind energy generation, 10,000 jobs would be created while we were building all the infrastructure needed. And there’d be about 2,000 ongoing jobs in things like operations and maintenance.
Which, for me, is further proof that the Government is barking up the wrong tree with this Marsden Point inquiry. Which will go nowhere.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you think Chris Cahill from the Police Association is talking out of his ear, well, he’s not. And I’ve got a story to prove it.
And it shows just how nuts this blanket cost-cutting right across the public sector really is, especially when it comes to the Police.
On the very day that we’re finding out how much of a problem retail crime is in New Zealand. This is courtesy of stats obtained by the Dairy and Business Owners Group, using the Official Information Act.
Sunny Kaushall, who chairs the group, says we are dealing with a crime emergency. More than 400 retail crimes reported every day on average last year - with six retail staff a day complaining to police they had been violently or sexually assaulted on the job.
And, at the same time, we’ve got the Police Association saying that a freeze on hiring back-office staff —or non-sworn officers, as they’re known— is already causing backlogs and delays and all that’s going to do is make it harder for the Government to implement its tough-on-crime policies.
Chris Cahill says it’s non-sworn police staff who do things like answer 111 and 105 calls and prepare police files for court.
He says when these jobs can’t be done by non-sworn staff, it takes police officers off the street. Off the beat. Takes them away from dealing with the 77,000 mental health callouts they get each year - which, on their own, take-up about three hours of police time, per callout.
He says when you don’t have enough non-sworn staff, you don’t have enough sworn police officers to deal with crime because they’re back at base doing essential behind-the-scenes donkey work.
And Chris Cahill isn’t just making this stuff up to suit his cause. Or the cause of the police staff he represents. Because I’ve got an example of where this very thing has happened.
In the UK, guess how many police officers are having to work away from the frontline because of cost-cutting? Because there aren’t enough back-office staff, so cops —instead of being out on patrol— are stuck in police stations? Guess how many?
6,000. 6,000 officers working away from the frontline, filling gaps because of cost-cutting.
And this is not a union person or a brassed-off cop talking about this. It’s the head of the National Police Chiefs Council in Britain saying it. And the problem dates back to 2010 when the British government slashed police budgets.
Which, like we’re seeing here, meant less police staff behind the scenes. Doing all the stuff essential to keep the police force operating.
And so, because of that, police chiefs in Britain have had to take officers away from the frontline. And not just a few. Right now, in Britain, there are 6,000 police officers who should be out dealing with crime, working behind the scenes because of budget cuts.
And the thing our government needs to take particular notice of, is that —even though more money has gone into the police in Britain in recent years— the force is still playing catch-up, even though these cuts started 14 years ago.
Which means that any cuts to our police force now, will have a long-term effect - even if we get to a point where there is more money to invest. The cost-cutting tail is very long. Which is why I think the Government needs to wake-up and give the Police an exemption from this obsessive cost-cutting.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There seem to be three main points of view when it comes to the Government’s crackdown on cruddy state housing tenants.
We’ve got some people living in Kāinga Ora properties saying they don’t think much will change because we’ve been too soft, for too long.
The Green Party isn't happy. It’s describing the crackdown as “politics of punishment”. They say it will do irreparable damage to communities that have been letdown time and time again by successive governments.
The Housing Minister, though, he’s not apologising.
Chris Bishop says having a state house is a privilege that should be taken away if it's abused. And who’s going to argue with that? I’m not anyway.
Because, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, we’ve all heard horror stories about state housing tenants who are abusive, violent, and have the people next door living in fear.
And the numbers Chris Bishop talked about yesterday don't tell a great story. 335 serious complaints per month - including intimidation, harassment, and threatening behaviour. And, last year, only three tenancies were ended because of disruptive behaviour.
As he says: “At a time when there are over 25,000 people on the social housing waitlist, Kāinga Ora should not be prioritising tenants who abuse their home or their neighbours above families who are anxiously waiting for a home.”
But as Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was saying on Newstalk ZB this morning, the last government seemed happy to turn a blind eye to people who abuse their state house and the people around them. He said the policy was to keep people in state houses no matter what.
It’s worth noting that this policy of keeping people in state houses was something a previous National government brought in. But, to Chris Bishop and the Government’s credit, they’ve admitted that that didn’t work.
The Greens, though, aren't happy. They seem to think that it’s ok to allow people to stay in their state horse even if they treat it like rubbish or treat their neighbours like rubbish.
And I kind of get where they’re coming from, saying it’s the kids who will suffer if their cruddy parents are kicked out.
And, yes, it will mean —for some kids anyway— that their families have to find somewhere else to stay. That is, of course, if Kāinga Ora does what the Government is telling it to do.
Because it doesn’t seem to have been very good at dealing to lousy tenants up until now. That stat from the Housing Minister proves that - 335 serious complaints of intimidation, harassment, and threatening behaviour per month. And, last year, only three tenants kicked out.
And I see some tenants are saying today that they don’t think much is going to change because Kainga Ora has been too soft, too long.
But let’s assume that Kāinga Ora does start evicting people who should be making space for genuine, decent people needing a roof over their head. If it does do that then, yes, what the Greens are saying will happen. To a certain degree.
And, as one architecture and planning expert is saying this morning, evicting bad tenants from state houses will just push the problem somewhere else.
But should that concern take precedence over the wellbeing of people who are living in fear and misery because some low-lifes have been allowed to stay in these properties way longer than they should have? I don’t think so.
And what about concerns about families being homeless because one or both of their parents —and maybe their kids too— have behaved appallingly? Should concerns about them not having somewhere to stay take precedence over the people affected by their behaviour? Of course not.
That’s reality. And, in my view, reality has been a long time coming for these muppets. Thankfully, the Government is getting real. Let’s hope Kāinga Ora gets the message and delivers.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Can I just remind you of something. During the genocide of European jews during World War 2, which we know as the Holocaust, about six million people were murdered by the Nazis.
And the property, homes, and jobs belonging to them were redistributed to the German occupiers and other non-Jews.
Yesterday, our Deputy Prime Minister likened what happened back then to co-governance. That greatly misunderstood term that, in the end, was a large part of the demise of the last government.
We were told time and time again, weren’t we, that co-governance was something to be terrified of and, apparently, some people were terrified of it.
I never was. Maybe that says I’ve got a better grip on reality than other people. Maybe it says I’m completely naïve. But, either way, I’ve never been terrified of co-governance and probably never will.
But even if I was. There is no way that I would see the so-called “threat” of co-governance in the same light as the Jewish Holocaust. Because to think that, would be nuts. To go further and actually say it, then that would be completely nutbar.
But our Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister did yesterday in his state of the nation speech. Which every Tom, Dick and Harry seems to be doing these days.
We’ve had Christopher Luxon’s one, then David Seymour’s and, now, Winston Peters’.
How anyone could sit in a room and hear that nonsense and not walk out, I don’t get. Because, when it comes down to it, could you be more offensive if you tried to the memories of those who died and the Jewish community, full stop?
I don’t think you could.
Co-governance and Nazi Germany? Really?
Opposition leader Chris Hipkins said yesterday that Winston Peters’ comments were like a drunk uncle at a wedding. The only difference is, at least the drunk uncle can blame the booze.
Winston Peters, on the other hand, knew exactly what he was doing. He was there with his NZ First hat on and he wanted to reassure his voters that he hasn’t gone soft or woke now that he’s in government.
He told his people in Palmerston North yesterday that, without the NZ First handbrake on board in the last government, the country went downhill.
He said without him and his crew on the bus, race-based theories had emerged.
I’ll quote you a couple of things he said.
"Some people's DNA made them, sadly, according to these people and condoned by their cultural fellow travellers, their DNA made them somehow better than others.
"I've seen that sort of philosophy before. I saw it in Nazi Germany. We all did. We've seen it elsewhere around the world in the horrors of history.
“But here right in our country and tolerated, by people whose job was to keep the system honest, this happened."
I reckon part of the problem is that, with the mists of time, the absolute horror of the Holocaust almost gets watered down a bit in the minds of people.
I’ve never been to one of the old Nazi concentration camps that are still open for visitors in Europe. I have been to Anne Frank’s house in Amsterdam a couple of times. But I haven’t been to any of the concentration camps. But anyone I speak to who has, they tell me how horrific it is.
Just like co-governance would have been. You know, we would have had a few iwi representatives on the local water authority and us non-iwi people would’ve felt exactly the same as the millions of Jews rounded up during World War 2 by the Nazis, wouldn’t we?
That’s what it would have been like. According to Winston Peters, anyway. Who seems to have forgotten how he ripped into Gerry Brownlee just over four years ago - when NZ First was still in government with Labour - accusing Gerry of politicising a Holocaust memorial event.
Gerry was in Opposition back then and thought it was “disgraceful” that New Zealand wasn’t sending a representative to an event in Israel to mark the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp.
Winston Peters accused Gerry Brownlee of “politicising” the event. But that is exactly what Peters himself did yesterday. He used the Holocaust to try and ram home an out-of-touch, out-of-date view of the world.
And I think that was disgraceful.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It's Politics Friday, National’s Matt Doocey and Labour's Reuben Davidson joining John MacDonald to discuss this week’s biggest political stories.
On the docket was the future of the Green Party, following the new allegations that have arisen regarding one of their party members. Is a wealth tax in the cards for Labour?
And how is it acceptable that Rolleston College has students sitting in hallways due to overcrowded classrooms.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Should we be bonding new doctors so they can’t just disappear overseas as soon as they leave medical school?
One doctor is saying today that we should. But I think he’s dreaming.
This is after the news that the Government’s new health targets for things like emergency departments and cancer treatment have a six-year timeframe.
The Health Minister didn’t talk about timeframes when he made the big announcement last week. But it’s now been revealed that it won’t happen overnight, but it will happen. Maybe.
Let me remind you of the targets. Which are all great targets to have. 90% of patients will receive cancer management within 31 days of the decision to treat. 95% of children will be fully immunised by the time they turn 2. 95% of patients will be admitted, discharged or transferred from an emergency department within six hours. 95% of patients will wait less than four months for their first specialist appointment. 95% of patients will wait less than four months for elective treatment.
All good things. Who wouldn’t say that? Except the medical people and the Opposition are saying that waiting six years is too long.
Dr Peter Boot thinks even next week would be too late. Let alone in six years time.
He's keen on bonding. The old idea of requiring graduates, after they’ve had an education, to stick around and pay society back for the privilege.
I said earlier that Dr Boot is dreaming because I think bonding could have been a thing back in the day when people didn’t have to pay for an education like they do now.
Back then I think it would have been very realistic to say to new doctors, ‘look, the taxpayer has paid for you to become a doctor. Now’s the time for you to return the favour, to stick around and work here for a certain period, before you think about heading overseas.’
Not now, though. When medical students can clock up somewhere around $100,000 in debt paying for their education. They don’t actually owe us anything, do they?
Yes, I know the money they pay to become doctors isn’t totally user-pays and the taxpayer pays a truckload as well. But if you were going to bond doctors, how would that be fair if you weren’t going to bond accountants and lawyers and architects and scientists?
It wouldn’t be fair. And, because of that, I don’t think bonding is a very good or a very realistic idea.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Who would be a cop? Not me. Especially after all the things we’ve been hearing about how disgusted they are with the pay offer that’s landed on the table from the Government.
The government that was all pro-cop before the election. But now seems to be putting the screws on the police just as much as the last government did.
I was at the traffic lights the other day and there was a cop car next to me. And I remember looking at the two officers and thinking about the work they do while I waited for the lights to change.
I thought about how it must be really exciting at times. But that would probably only be now and then. Because, let’s face it, a lot of the time it’s probably pretty boring as well. And depressing.
And I thought about how it’s one of the few jobs people do, where they can legitimately say that they can’t assume they’re going to make it through a shift without something happening to them.
With pretty much every other job these days, there are all sorts of health and safety precautions. Accidents still happen, of course. But if you’re a cop, you’ve got no idea what’s going to happen next.
And, as we’ve seen all too often, sometimes they don’t make it home in one piece. Sometimes they don’t make it home at all.
But something I didn’t think about when I was sitting at the lights next to that patrol car the other day, was whether either of the officers inside might have a side hustle to help pay the bills.
I also didn’t wonder whether either of them are turning to food banks. That’s because I’ve always assumed that, because of the work they do and the danger they put themselves in at times to keep us safe, that they’re paid pretty well.
And I have been shocked to hear differently in the past 24 hours, as the Police and their union have responded to the pay offer from the Government.
As Chris Cahill, from the Police Association, puts it: "We've got a Government that's made it very clear they want to get tough on crime.
"They're expecting police to step up to crack down on gangs, they're expecting us to increase our policing of youth crime, they're expecting us to lower the road toll."
But he says, at the same time as all these extra demands are being placed on cops, there are officers who are "struggling to pay rent, to pay their mortgage, to put food on the table".
Now you can probably say that about a lot of people. Most people. We’re all struggling to varying degrees. But when your job is to keep every other Tom, Dick and Harry safe, you should be recognised and rewarded for that.
You might have heard Chris Cahill comparing what we pay our cops to what we people like social workers and the $20,000 pay gap after six years service.
He says the vast majority of officers are still constables after six years - so that’s a lot of officers earning less than social workers.
And he made it very clear that he wasn’t having a go at social workers and nurses. He’s not saying they don’t deserve what they’re paid. He’s just saying that it’s nuts that police don’t earn as much as those people. And I totally agree.
What’s more, sometimes police end up doing the work of social workers with all the mental health callouts they have to respond to, don’t they?
Chris Cahill says cops aren’t allowed to go on strike and he thinks the current government —and other governments too— have taken advantage of that. Knowing they can’t walk off the job. And I think he’s spot on.
Think about it - it’s the old squeaky wheel thing, isn’t it? And, when it comes to pay talks, the ultimate squeaky wheel is a whole lot of striking workers out on the street with signs and megaphones and drivers tooting in support. That’s the squeaky wheel.
The cops can’t do that, so why would governments bend over backwards for them? They wouldn’t. And they aren’t. And the police, rightfully so, have had a gutsful.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour's leader is backing the Police union in claims the latest Government pay offer is insulting.
It includes a $5000 pay increase backdated to last November and two 4% salary bumps this year and next.
The Police Association has called it a kick in the teeth.
Chris Hipkins told John MacDonald that the union rejected an offer which his government put to police before the election.
He says National criticised them and said they should treat police better, and then as a new government came back with a worse offer.
Hipkins is also playing down concerns that his party is losing support at the expense of its partners.
In the latest Taxpayers' Union funded Curia poll, Labour fell 2.6 points to just over 25%.
The Greens picked up 2.3 percentage points, while Te Pati Māori also saw a small boost in support.
Hipkins told MacDonald that the left bloc needs to focus its energy on chipping votes away from the Coalition.
He says ultimately, if the left want to form a Government at the next election, it needs to get votes off National, New Zealand First and ACT rather than competing with the Greens.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This is a moral dilemma and, maybe, an over-reaction at the same time.
At Wellsford, the local Head Hunters chapter had a charity motorbike ride. They raised $2,500 and decided to donate the money to the local volunteer fire brigade - which is raising funds to buy an all-terrain vehicle.
They reckon that one of these things would be a very handy addition to their kit. Because, if they’re dealing with an emergency off the beaten track, an all-terrain vehicle would be perfect.
So, the gang has the event, gets on the blower to the fire brigade, and says they’d like to give them the money because, you know, they provide a great service to the community. No argument with that.
Where the argument has started, though, is when the fire brigade has gone on social media and made a shout out to the gang guys for their brilliant gesture.
“We are very grateful for the $2,500 donation,” they said in the post. “And we thank all those involved for their efforts.”
The fire brigade goes on to say: “We provide our service to all those in our community and we are very grateful to have that support returned. Our supportive community is what helps us continue to do what we do.”
Now the key bit there is where they say, “we provide our service to all those in our community”. Which is them saying, ‘if gang members are in strife and need our help - we’ll be there’. You might not like that - but it’s true.
The mistake the volunteer brigade made was going on social media and telling people about it. Because all that did was get the people who love to get outraged about stuff, outraged.
‘These guys are crims. You shouldn’t be taking money from crims. Don’t be sucked in by these clowns. Give the money back. Give the money back’. And guess what? They’re being told to give the money back.
Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) has stepped-in and is saying: "We will be working with the brigade to assist them with next steps”.
Which is code for, ‘we’ll be giving those Wellsford muppets a blimmin’ good talking to and, if they don't hand the money back, we’ll be banging some heads together.”
The Minister of Internal Affairs, Brooke van Velden, has got involved as well, saying she doesn’t support volunteer fire brigades accepting donations from people associated with organised crime gangs.
“New Zealanders deserve to be safe and secure, but violent gangs are a scourge on our communities,” she says.
And she’ll get no argument from me on that last bit. Violent gangs are a scourge. The drug trade. The violence. The intimidation. The murders. But what if —now and then— they actually do some good?
You can’t argue that raising $2,500 and giving it to the local volunteer fire brigade isn’t doing good, can you? But it seems to be a real closed shop. Whenever gangs do anything charitable, people always seem to write it off as just a PR exercise.
And yes, this donation to the volunteer fire brigade is another PR exercise. Of course it is. But is it really that bad that the fire brigade and the community shouldn’t benefit from it in some way?
Do you really think the volunteer firefighters are going to give some sort of preferential treatment to the gang or turn a blind eye to some of its other activities because it donated money raised in a legitimate fundraising event? Of course they’re not.
But where it gets really interesting, is that the Head Hunters have a trust which you can find on the New Zealand Charities Register.
The trust’s name is “That Was Then, This Is Now” and, according to the charities register, it exists to re-integrate and rehabilitate people coming out of prison, providing them with education and social services.
I understand it was set-up in 2001 and, around 2016/2017, it was removed from the charities register after the charities board found it wasn’t doing exactly what it was set-up to do. But the gang challenged that, and the High Court decided it could go back on the charities register. And I’ve done a search, and it’s definitely there.
So, if it’s good enough for the Head Hunters’ trust to be listed as a registered charity, doesn’t that make it good enough for the Wellsford Volunteer Fire Brigade to hold on to the money it received from the gang’s fundraising motorbike ride?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
David Seymour was talking a load of old nonsense yesterday, wasn’t he, when he announced the tax changes for landlords?
Now let me make it clear, right from the start, I am not anti-landlord. Because imagine where we’d be if we didn’t have people willing to take risks, buy properties, and make them available for other people to live in.
So we need landlords. Good ones, anyway.
But the ACT leader and Associate Finance Minister was pushing it uphill when I saw him on the news last night telling us that tax relief for landlords is a win-win for the landlords and renters.
This year landlords will be able to claim 80 percent of their mortgage interest costs. Next year, 100 percent. And they’re going to pass those savings on to the people renting their properties. Yeah right.
“Landlords,” David Seymour said, “have been hit with a double whammy of rising mortgage interest rates and increasing interest deductibility limitations during a cost-of-living crisis.”
Hearts across the country would have been bleeding, I’m sure.
He was right, though, when he said: “These costs are inevitably passed on to tenants.”
But does he really expect us to believe that any savings will also be passed on to tenants? Of course, they won’t. And I’ll tell you why.
Remember last year when we were all piling into Labour for its no GST on fruit and veggies policy? And how we were saying it was daft because, after about five minutes, we’d have no idea whether we were paying less for the broccoli and apples or not.
It’s exactly the same with these tax changes for landlords. For example, if you’re renting a place, you’ve got no idea what size mortgage the landlord has on the place, which means you have no idea how much interest they’re paying.
You don’t know what their insurance costs are…you know pretty much next to nothing.
So how on earth are you going to know how much better off the landlord is once they can deduct mortgage costs and pay less tax? The answer is - you’re not.
And that’s just one factor as to why this change isn’t going to be the win for renters that David Seymour and the Government say it’s going to be
In fact, I heard Property Federation president Sue Harrison say as much. She said a lot of factors influence rent prices and there’s no one simple answer. Which is what David Seymour was trying to sell to us yesterday. That tax deductaility for landlords is the simple answer.
Another reason why these changes aren’t the great news for renters the Government says they are, is that people are renting like it’s going out of fashion. Demand is through the roof.
Remember those numbers from Stats NZ last week, which showed a big upswing in the number of active rental bonds. Which was the clearest evidence yet that more places are being rented out. And the experts are saying one of the big reasons for that is migration.
Christchurch and Auckland are where rent prices are going up the fastest. You pretty much can’t get anywhere for less than $500 a week here.
That’s because the market dictates everything. Truckloads more people are coming here. And more and more people already living here are renting, because they can’t afford to buy a house anymore.
So boom times for landlords.
And I know if I owned a rental property - which I don’t - but if I did, I’d sure as hell be wanting to maximise my investment. Why wouldn’t I? What’s more, it’d be making hay while the sun shines.
Which is yet another reason why we’re not going to see rent prices go down because of these tax changes. When you run a business of any sort, you make what you can - while you can. And being a landlord is a business.
For most people it’s a side hustle. For a few, it’s how they make their living. But it’s a business. And, when you’re in business, you do what you can to get ahead - just in case things go a bit pear-shaped in the future.
So why on earth would you charge your customers less, just because you might be paying a little less tax? Well, the answer to that, is you wouldn’t.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Government says it wants to see less people living in emergency accommodation in motels. My response to that: who doesn’t?
It also says it might pay landlords to take on tenants currently living in motels. My response to that: you’re dreaming.
And I’m not just saying that. I’ve got official numbers to back it up. Numbers that have come to light since the announcement yesterday by Social Development Minister Louise Upston and Housing Minister Chris Bishop.
Aside from the motel stuff, the Government’s overall aim is to end large-scale emergency housing. Of which motels are a part. And it’s talking about “bold and radical steps”.
It wants more checks and balances before the emergency housing tap gets turned on for people, and it’s telling people that the tap isn’t going to just stay on forever - as it has done in recent times. Certainly under the previous government.
So, what’s going to happen, is when someone applies for emergency accommodation, the Ministry of Social Development is going to ask a few more questions. It’s not just going to say ‘yes’ straightaway.
Because it’s fair to say, isn’t it, that even though there are people in genuine need of emergency housing, there are others who do no favours for themselves.
They might have treated rentals the same way rock stars used to treat hotel rooms.
Or they haven’t bothered paying their bills.
And the Government isn’t going to automatically give people emergency housing grants for seven to 21 days - as they do now. Instead, they’re going to give people grants to cover between one and four days while they look into people's circumstances.
So that’s all good stuff. Because, as Chris Bishop says, emergency housing is costing the taxpayer about $350 million a year. And, over the past five years, $1.5 billion has been spent.
And yes, if there’s a genuine need - go for it. But if people are only after emergency housing because they’ve been a pain in the backside elsewhere and been kicked out, or haven’t been bothered paying their bills, then, of course, they should go to the back of the queue.
But as for this pipedream that private landlords could be part of the solution if a few sweeteners are put in front of them. Things like a 90-day notice period and paying landlords a bit of extra money if they take on emergency housing tenants. They aren't going to make one bit of difference.
Because, since the Government made this announcement yesterday afternoon, some data from Stats NZ has come out that shows a big upswing in the number of active rental bonds.
Which is clear evidence that more places are being rented out. And the experts are saying one of the big reasons for that is migration.
Kelvin Davidson is chief property economist at CoreLogic NZ, and he’s saying today that the increased demand for rentals is pushing rent prices up - with Christchurch and Auckland the areas where rents are going up the fastest.
So, do you really think that a landlord who is being overwhelmed by people wanting to rent their place out and, because of that demand, can charge more, is going to be enticed by a few extra bucks from the Government to take on emergency housing tenants?
Of course they’re not.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The only problem I’ve got with the sentence handed-out yesterday to Christchurch man David Benbow for murdering his childhood friend, Michael McGrath, is the fact that he’s going to be eligible for parole.
It’s going to be a while away. Because he’s been sent away for 17 years before he can be considered for parole. But I don’t think he should be eligible at all.
And why’s that, do you reckon?
Well, if you saw or heard any of the media coverage of yesterday’s sentencing, it would have been impossible for you not to have been moved by the victim impact statement read to the court by Michael McGrath’s mother, Adrienne McGrath.
I’ll share a couple of things from her statement with you. In particular, what she had to say about the fact that her son’s body has never been found.
“I find it hard to believe that Michael will never come home again. I worry about him being out there on his own… think about how cold and lonely he must be.”
And who wouldn’t feel the same? If you saw or heard Adrienne giving that statement, you’ll know how emotional she was reading it out to the court.
And that’s the reason why I don’t think David Benbow should ever be eligible for parole because, not only has he denied Michael McGrath’s family and his partner of a life with the man they love, he’s also denied them the opportunity to say a proper farewell.
How many times do you hear police in cases like this saying that their main focus is getting the murder victim home to their family. And, in most cases, they achieve that.
In other cases, they don’t. And, in this case anyway —and others too— they don’t get someone home to their family, because the person responsible refuses to say where the body of their victim is or what they did with it.
Which, when you think about it, must be like adding salt to the worst kind of wound.
And that is why we saw Michael McGrath’s brother, Simon, outside court yesterday saying that he thinks parole shouldn’t be available to murderers, like David Benbow, who don’t admit where the bodies of their victims are.
And I’m with Simon McGrath on this one.
Of course, David Benbow is still saying that he’s an innocent man. That he didn’t murder Michael McGrath. But then he would say that, wouldn’t he?
But, after two trials, he was eventually found guilty and yesterday he was sentenced. And he can claim otherwise as much as he likes, but he is a murderer - and if there is an ounce of decency in him - he will admit what he did with his old friend’s body.
The obvious argument against a ‘no body, no parole’ approach to sentencing murderers, is ‘what if someone is actually innocent?’.
Because, if someone’s innocent, they’re not going to be able to tell you where a body is, are they? Because, if they’re innocent, they’ll have no idea.
And so, if the rules were ‘no body, no parole’, then it would be extremely unfair on innocent people. That would be the argument. Because if they couldn’t help police find the victim, they’d be punished for it.
But I don’t think that’s a strong enough argument. Because, if a person truly believes they’re innocent, they’ll use their time in prison to work on their appeals. And, down the track, if it’s found that they are actually innocent - then the issue of parole won’t even be up for discussion.
So I think it’s a no-brainer.
Prior to last year’s last election, Paul Goldsmith - who is now Justice Minister - didn’t go as far as saying it was a no-brainer, but he did say that, if National got into government, he’d be open to the idea.
And Labour’s Ginny Anderson, who used to be the Justice Minister - also said before last year’s election that she was open to it as well.
So there seems to be at least a little bit of interest politically. But where do you stand?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There's a push to introduce a no body, no parole law to New Zealand.
Former prison guard David Benbow has been sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years, for the murder of Michael McGrath.
McGrath's body has never been found since he went missing in 2017.
His brother, Simon, told John MacDonald that a no body, no parole law is needed, and offenders should only get parole if they co-operate with police.
He says given the magnitude of the crime, concealment of a body is enough to warrant such a law being introduced.
All Australian states have no body, no parole laws, with New South Wales the last to introduce it, in 2022.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
We must be the number one country in the world for deferred maintenance.
Some of us do it with our own house. And we’ve certainly done it with Premier House.
To the point where Christopher Luxon won’t even live there - even though it’s the Prime Minister’s official residence.
We’ve learnt over the weekend that, to bring the place up to scratch, would cost about $30 million. But, in times like these, is that something you’d want taxpayer money poured into?
My answer to that question is ‘yes’!
The heritage people say Premier House property dates back to 1843 and it is of national significance. It was 1865 when it was bought by the Crown to be used as the Prime Minister’s residence when Wellington became the capital city.
There was some significant expansion of the place during the 1870s but the builders don’t appear to have been back since then.
Slight exaggeration there. But it’s a can that’s been kicked down the road many times and so, now, we’ve got our current Prime Minister saying he’d like to live there, but can’t live there because it needs significant maintenance work.
The Prime Minister, of course, is instead living in his own apartment in Wellington. Which was all over the news on Friday when it was discovered that he’d been claiming a $52,000 annual allowance for living at his own place.
But, by fish 'n' chip time on Friday, he’d had a re-think on that and - after going-on all day that he was fully entitled to it - he announced that he’d be paying back what he’s claimed so far and wouldn’t be claiming any more of it.
Which, of course, was the right thing to do. I know he was entitled. But it was wrong.
So that one’s sorted out. But we’ve still got the matter of what to do with Premier House and whether we keep kicking this particular can down the road or whether we bite the bullet and spend the money.
For me, it’s a no-brainer. We have to spend the money. Because, if we don’t get out of this oily rag mentality that seems to be taking over everywhere - we’ll be selling Premier House as is, where is.
In the scheme of things, $30 million is chicken feed. And, yes I know that if the Government did agree to press on with the maintenance and renovation work needed, it could end up costing more than that.
But, if we’re going to get all embarrassed about our leaders flying around the world in clapped-out air force planes, then we should be just as embarrassed about having an official Prime Minister’s residence that the Prime Minister won’t even live in.
More to the point, we should be embarrassed about a rundown prime minister’s residence that the Prime Minister himself won’t even live in, but where visiting dignitaries stay and where other guests are entertained. The Australia and New Zealand cricket teams were there last week.
Now I know buildings don’t feed kids going to school hungry. And I know buildings don’t make it cheaper to go to the dentist. Things that are also in the news today.
And I know $30 million could pay for a truckload of medical procedures and hip replacements. I get all that.
But are any of those reasons not to spend money on Premier House? I don’t think they are.
Because we will always be short of money for all the things we want to do. Which is why Premier House is in the state it’s in now. Because, for too long, politicians have been terrified of any backlash.
And so they’ve all sat on their hands and done nothing - or the bare minimum, anyway - and now they’re sitting on a real conundrum because we’ve allowed it to get so rundown that we are now faced with the question - do we spend $30 million or not?
I say it’s a no-brainer. Spend the $30 million and get the official residence of our country’s Prime Minister up to scratch. And do it ASAP because, we can wait as long as we like, but it will never get cheaper.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
We’re about one month away from the halfway mark in the current term of the Christchurch City Council and its latest residents survey is a shocker.
For starters, people do seem to be very happy with things like libraries, recreation services, rubbish collection. All that stuff. People, generally, are also pretty happy with things like the reliability of the water supply.
83% of people are happy with that.
Where things go pear-shaped, though, is the stuff to do with the elected councillors and the decisions they make. I’ll run you through some of the results but, what we have to ask ourselves, is whether this is just one hopeless council or whether they’re all the same.
And, as much as I’m not surprised by these results, I don’t think it’s just a Christchurch Council thing. I think all councils are basket cases to varying degrees.
And I’m talking about elected councillors here. I’m not having a go at the people who work at the council.
So, Mayor Phil Mauger and his team have been sitting around that council table together now for nearly 18 months. So they’re nearly halfway to the next election.
And going by these results, they are failing to deliver.
If you look at the results on the council website, there’s a summary page and all the stuff about the elected council’s performance is right down the bottom of the page.
You might strain your eyes a bit reading it —because it’s in pretty small font— but here are the key numbers. According to this latest residents satisfaction survey just 16% of people think the Christchurch City Council makes wise spending decisions; 18 % think the council provides value for money; and only 21% think the council operates in an open and transparent way.
Compared to last year’s survey, that’s a 1% increase in the number of people who think the council makes wise spending decisions.
A 2% decrease in the number of people who think the council provides value for money.
And a 1% drop in the number of people who think the council operates in an open and transparent way.
Now I know the movement in percentages is small. But, when you’re talking about approval results of around 20% or less, then that’s pretty dismal. Remembering too, that building trust and confidence was right up there on the to-do list for this current council.
The thing is, though, is the public’s lack of faith in the mayor and the councillors just a Christchurch thing? Or is it indicative of what’s happening everywhere?
I think it’s local government in general. Because I’ve had a look around at some of the results other councils have got from their public satisfaction surveys, and they’re not great either.
Just yesterday, there was a report saying there is “profound concern” in Queenstown and Wanaka at the way the Queenstown Lakes District Council is performing.
Eighty percent of people aren’t happy with the council, in general. And 81% aren’t happy with the way councillors are doing their job. It’s the fifth year in a row that satisfaction with the local council has dropped.
Another example of how broken the local government model is.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Surprised but not surprised. That’s what I’ve been saying to people who have asked me how I feel about the closure of Newshub.
They announced it yesterday and they’re doing the two-week consultation thing. But we all know that’s not going to change anything.
I see even the New Zealand boss of Warner Brothers Discovery —which owns Newshub— is saying people shouldn't get their hopes up that anything other than a complete shutdown by the middle of the year is likely.
So, it’s an HR box-ticking exercise for the company and, possibly, something not that many of the staff at Newshub will bother about because finding another job will be their main priority now, won’t it?
Because apparently up to 350 jobs will go, about 200 of them from the news operation.
And while I have a huge amount of compassion for the people at Newshub. And, while I know that what was announced yesterday could happen to any of us. Not just in media, either. And while I’m not in any way being dismissive of what’s happening and what our Newshub colleagues are going through, we need to remember that this has been a long time coming.
Almost right from the start. Because, it seemed to me, that the objective behind TV3 in the first place was to just stick it up the state-run broadcaster.
The idea behind TV3 was to break the reliance we had on state-run television. But that lofty goal wasn’t enough on its own and TV3 struggled from the start to make significant headway against TVNZ.
And, wouldn’t you know it, come the middle of this year, we’ll be back where we were before November 1989 here in New Zealand: pretty much reliant on the state-owned broadcaster for our TV news.
But, despite what everyone else seems to be saying, I don’t think it’s the disaster they’re making it out to be. Yes, it’s a personal disaster for our Newshub colleagues, don’t get me wrong.
But, in the nearly 35 years since TV3 began, we have become much more discerning in how we digest our news.
What I’m getting at there, is that pretty much all of us are Doubting Thomas’s these days, aren’t we? And we don’t just swallow or believe everything we see on the six o’clock news anymore.
Which is why I think that what’s happening with Newshub isn’t going to mean boom times for TVNZ. Because, chances are, if you watch Newshub, you do it because you think it's better than One News.
And, chances are, if you prefer Newshub it’s because —rightly or wrongly— you think that TVNZ is just a government propaganda machine.
Which is why some people are saying that losing Newshub and leaving it to TVNZ is going to be a huge step backwards in terms of media scrutiny and democracy.
That, if the only TV news service in the country is state-owned, then all we’re going to get is government propaganda and less scrutiny than we have now.
But I don’t agree with that. Because A. we don’t just believe everything we’re told anymore. And B. we get our news in all sorts of different ways these days.
Back in 1989, when TV3 started, online news wasn’t a thing. Social media wasn’t a thing. We didn’t have 24-hour news and talk radio everywhere in the country, to the extent we do now.
So, because of all those things, I’m not concerned about One News being the only TV news service left standing.
Funnily enough, and maybe it’s just out of habit, that’s the one I watch regularly most nights.
But, when it comes to political scrutiny and analysis, Newshub beats One News hands-down and TVNZ is going to have to up its game big time on that front.
And it is dreaming if it thinks a truckload of people are going to start watching its news bulletins just because there’s nothing else on at six o’clock.
If TVNZ doesn’t up its game, people will go elsewhere. Because they can. They couldn’t back in 1989. But they can in 2024. And that’s why I’m not going to be joining the chorus predicting doomsday for democracy.
If I want to watch the state-run news service, I will. If I don’t, I won’t.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch Airport is stopping any further work on the Tarras Airport project, the pipedream it’s had to build an airport 400 kilometres away in central Otago.
400 kilometres from the city it serves. And 400 kilometres from its majority owner - the Christchurch City Council. The council owns 75 percent. The Government owns 25 percent.
And it seems the project will only go further, if the airport company can get more people behind it and get more public and private money to pay for it.
Which is never going to happen. But that’s what it has told its parent company Christchurch City Holdings Limited which, in turn, told councillors about it last night.
But I think it should go the whole hog now, and pull the plug on it completely.
A few years back the airport company bought 750 hectares of land in the Tarras area but it wasn’t until media got a whiff of it that it announced - or was forced to announce - its plan to set-up another airport to service Queenstown and Wanaka.
The idea being that the Christchurch Airport company would get a slice of the action from that market. It also said it was doing it because it claimed that Queenstown and Wanaka airports are at capacity and so a third airport is needed in the area.
Not that the other airports agreed.
Queenstown Airport chief executive Glen Sowry says Christchurch Airport has been spending tens of millions of dollars pushing a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.
What he’s getting at there, is the claim that Christchurch Airport has made all along, that Queenstown is running out of space, with no room to expand.
That’s an argument for the airports to have. Because, let’s be real, these are two businesses wanting greater market share.
But for me, it comes down to a couple of things.
For starters - here we are in Christchurch, with a council that says we’re in a climate emergency, but it has seemed quite happy for its airport company to spend a truckload of money on a new airport 400 kilometres away.
And the other reason why I’ve never been a supporter is that it’s an airport that the people living there don’t want. An airport that the local tourism sector down there doesn’t want because the area just can’t sustain massive increases in visitor numbers. And an airport that doesn’t even seem to be needed.
So why would you?
From the images I’ve seen, it would look like a giant Westfield Mall dumped on a lifestyle block. It would be large-scale, capable of handling widebody long-haul jets from Asia and beyond, night and day.
But, hallelujah, Christchurch Airport seems to be waking up to the fact that, while it might have the land, while it might have the big ideas, while it might have the bombastic confidence, there is one thing it doesn’t have. And without it - this thing goes nowhere.
When you’ve brassed-off the people living in Tarras and the tourism operators doing business down there - not to mention the other airports you’re apparently coming to the rescue of - you don't have social licence.
In its simplest form, social licence is public acceptance of a commercial activity. And, from what I can see, there is next-to-no public acceptance of what Christchurch Airport is proposing for Tarras.
And that is why this thing is coming to a halt. And that is why I think Christchurch Airport just needs to lick its wounds and, instead of all this nonsense it’s talking about taking time to build stakeholder alignment and find more money from the public and private sectors, it should be pulling the plug completely.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Following the news today that Christchurch Airport will pause plans for the Tarras Airport until it can get more public and private money, John MacDonald spoke to Queenstown Airport CEO Glen Sowry about his reaction. Is this just patch protection? Or has the right decision been made?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When I heard that former Police Minister Stuart Nash was spilling the beans on what happened when he tried to get a zero limit on how much property gang members could keep if it was the result of illegal activity, I thought he should pull his head in.
Because, call me old fashioned, my thinking is that once someone has retired from politics, they should keep the skeletons to themselves.
But am I glad he’s done what he’s done, because it shows that Chris Hipkins is exactly what people on the left accuse Christopher Luxon of being, which is a manager, not a leader.
If someone wants to do something, managers tell them to go and talk to the relevant person in charge. And they rely on the advice of that particular person in charge.
And, in this case, Hipkins relied on what Kiri Allan said, didn’t dispute it, and put Stuart Nash in his place.
The even bigger revelation, though, is that it proves what people have been saying for a while now - that Labour went soft when it came to dealing with gangs.
So, a bit of background.
In March last year, the Labour government passed legislation which says if people involved with organised criminal groups can’t prove to a court that they’ve bought assets using legitimate money, anything valued at $30,000 or more can be seized by the police.
But Stuart Nash, as police minister, didn’t want the $30,000 limit. He thought there should be a zero limit. Because, as he says, you can buy a Harley Davidson for under $30,000 which means —as it stands— the gang guys get to hold onto them.
He also reckons that’s what the cops wanted too. And still do.
So, he went to Hipkins and said he wanted a zero limit. Hipkins told Nash he needed to go and talk to Kiri Allan, because she was Justice Minister at the time.
But, according to Nash, she wasn't up for it. One of the reasons being, that targeting gangs was anti-Māori.
Which is nonsense.
But, as Nash said on Newstalk ZB this morning, Chris Hipkins misjudged the public’s appetite for cracking down on gangs. And Labour paid the ultimate price.
He also said that, if Labour doesn’t realise how much it’s cocked-up on this one, it can forget about getting back into government anytime soon.
What do you think?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Did you see Police Minister Mark Mitchell on TV last night?
He was asked how-on-earth the Police are going to manage to implement these tough new anti-gang measures and he did what politicians do all the time, and started going-on about why they’re doing it.
We know people have had a gutsful of gangs - I’ve had a gutsful too - so the Government doesn’t need to keep telling us that. That’s the “why” bit.
The “how” bit is how the Police are going to enforce this ban on gang patches and insignia in all public places, including the internet. How they’re going to stop gang members congregating in public. How the courts are going to take gang membership into account when sentencing, when you’ve got the Bill of Rights hanging over everything.
And the reason Mark Mitchell didn’t answer the “how” question directly is because he knows as much of the rest of us, that it’s just pie in the sky nonsense.
And that’s not just me saying that. Chris Cahill from the Police Association was a bit more diplomatic when he was on Newstalk ZB today.
He said, of course most cops want to see something done about gangs. Of course they want to make gang members more uncomfortable - to feel less welcome.
But he’s not convinced that what the Government’s going to bring-in will be workable or do-able. And he’s the person we should be listening to.
He thinks freedom of expression could be a real sticking point.
Just like it’s your right to wear a Coldplay t-shirt - it’s every gang member’s right to wear a patch. It’s your right to have a little tear tattooed under one of your eyes. Someone from the Mongrel Mob has the right to have the bulldog tattooed on their cheek. Just like it’s my right to get the word “dreaming” tattooed across my forehead.
Because that's what the Government’s doing if it thinks this is going to be enforceable.
For me, the bigger issue when it comes to gangs, is what they do behind the scenes. The drugs they peddle. The way they kill people who owe them drug money.
For me, what it comes down to is this: How can Mark Mitchell spend the last few years telling us police are nearly outnumbered by gangs, and then suddenly expect us to believe him when he says the cops can make this crackdown happen?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern once said that ending child poverty was the reason she got into politics.
I wish someone had told her at the time that she was dreaming, because a politician standing-up and saying they’re going to end child poverty is like those appalling old Miss Universe competitions where the contestants stood around in their togs saying they wanted world peace.
World peace is never going to happen, and zero child poverty is never going to happen.
And, if someone had told Dame Jacinda way-back-when that she might have been setting out to achieve the impossible, then there would probably be less people going ‘na-na-na-na-na’ today.
Although, she probably would have battled-on anyway, because that’s what idealistic politicians do, don’t they?
But we are going to have all the ‘na-na-na-na-na’ now, aren’t we, after these latest numbers from Stats NZ which show that thousands more kids in New Zealand are going without essentials such as shoes and visits to the doctor.
Living in households that get-by on less than half the median income, before basic living costs are taken into account.
Now I’ve looked-up online to find out what the median income is in New Zealand and there seems to be all sorts of numbers available, but one figure I’ve seen is $91,400. So, let’s go with that one, for the purposes of today’s discussion.
Half of that is $45,700. So, it’s kids living in households where less than $45k is coming in the door annually.
With tax, that takes it down to about $38,000. Or about $730-a-week to live off. So, families that have less than $730-a-week to play with before any living costs are taken into account.
And for the year to June last year, the number of children living in material hardship increased by just under 24,000. So, in 12 months, we’ve gone from 10.5% of all kids living in poverty to 12.5%. Another way of putting it is that one-child-in-eight is living in poverty.
And the experts are saying, too, that it’s likely to be worse than that in reality because there’s a lag in the time when this data is gathered.
And that’s just the ones who fit into the way we define poverty here in New Zealand.
You might have heard Jane Searle from the Child Matters charity on Newstalk ZB saying that, as well as the kids defined as being in poverty, we’ve got the “working poor” who aren’t unemployed but are struggling too.
Since these stats came out yesterday, not only are we getting people saying Labour failed to deliver, we’ve got others saying they don't have much faith in the new government doing any better.
Louise Upston is the new Child Poverty Minister and she says the way the Government’s going to reduce child poverty is by reducing the cost of living.
But Mike O’Brien from the Child Poverty Action Group says the cost of living or inflation aren't the only reasons why people end up in poverty.
He says, if the Government is serious, it should be paying more to beneficiaries, increasing family tax credits and also paying the family tax credits to beneficiaries, and supporting people better who are on low wages.
But that’s never going to happen, is it?
And just like the last government, the current child poverty minister isn’t going to do much to reduce the number of kids doing it tough. In a country which, we tell ourselves, is the best place in the world to raise kids.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It's Politics Friday once more and this week John MacDonald was joined by National's Hamish Campbell and Labour's Reuben Davidson to wrap this week's political hits.
On todays agenda was child poverty, did Labour drop the ball? Can it be eradicated? They also discussed the success of the fees free campaign, and the future of Oranga Tamariki.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you’re a parent of any age or stage —you might have little ones or you might be a grandparent, or somewhere in-between— you might find this a bit weird.
But I think the time has come for us to start treating people who are about to become parents the way we treat people who want to drive a car or a truck or a motorbike.
We’re dreaming if we think we’re doing enough just teaching them about changing nappies and feeding. And I think we need to turbo-drive our ante-natal training.
And why’s that, do you think?
It’s because of the scathing comments by Ombudsman Peter Boshier about our child welfare agency, Oranga Tamariki. He’s saying today that it’s a shambles and he wants a complete overhaul.
He says he’s uncovered what he calls “extremely distressing stories” about kids and parents who have let down big time. And that the organisation regularly breaks its own rules.
The things he’s heard about include one young person being kept in an institution against their wishes for years and a young disabled mother having her baby taken away from her at birth and never returned.
He’s looked into complaints made about Oranga Tamariki between 2019 and 2023 and he’s saying: “I cannot provide reassurance that Oranga Tamariki’s practices and processes are consistently operating as they ought to.”
Which is Ombudsman-speak for “this outfit is hopeless and needs to up its game big time”.
But do you really think that’s going to happen? Really? Because how many times have we heard this?
And how many times have we seen the honchos at OT with their serious faces on, nodding, and saying ‘yes yes yes, this is shocking, and we are listening to all this, and we are going to change’. And nothing changes.
So, what are we going to do? Just continue to rely on the OT people with the serious faces to sort the place out? Under their own steam? Of their own volition?
If we do, we’ll be in the same boat in five years, 10 years and 20 years. That’s why I think we need to do things differently. Way differently.
And the starting point needs to be before things get to the stage of needing any sort of intervention by Oranga Tamariki.
Before a child even enters the world. Call it the ambulance at the top of the cliff.
I think we’re on a road to nowhere if we’re going to keep relying on Oranga Tamariki to do all the heavy lifting and to keep kids in this country safe. So, here’s what I think we should do.
When I say we should treat new parents the way we treat new drivers, I’m saying we need to teach them things they will never forget - before they have a baby to care for.
Not the breastfeeding and nappy changing stuff. I’m talking about really confronting stuff like showing them what happens when you shake a baby and what can happen when parents try to look after a baby when they’re off their faces on drink and drugs.
We need to stop talking about the “Day 3 Blues” and teach women who are about to become mothers about post-natal depression. And teach the dads how to look out for it.
Really teach them about sleep deprivation and what it can do to you. None of this sugar-coated stuff about ‘making the most of getting a good night’s sleep now because, whew, there are going to be some long nights coming your way’.
Tell them their whole personality might even change because of what goes on when you become a parent. Tell the fathers that they’re probably going to feel like they’re on the outer a bit sometimes.
Tell them that, yes, there will be times when they might feel jealous of all the attention the mother and the baby will get. Tell them that, yes, they will feel hopeless and scared sometimes. And tell them what to do to keep themselves and their family safe before their frustrations boil over.
And tell the mothers that, if things go pear-shaped with their relationship and they end up with someone else, there’s a chance that their new partner won’t love their baby as much as they do.
You can’t stop someone falling in love with a drop-kick, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t talk about this stuff with people who are about to become parents.
Because all of it is real. And we need to get real if we think having an outfit like Oranga Tamariki is all we need to do to keep kids safe. An outfit that's being told it needs to up its game big time.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The 13th anniversary of Christchurch's 2011 Earthquake marks a new horizon for the city.
Much of the CBD has new buildings, and projects like Te Kaha Stadium and the Parakiore Recreation and Sport Centre are well under way.
Mayor Phil Mauger told John MacDonald that Christchurch has finally shed its 'unsafe' image.
He says it's no longer the damaged city and has come of age.
A small civic memorial's being held at 12.45pm, to remember the 185 victims.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today marks the 13th anniversary of the Christchurch earthquake.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is visiting the city both to mark the day, and for an update on the ongoing fire in Port Hills.
Luxon joined John MacDonald on Canterbury Mornings to discuss the anniversary, the rebuilding of the city, and where it’s heading.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Late last year we heard that work on the Christchurch Cathedral reinstatement had slowed down.
We’d had a tip-off from someone who had a mate working on the project, that some of the workers had been told they were being moved to other jobs because the money was running out.
Our news team had made some enquiries and was told “nothing to see here, everything all G.” But we knew there was some sort of review underway. And there was a cloud over the finances.
Last night there was an event to launch a new fundraising campaign - where Anglican parishioners turned-up to the cardboard cathedral and were asked to “dig deep”. They were asked to donate a portion of their income for as long as the next five years, if they could.
That was in Christchurch last night. And tonight, Anglicans in Timaru are going to be asked to do the same thing. Donate a portion of their income for the next five years.
It will be interesting to see how that goes down with the Anglican parishioners, because they were told previously that they wouldn’t be asked for money - and the only money the church itself would be putting into the restoration would be what it got from the insurance pay-out.
But here we are, the day before the 13th anniversary of the big 2011 quake, and the trust running the project has gone cap-in-hand to parishioners.
And I think they are dreaming.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again - fundraising in any way, shape or form is not going to raise enough money to get the job done.
If we look at previous public statements by the people behind the restoration, we see that they set out just over two years ago to raise an amount they described as being “north of $50 million”.
Originally, they had hoped to raise $26 million by October 2021 and another $25 million by the end of last year.
But, so far, they’ve raised $24 million.
So, what does that tell us? It tells us that they need at least another $26 million.
But we don't know for sure because the Trust isn’t saying. It’s promising to say more in April once this review it’s got going has been done. A review which, by the way, includes working out repair methods, costs and timeframes.
Which has some Christchurch City Councillors upset. Because they feel they’ve been left in the dark. Which, they say, isn’t good enough considering $30 million of public money has already gone into the project.
$10 million from ratepayers and $20 million from taxpayers.
But I tell you what, if we want this thing to get finished and that part of town released from the ball and chain the Cathedral restoration has become, then more public money is going to have to go into it.
And I’m saying this as a ratepayer, as a taxpayer, and as someone who thinks the restoration shouldn’t even be happening. The Anglicans didn’t even want to fix it. They were forced into it.
But if the options are to let it linger for years to come, or for us to chip-in some more money, then I’m up for paying a bit more.
Because the developments and improvements that haven’t happened in the Square because of the cathedral restoration work are significant.
That’s why most of the paving hasn’t been repaired or replaced. That’s why the pin was pulled on an amazing new building development on the corner of Colombo and Hereford streets. That was going to be quite something.
Shigaru Ban designed it. He’s the guy who designed the cardboard cathedral. But it didn’t go anywhere because the cathedral was holding up the works.
Yes, the Te Pae Convention Centre got built and, yes, the new library got built. But they’re on the fringes of the Square. The rest of it is stuck in 2011 until the cathedral is finished
And that’s why I think we can’t leave it to the cathedral restoration people to determine when that part of town gets freed-up for development and becomes part of Christchurch life again.
That’s why I think we need to bite the bullet and put more ratepayer money into this thing. I can’t imagine the Government being interested in any way in a request for money.
So, it’s the Christchurch City Council —us ratepayers— who need to “dig deep”, not just the Anglican parishioners.
Because it’s been 13 years already and, the way this project is going, it could be another 13 years before it’s finished, if we don’t come to the rescue.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Guess what I was accused of the other day? I was accused of elder abuse.
Now, this wasn’t for real. It was from someone who got a bit overexcited about what I was saying about people over-65 getting the NZ Super pension when they still earn more than $100K a year.
A bit extreme, I thought. But there you go.
But I bet the same person who was accusing me of elder abuse won’t be accusing the Government today of beneficiary abuse with its crackdown on people slacking around on a benefit when they could be out working.
That’s because some people have the view that all beneficiaries are guilty of being slackers until proven innocent, don’t they?
Which is a view opposition parties and beneficiary groups are accusing the government of having by writing to MSD and telling it to make sure that people on the unemployment benefit aren’t living it up on the taxpayer when they could be getting a job.
And if they are being slack, then the party’s over. Not that I would describe being on a benefit as a party.
I’ve never actually been on a benefit. Which I reckon is good luck, as much as anything.
Yes, I know there’s no shortage of people who bang-on about working 60 hours-a-week and how that’s their choice and anyone else could make the same choice.
But, while these people will tell you it’s because they choose to do it, that’s not the whole story. Just like me never needing to go on a benefit anytime in my life - until now - the 60-hour-a-week champions are just the same and, like anyone, could find themselves needing to go on a benefit in the blink of an eye.
The difference, though, is choice. And it’s the ones who actively choose a benefit over working that the Government has its sights on.
Which I believe, has to happen. I’m all for accountability and the people who genuinely need support actually getting it.
And if this approach the Government is taking sees the tap being turned-off for gang members, for example, who are claiming a benefit but also earning money from illegal activity such as drug dealing, then brilliant.
The opposition parties who have been quick to accuse the Government of beneficiary bashing seem to have conveniently forgotten about these turkeys - or, at the very least, they’re not talking about them.
But, overall, I think we have no option but to make sure that people on benefits do have a genuine need.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Yesterday, I drove from Christchurch to Picton, and back again.
And I don’t think any of these extra speed cameras that NZTA wants to bring-in would have made the journey any safer.
I took a couple of the kids up to the Inter-islander. They’ve headed back to university in Wellington and, if they’d flown, they would have had to charter their own plane.
Not that I was complaining. Because I love that drive up the east coast.
What I didn’t love, though, was some of the driving I saw. And, you’ll know this as much as me, but it is just luck isn’t it that we don’t have more accidents and more people getting injured and killed on our roads?
And this is why NZTA wants to stick a truckload more speed cameras around the place.
It’s taking the job over from the Police and plans a massive increase in camera numbers and fones.
It wants to have more than five-times the number of cameras we have at the moment and reckons it could triple the number of tickets given out for speeding. That would take us up to 3 million tickets.
And it’s predicting it would save as many as 2,400 lives over 20 years.
Although, just to note, all these cameras won’t start popping up overnight. Whether they get up to the full 800 is dependent on the Government giving the green light for more funding.
Now I’m not going to poo-poo any lives being saved. Who would? But I actually don’t think speed cameras are going to do anything to stop the things that cause crashes.
Speed cameras don’t stop people crossing the centre line. Speed cameras don’t make people think twice about dodgy overtaking. Speed cameras don’t stop people tailgating.
Speed cameras don’t stop people treating driving as if it’s something they can do while they do something else.
All things I saw on my drive up to Picton and back yesterday.
I saw a motorcyclist who, obviously, had some sort of infra-red periscope attached to his helmet. Because he was able to tell whether-or-not there was traffic coming towards him on a blind corner.
There was a guy tailgating me just north of Kaikoura, driving with one hand on the wheel - the other one hanging out the window. And, when he did overtake me, he still only needed one hand on the wheel. And he would have been doing well over 100kph.
Not to mention the muppets in the passing lanes who thought they could gun it and try to get past just one more car at the end of the passing lanes, where the road merges back into a single lane.
NZTA could have a speed camera every 200 metres on every road and it still wouldn’t stop those idiots from doing that kind of nutbar stuff when they’re driving.
And let’s face it, if we did ever get to the point of dishing out 3 million tickets a year, that would be a fair chunk of people not being bothered by the presence of speed cameras.
Which is my argument, exactly.
Some people will not change their driving behaviour for anything. Not even a speeding ticket.
Because, yes, there’s a financial penalty. But you don’t get any demerit points when you get a ticket where a speed camera’s used. That would be the only way to get speed cameras to change driver behaviour.
Because, if there was a chance of accumulating enough demerits to stop you driving, then you’d have more to worry about than just paying a fine, wouldn’t you?
But we don’t. And that’s why I don’t think speed cameras are the answer to stopping the stupid stupid behaviour we see on our roads, day-in day-out
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Hands off the Police. That’s my message to the Government. In particular, the Finance Minister who is asking all government departments to cut spending by at least 6.5%.
I’m saying it after Police Commissioner Andrew Coster warned yesterday that he can’t rule out job losses if he’s to deliver the savings being demanded
This has all come from his comments to Parliament’s Justice Select Committee, which he fronted-up to yesterday as part of the annual review of the police.
And let’s be straight-up from the start, even though he’s describing what happened yesterday as “our opportunity to be scrutinised and to answer the questions members of Parliament have”, we know full well it was also an opportunity to make a very public bid for sustained funding.
Before going into that select committee room yesterday, Andrew Coster would have very carefully worked out what key message he wanted to ram home to the politicians and get us talking about.
So yes, it’s all part of a “process”. But it is also very political, and I think we can safely say that he has achieved what he set out to do.
Which was to make us think twice about this cost-cutting songsheet the Government is singing from, and what it might mean if it takes a blunt instrument across the whole public sector.
Because I think the Government is nuts if it thinks cutting police spending is a good idea. And it’s why I think, if there’s one government department that should be exempt from the budget cuts, it’s the Police.
Andrew Coster says 75% of the money that goes into the Police pays the wages and salaries of the people who do the work.
If you know anything about organisations and businesses, you’ll know that, generally, people make up about 60% of costs.
So, for the Police to be at 75%, just shows you how right Andrew Coster is when he says that any cost cutting will most likely mean reducing staff numbers.
And I know we all like to think that the most important part of the Police is the frontline work. The stuff we actually see.
But, as Andrew Coster points out, if we want more police on patrol and fighting crime, they need more back-office support too.
Which is not the sort of thing you’ll hear from the politicians —whatever side of the House they’re on— because they’re all about “on the beat” and “bringing back the Bobby”, aren’t they?
That’s why Labour made such a dog’s breakfast last year with its big 1800 new police nonsense. And then had to dance on the head of a pin when we found out that not all of those 1800 were frontline. 270 of them were back office, non-sworn officers. They should have just been upfront about it.
So, I get what Andrew Coster is saying. And I hope you do too. And I hope the Government does, as well. Because just telling every government department to cut costs by 6.5%, irrespective of where they sit in the pecking order, is balmy.
For example, why should the Police be expected to make the same level of cuts or percentage of cuts as, say, the Education Review Office or Statistics NZ or the Ministry for Women?
Granted, the Police budget is way bigger than those outfits and so 6.5% from the Police budget will deliver much bigger savings from the Ministry for Women, for example, which this year has a budget of around $15 million.
The Police budget is $2.2 billion. The Ministry for Women’s budget is $15 million
6.5% of $2.2 billion is $143 million. 6.5% of $15 million is $975,000. So, yes, Andrew Coster’s cost-cutting would deliver a lot more money for things like tax cuts, compared to the savings likely to come from much smaller government departments and agencies.
But I say “so what” to that. I say hands off the Police budget.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It’s Politics Friday and John MacDonald was joined by Labour’s Tracey McLellan and National’s Matt Doocey to wrap this week's politics.
Should Police be exempt from any cost cutting exercises given our shortages at the moment? Matt explains how the government will tackle the growing need for youth mental health services, and what do the make of the ACT Party wanting to fine parents for not sending their kids to school?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Quick actions from firefighters in Christchurch have so far saved properties from being damaged by the 630-hectare blaze in the Port Hills.
The massive effort involves 80 firefighters, 13 helicopters and two planes, with a fire break stretching from Worsleys Spur to Dyers Pass Road.
It's spread to the Adventure Park, with no details yet how badly it's affected.
A state of emergency was declared last night for Christchurch City, including Banks Peninsula and the Selwyn District, and about 80 properties have been evacuated.
Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger told John MacDonald that they will get through this.
He praised the professionalism of the emergency responders, saying that the power given to them by the state of emergency allows them to make effective decisions on the fly.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Why should one person’s lifeline be another person’s beer money?
That’s how I’m feeling about this stat that’s come through from the Retirement Commission, that there are about 50,000 people claiming the NZ Super pension while also earning more than $100,000 a year.
Which has the commission saying that maybe it’s time we thought about testing people to see if they really need the NZ Super. But I think we’re beyond the point of “maybe” on that one.
What I think we have to do is get real and stop this nonsense where someone can be earning a truckload of money and still have their hand out for the pension.
But, of course, as soon as you get talk about cracking down on this, we’re reminded that the sense of entitlement that the younger generations are accused of having is just as rampant in all age groups.
There’s the classic line: “I worked all my life and I deserve the pension”.
Yep, absolutely. I get that. But what if someone is still working beyond the age of 65 and pulling in more than 100k a year? You really think they “deserve” the pension?
I don’t. And I think we need to drop this idea that, just because we stick around long enough, we should get NZ Super irrespective of whether we need it or not.
Which is why I’m saying, why should one person’s lifeline be another person’s beer money? Because, for many people, they pretty much can’t get by without the Super.
Others, though —you might know someone like this; you might even be one yourself— they openly acknowledge that they don’t actually need the pension money but, by God, they’ve worked for it and they’re in boots-and-all. They almost brag about it.
The pension is, literally, their beer money.
I’m not advocating asset testing. I think that would be a step too far. Because someone might have, say, an $800,000 home but they can’t buy groceries with the equity in the house, can they?
What I’m saying we should be doing, is income testing people before they get NZ Super. And I’d make the $100k mark the cut-off point.
Because if you’re older than 65 and you’re earning $100k-plus, you’re like a pig in muck, aren’t you?
Generally, if someone’s a parent, the kids are off their hands by the time they’re 65. There certainly aren’t the costs that come with raising a family when you’re younger, anyway.
A lot of people over-65 are mortgage-free. There are probably less in that position these days than there used to be. But you get what I mean. Life, when you’re over 65, isn’t as expensive as it is when you are younger.
So how much do you think would be saved if we did this, right now. If we stopped paying NZ Super to people bringing-in more than $100,000 a year?
Weekly Super payments range from just over $400 each for a couple, to just over $530 for a single person living alone or with a dependent child.
So, for the purpose of this discussion, let's round it out to $500 a week. Times that by the 50,000 people earning more than $100,000 who I say shouldn’t be getting NZ Super, and guess how much it comes to?
$1.3 billion. That’s how much we are paying people in pension money to people who are already earning $100k a year.
And that $1.3 billion is going to continue going into these people’s pockets - not because they need it, but just because of their age.
Which, putting it plainly and simply, is nuts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Three Waters is finally getting the axe.
Labour Leader Chris Hipkins joined John MacDonald to discuss the repeal and the impact he thinks it’ll have on New Zealanders.
The state of the emergency call system is also in the news, John asking if Hipkins’ government really pushed back its upgrade.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I reckon the current government is going to be hauled across the coals just as much as the last government was for wasting public money.
It’s going full steam ahead ditching the 3 Waters reforms, which would have taken control of drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater away from local councils and handed it all over to new water authorities. The reforms would also have taken away ownership of water infrastructure.
It was Labour’s big idea and the whole thing got hijacked by one little aspect of it - co-governance. And, once that train had bolted, it seemed there was no going back.
Not that that was enough to stop the Labour government from blindly pressing on, even when it started looking more and more likely that it was going to be goneburger after the election.
It tried re-branding it and handing-over the job of selling it to us to Kieran McAnulty.
And, of course, by blindly pressing-on despite all the writing on the wall, the former government kept pouring money into it.
Then we had the election, we eventually got a new coalition government, and the Local Government Minister, Simeon Brown, has announced that it will be repealed within the next week.
It’s going to be a year-or-so before the Government comes up with an alternative but, essentially, councils will still be in control of water.
Which I think makes no sense because I think funding water services is beyond the capabilities of most councils. In fact, all councils. Let alone delivery.
But it's happening and are we going to pay for it. And I mean that literally.
Because, by the time the Government finishes kicking 3 Waters into touch, the whole thing will have cost us $1.2 billion.
That’s the cost of setting it up —which the last government did— and pulling it apart, which the current government is doing. $1.2 billion.
Irrespective of whether you think 3 Waters was a good idea or not, how can you possibly think that that kind of waste is okay?
Yes, Labour made a mess of it. And yes, I did say the other day that I think we were too quick to dismiss 3 Waters. Myself included.
But what I’m saying here has nothing to do with whether 3 Waters was a good idea, or not. I’m saying that it’s absolutely ludicrous that we’ve got a government saying it’s going to stop wasting public money but, at the same time, use its ideological differences with the last government to justify pouring $1.2 billion down the drain.
Even if it promised to repeal 3 Waters before the election, so what?
Because, if you personally weren’t up for what Labour was proposing, would you really be going nuts if Christopher Luxon stood up and said "look, I know we said before the election that we’d get rid of it. But, if we do that now, it’s going to mean more than a billion dollars spent with nothing to show for it. So, instead, we’re going to refine what Labour started and make sure we get some sort of return on the investment that’s gone into it so far.”
Are you telling me you’d be outraged if the Prime Minister or Simeon Brown stood up and said that? Of course you wouldn’t.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you own your own home and you’ve just spent most of the weekend doing stuff around the house, how about this for a statistic?
85 percent of us would be keen on renting the places we live in, if we didn't have to deal with quarterly inspections; if there weren't strict rules on customising rental properties to make them feel more like home; and if there wasn’t the risk or threat of having to move out at short notice.
Which I get. Because different landlords have different expectations, don’t they? Yes to hanging stuff on the wall. Or no. Yes to painting the kitchen a different colour. Or no. See what I mean?
And the idea has been, hasn’t it, that if you own your place, you’ve got the freedom to do what you want with it.
But is that really the be-all and end-all? Well, according to new survey results just released by Kiwi property Group, maybe it isn’t the be-all and end-all. Because it appears to show a change in attitudes.
The survey’s also found that hopes of owning a home in New Zealand are fading, particularly with younger people. Only 59 percent of 18 to 29-year-olds think owning your own place is the kiwi dream.
There’s a bit more enthusiasm for home ownership among those 30 and older. The survey found 70 percent of people in the 30-plus bracket think owning your own home is the be-all and end-all.
Well, that might be exaggerating it a bit. But you get the gist.
But what I find most interesting is the fact that so many of us aren’t writing-off the idea of renting. And I do get the reasons why people who took part in this survey give as the things that put them off.
Of course, if you want to be settled somewhere, you don’t want to feel that you could be chucked out anytime.
And, of course, it would be nice to make the place you live, feel like your own. Or feel like you.
What I don’t agree with in these findings, is the thing about quarterly inspections. Because I think anyone who owns a rental property has every right to make sure it’s being looked after.
I don’t have any rental properties, but I reckon that would be the thing I’d worry about most if I did. That the place wasn't being wrecked. So I’ve got no problem with the old flat inspections.
But as for the survey results, that 85 percent of us would consider giving renting a go, that doesn’t surprise me at all. And I reckon the results come down to a couple of things.
You’ve got the younger people realising that buying a home is getting more and more out of their reach. So, of course, being able to rent somewhere - maybe with a bit more longer-term stability than renting normally provides - I get.
The only problem is, while attitudes might be changing, expectations of people haven’t. And what I’m getting at there, is the view alot of us in the older generations have that you haven’t really made it until you own your own home.
Which is, maybe, understandable when you think that - for most of us - we bought our first home when houses were cheaper, when deposits could be smaller, and when everything else in life just wasn’t so expensive.
It was almost a given that you would buy a house, wasn’t it? Or could buy a house.
Just like people who get married or get a civil union. Then people ask them when they’re going to start a family. Then, if they have a child or can have a child, they start getting quizzed about when “number two” is on the way.
It’s like that with property. A person or a couple, they’re renting somewhere and people start asking when they’re going to buy. Then they do eventually buy a place - if they can - and then they start getting questions about when they’re going to buy a rental property.
See what I mean? Exactly same as the baby pressure.
And I think our expectations of ourselves and other people need to change. Because what’s so bad about renting?
Yes, when you pay rent, it’s money in the landlord’s pocket. Whereas if you own a place, even with a mortgage, the money that would go on rent creates equity for you.
And yes, when you rent, you don’t necessarily get to decide how long you stay there. If the landlord wants you gone, there are ways and means.
I know the rules have tightened up a bit. But, generally, you can’t sign-up to rent somewhere and assume you’ve got the place for as long as you want, can you?
But, despite all that, I think it’s a great thing if we are starting to think that owning your own place isn’t the be-all and end-all.
That could be because I’m in the relatively lucky position of being a homeowner myself. And if you’re a renter, you may feel completely differently.
But I think if the day is coming where we stop obsessing about property ownership, then that has to be a good thing
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Remember the days when we used to build things in New Zealand like harbour bridges and hydro schemes and tunnels through to places like Lyttelton?
These days we talk about building these kinds of things. But not a hell of a lot seems to actually get done.
And Auckland mayor Wayne Brown is saying that even less is going to get done up his way after the Government announced yesterday that the regional fuel tax there is going. He’s saying ‘you want to cut the tax, there’ll be less money for roads. A lot less’.
I thought it was a great line from him when he said “this is my city, not theirs”. So there’s going to be some argy-bargy.
As there should be, because as Wayne Brown points out - the Government can ditch the regional fuel tax, but it’s going to leave a hole of about $1.2 billion for spending on critical roading and transport projects in Auckland over the next four years.
Not that that seemed to worry the people I saw on the TV news last night, all banging-on about how great it’s going to be paying less for their fuel.
As the Prime Minister said yesterday, if someone drives a Toyota Corolla —for example— they’ll pay about $5 less every time they fill the tank. That will depend on fuel price fluctuations, of course.
But that was enough for the Aucklanders I saw on the news. All smiles. Perfect examples of the “what’s in it for me” attitude that seems to influence —or even dictate— all the big political decisions these days.
And I think we need to get away from that and, when it comes to stuff like critical infrastructure, we need to take the cross-party politics out of it. Because I reckon we are heading down the track of having an infrastructure crisis in this country.
In fact, we may already be there. Because this obsession with running things on the smell of an oily rag is just nuts.
Cruddy roads. Cook Strait ferries breaking down every second day. Talk of electricity brown-outs and black-outs.
And just on that, did you see what the bosses of Meridian Energy and Transpower told Parliament’s Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee yesterday?
They told MPs that, between now and 2050 —so over the next 25-or-so years— in that time we’re going to need $130 billion invested in our electricity infrastructure.
Transmission and distribution is where most of the spend is going to be needed - and that’s because of a couple of things. 1. Increasing demand. And 2. A lot of the electricity grid was built in the 1960s and 1970s and needs money spent on it.
Alison Andrew, who runs Transpower, says a lot of the existing grid is (quote): “at the end of its life and needs to be refurbished”.
So you see, while Auckland roading and transport is being talked about because of the fuel tax being scrapped up there, it’s just one example of the mess we’re getting into with our infrastructure planning and construction.
So how do we fix this? Well, I’ll tell you what I’d do. It will never happen, but I would bang some heads together in Wellington and tell our politicians to go into a room, stop fighting over stuff, and come up with a 50-year infrastructure plan.
I think the closest we’ve ever got to that was some talk from ACT leader David Seymour before the election of a 30-year plan - but that seems to have gone west because he’s all focussed on this treaty principles stuff.
But that’s what I’d do. Put in the effort, get some consensus, and agree on a plan for the next 50 years. Because, the way things are at the moment and the way we’re going, the infrastructure in this country is going to continue falling to bits if we think we can run things on the smell of an oily rag.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you're after a bit of beneficiary bashing, then you’re probably going to be disappointed.
But if you want to know why I think someone getting the Jobseeker unemployment benefit is now expected to spend an average of 13 years on a benefit, then keep reading.
I’ll explain what I mean, but the key word for me is “confidence”. Which I’ll get to shortly.
But I know there will be no shortage of people up and down the country today banging-on about this new statistic which has come from some modelling work done for the Government. That someone getting the Jobseeker unemployment benefit is now expected to spend an average of 13 years on a benefit.
And there’ll be talk about dole bludgers and lamos. Maybe there’ll be a bit of talk about boot camps and military training as well.
But I bet what you won’t hear much of, is anything close to compassion.
And the reason we won’t hear it, is because not even government departments like Work & Income and the Ministry of Social Development, that are supposed to be helping people get off the dole and into work, they don’t even seem to get it.
And, if they don't get it, what chance is there of the rest of us getting it?
So, what is it exactly that they’re not getting?
They’re not getting the fact that when someone ends up on the dole —and any other benefit too, possibly— but certainly the dole; the impact that can have on their confidence is massive.
That’s why I think this is all about confidence, as much as anything.
Because, as we all know, the minute your confidence takes a hit, so does everything else in your life.
And I don’t think we really understand how much of a hit your confidence takes when you sign up for the dole. I’m not claiming that I understand it, because I’ve never had to do it.
But what I do know, is that there’s probably only one or two degrees of separation between me and the unemployment benefit. It’ll be the same for you. Unless you’re on the dole already. And, if you are, you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about.
I’d like to think —as we all would— that I would never have to sign up for the dole. But there’s no guarantee. I’d also like to think that, if things did go pear-shaped for me, I’d be able to get work pretty quickly. But if my confidence went downhill, then maybe not.
I’m always amazed whenever someone, who I think is on top of things and super confident, tells me they have low or no confidence in themselves. And these aren’t people on a benefit. These aren’t people stuck in the WINZ and MSD system.
Yes, there are no-hopers in our society. There always have and there always will be. And not much can be done for them. And whether we can do anything for their kids too is a big issue. Because inter-generational welfare dependency is a thing. It’s a thing in New Zealand and a thing around the world.
Social Development Minister Louise Upston was on Newstalk ZB this morning saying the Government is going to incentivise people to work. Which is political-speak for consequences.
But nowhere is anyone talking about the single biggest thing stopping some people from getting off the dole.
The Government can talk as tough as it wants about “incentivising” people to work. But if someone’s confidence in themselves is completely shot, then no amount of incentivising and penalising is going to work.
And until we recognise that and do something to help unemployed people restore their self-confidence, so that they’re not freaked out by the idea of making a phone call or sending an email —let alone turning-up to a job interview— until we do something about that, nothing is going to change.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A major mountain bike event is coming to Canterbury for the first time.
The Crankworx Summer Series will give new and upcoming cyclists a chance to race against and international heroes this March.
Ariki Tibble is the CEO of Crankworx, and joined John MacDonald to chat about the huge surge in the popularity of mountain biking, and how Cantabrians can watch the event live.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You know that line about the first offer being the best offer? I reckon we’re going to start thinking that way pretty soon about 3 Waters - Labour’s doomed effort to try and sort out the shambles stormwater, wastewater and drinking water has become in New Zealand.
There seems to be no shortage of disaster stories. Wellington’s been in the spotlight over the last few weeks and, today, it’s Christchurch’s turn.
With the news that not only is about 38 million litres of water leaking out of the water pipes every day, we’re also going to have to have chlorine in the drinking water for years to come.
That 38 million litres is the equivalent of about 15 Olympic-size swimming pools. Or another way of thinking about it, is what the excess water charge would be from the council if you or I wasted that much water.
I thought it might be interesting to see how much we’d be pinged if we went through that amount of water.
The council charges $1.35 for every 1,000 litres of water over the daily limit. For the 38 million litres of water going down the drain every day in Christchurch, the excess water charge would be $51,000 dollars a day. Just under $360,000 a week or just over $18.5 million a year.
The waste in Christchurch isn’t quite as bad as Wellington, where they’ve got 60 million litres going down the drain every day.
Either way, though, these councils that have been banging-on about how they’re the best outfits to run water infrastructure are dreaming. And they have hood-winked a lot of us into thinking the same. That’s how I’m feeling about it.
Because, like pretty much every other council around the country, all the councils here in Canterbury were up-in-arms about the government trying to take over their water infrastructure with its 3 Waters idea.
“Local ownership is the best kind of ownership” - that’s what they were saying.
And I’ll admit that, yes, I bought the argument these councils were putting up. And, for me, a lot of that was focused on the government offering pitiful amounts of money in exchange for water infrastructure assets.
I thought that what the previous government was offering the Christchurch council, for example, for its water infrastructure assets, was like someone offering an ‘as is-where is’ price for a house where all the earthquake repairs had been done.
Under 3 Waters, the former government would have paid Christchurch City Council $120 million for $8 billion of water infrastructure assets. And I remember that was a very strong line that certain city councillors pushed. Sam MacDonald was one of them, who chairs the finance committee.
And he made very compelling arguments. And a lot of us got fired up about it. Which meant, of course, the other political parties joined in. With National, for example, saying before the election that it would repeal and replace 3 Waters.
It’s doing the repealing bit but not sure what the replacement is going to be. Although, it did say before the election that it would be letting councils hold on to their assets. Which people liked the sound of, and so goodbye 3 Waters.
But I’m thinking today that we should’ve given 3 Waters more time before jumping on the anti bandwagon.
Which is why I’m saying that, maybe, the first offer was the best offer - that $120-million in exchange for $8-billion worth of water assets in Christchurch, for example, was actually a great offer and we should have grabbed it with both hands and let the government take over.
The idea was to set-up four water authorities, which would have been responsible for stormwater, wastewater and drinking water services right around the country. Most of the South Island would have been covered by one authority.
And Labour was going on saying that these authorities would have had all sorts of local membership blah blah blah. But, in essence, the Government would have been in charge and, in hindsight, I don’t think that would have been such a bad thing.
Because do you really, in your heart of hearts, think that local councils are up to the job? Really?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How many times over the past couple of years have we said that our local MPs are next to invisible and not doing enough to push our case up in Wellington?
You don’t need to come up with a specific number. But, trust me, it’s somewhere between truckloads and truckloads.
And what about local councillors? How many times have we said that they’re doing nothing either to remind Wellington that we exist?
Same answer. Somewhere between truckloads and truckloads.
And today, we have evidence to prove that what we suspected, or thought we knew, is actually true. And it comes via a briefing paper written for the new Transport Minister Simeon Brown.
It’s one of a whole raft of briefing papers that were provided to the new coalition government, and we’ve been hearing about them in the news because, yesterday, they were released to the public.
And there are two key statistics in the paper that was written for the Transport Minister, that have a transport planner saying today that here in our neck of the woods we have been short-changed when it comes to spending on our roads.
Twenty-five percent of the population lives in the South Island. That’s the first statistic. Now guess how much of the Government’s spend on roading comes to the South Island? Nine percent.
So, a quarter of New Zealand’s population lives in the South, but less than a 10th of the funding for roads comes here.
If you look at Canterbury, in particular, on the basis of roading projects underway at the moment and the amount of government money being spent on them - and you compare it to the amount spent in Wellington, then I think we have every reason to feel hard done by.
Here in Canterbury there are 23 projects underway worth a total of $1.4 billion. In Wellington, there are 44 projects underway worth $3.5 billion.
Which has Transport planner Axel Downard-Wilke in the news today saying the South Island has always been underfunded by successive governments, and he says the blame lies fairly and squarely with our South Island MPs and local councillors.
Here’s a taste of what he’s saying today: “South Island MPs have never really effectively campaigned for the South Island getting its fair share and neither is that something that the local councillors in Christchurch have ever been doing in any effective form or shape.”
And I couldn’t agree with him more.
He’s also saying today: “It’s just unsatisfactory and when you look at funding for Wellington and Christchurch it’s even more stark.”
I think he’s generous, saying it’s “unsatisfactory”. I’d say something more along the lines of “it’s hopeless”. Or even stronger.
But, you know, it’s a classic case of ‘if you don’t ask, you don’t get’. And that’s what this transport planner is saying - our South Island MPs and our local councillors haven’t asked, and so they haven’t got.
Maybe our case isn’t helped by the muppets at the Christchurch City Council who love to blow government money on roading projects like that monstrosity they’ve created in Gloucester Street, in town.
You’ll know this one. Blowing more than a million bucks on the planter box trial. Have you actually been there recently? I drove down it the other day and it just looks like some kids have gone there and dragged some planter boxes into the middle of the road for a laugh. Just to be a pain in the backside.
So maybe the government looks at Canterbury and thinks, either we don’t need any new or upgraded roads because the people who are supposed to have their fingers on the pulse - our MPs and local councillors - aren’t banging the table, demanding more funding.
Or maybe they look at the Christchurch council, especially, and the Gloucester Street experiment and think we only know how to pour money down the drain.
Either way, the share of roading investment we are getting - in relation to the number of people who live here in the South Island - is pitiful. More to the point, though, so is the effort that our central and local government politicians are making to get more funding for roads here.
And it’s only going to get worse, unless these politicians do what they should be doing, and start lobbying hard for more funding here in the South.
Auckland has Wayne Brown and, in the past month or so, he’s been going all-out to make sure his city gets its fair share of roading funding.
Example. Here’s something he said late last year: “The Government has underfunded road renewals in Auckland for years. They must fully fund their share of the spend and I will be lobbying the minister and Waka Kotahi to make sure this happens.”
Hear that? Wayne Brown is going to be lobbying hard. Doing exactly what he should be doing.
Meanwhile, in Christchurch, our mayor is campaigning to get the Commonwealth Games here. It makes you despair, doesn't it?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A new report says the South Island has 25% of New Zealand's population, but only gets 9% of the national transport funding. Have South Island MPs done a bad job of campaigning for more funding?
John MacDonald asked Matt Doocey and Duncan Webb who is to blame. They also discussed AUKUS, the Prime Ministers comments to parents about getting their kids to school, and who is Casey Costello?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Is it just me or has the Government gone all gung-ho on it since the holidays?
Because it seems to me that our approach to defence has been turned on its head almost overnight.
Last week, we had the announcement that New Zealand is sending six military personnel to help with airstrikes against the Houthi militia in Yemen and the Red Sea.
And today, we’ve got Defence Minister Judith Collins over in Australia, meeting with her counterpart over there - and one of the things they’re going to be talking about is New Zealand joining the non-nuclear part of the AUKUS military alliance.
This is the alliance involving Australia, the UK and the US. The big nuclear submarine buy-up is part of that, which will mean Australia’s military will have nuclear capability - just like the US and the UK.
And a big motivator for AUKUS is China’s involvement in the Pacific region. Splashing the cash around and buying a presence in, and influence over, Pacific countries. Which has put the wind up the United States, and so it’s rallying the troops - so to speak - with the AUKUS arrangement.
Judith Collins was dancing on a diplomatic pin on the radio this morning, when Mike asked whether this is all about China. She said something along the lines of China being a friend and how she hopes it remains a friend of New Zealand - but then she made it sound like a friend who could go off any minute.
So not a BFF. Not your bestie. A friend who you’re not always a hundred percent sure of. And so that’s why she wants to have a chat on the side with our other mates, Australia.
But, because we’re not into nuclear weapons, there’s this secondary part of AUKUS where you can sign-up, turn a bit of a blind eye to the nuclear stuff and feel like you’re doing your bit. Stepping up.
Which has been the line trotted out by the Government multiple times over the past week in relation to the Red Sea deployment. And Judith Collins was at it again this morning when she spoke to Mike from Australia, saying it was critical for supply chain purposes and keeping costs down.
But not once before the election, did I hear any politician from whatever party you want to name saying that one of the things they were going to do to deal with the cost-of-living crisis was send our defence personnel overseas to sort out supply chain issues.
Winston Peters and David Seymour did say they were keen on AUKUS pre-election. Christopher Luxon wasn’t quite so gung-ho - but he didn’t rule it out, either.
Which is why we’ve now got Crusher Collins over in Australia today talking about signing us up to AUKUS Pillar 2 - the non-nuclear bit. Foreign Minister Winston Peters is over there too today.
Now from what I’ve seen, the non-nuclear part of AUKUS involves things like sharing advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence; quantum computing; cyber, undersea capabilities; hypersonic weapons; information-sharing and electronic warfare.
If you go to the Defence Force website, here’s what it says itself about what it does: “Our equipment and expertise supports people and communities in need at home, across our region and around the world”.
Doesn’t sound like there’s too much hypersonic weapons or electronic warfare involved in that, does it?
I’m not saying that the New Zealand Defence Force can’t change. I’m not saying that, in an ever-changing world, we shouldn’t have our eyes closed to any emerging threats. And, of course, technology is going to be a huge part of that.
What I am saying, is we should have our eyes open and not get sucked-in to this “doing our bit” malarkey. Because we can just as effectively “do our bit” by sticking to the knitting that our defence force has been doing in recent times.
Peacekeeping. Disaster relief. That’s what the New Zealand military is all about. In fact, that’s all the New Zealand defence force is capable of. And I’m fine with that. Perfectly fine.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It hasn’t taken long, has it?
It hasn’t taken long for National to start using the same weasel words we got sick of Labour using when it came to police numbers.
Remember Labour’s great promise of 1800 new “on-the-beat” police officers? Only to find out that it was actually 1,530, and the rest wouldn’t be on the beat at all. They’d be back in the office.
And all the dancing on the pin that then-Police Minister Ginny Anderson did trying to explain that one away?
Well, National’s already doing the same. With new Police Minister Mark Mitchell’s comment in Parliament yesterday that instead of these 500 new cops National promised before the election being on the beat within two years, they’ll be on-the-beat within three years.
That’s what Mark Mitchell said in Parliament. Which had the Prime Minister saying on Newstalk ZB this morning that his minister could have said what he said in a better way. I bet he thought that.
And then Mark Mitchell was on the radio saying, yep, the boss was right…he could have said things better.
He said the bit he got wrong was that he should have said that he will work as hard as he can to deliver the 500 new cops within two years. Even though it’s going to be a challenge.
And then he said what he probably should’ve said all along, and that instead of fudging like Labour did and like Ginny Anderson did when she was Police Minister, he’s going to be upfront and tell us if there are any hurdles to delivering on his promises.
Which is easier said than done, especially for a politician. But good on him for saying it. It was just 24 hours too late.
The bigger issue for me, though, is whether 500 extra police officers on the beat is even going to actually make much of a difference.
I know, numbers-wise and on paper, it sounds like it will. But I’m not convinced.
Because how better have things got with Labour’s 1,530 extra cops? And what difference is adding another 500 in two years or three years going to make?
Not much, if other things don’t change. So, what “other things” am I talking about?
Well, for starters, we need to completely overhaul the rules our security guards operate under. Because, at the moment, they are toothless. They pretty much have no more authority than you or I. And it’s the cops who are left to do the heavy lifting.
I was at the cricket at Hagley Oval the other week, and lord knows how many cops were on duty there. They could have been elsewhere, but they had to be at the cricket because the security guards are so limited in what they’re allowed to do.
Mental health callouts, that’s another one. It is staggering how much police resourcing goes into that. Noises have been made in Wellington about trying to sort that problem out.
But, until the demand for police involvement in mental health callouts diminishes, and until we let the security industry do what it should be doing, then just sending more people to police training college isn’t going to have as much of an impact as it could.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour Leader Chris Hipkins joined John MacDonald this morning for the first of this year’s regular catchups to get his thoughts on recent events.
What does he make of the situation surrounding the timeline of the Government’s promise to add new frontline police?
Does he feel responsible for James Shaw’s resignation?
And what does he think of Christchurch City Council’s investigation into hosting the Commonwealth Games?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There’ll be no shortage of people lining up today to bag Oranga Tamariki. But I won’t be one of them.
They’ve just put out their latest safety report which says that, in the year to June 2023, just under 10% of kids in its care were harmed.
This is up from about 5.5% five years ago.
And it follows the news last week that our child welfare agency doesn’t really know whether the kids in its care are going to the doctor or the dentist regularly or not.
And so, today, Oranga Tamariki is making all the right noises about the stats in its new report. It’s saying that it’s “horrendous and absolutely unacceptable” that kids are being harmed under its watch.
Which it has to say, doesn't it? Can you imagine the caning it would get if it came out and said, “what this latest report shows, is that just over 90% of kids in our care aren’t being harmed”.
Of course, it wouldn’t say something like that.
But if Oranga Tamariki thinks it’s going to turn the ship around and eradicate any harm being caused to the kids it cares for, then it’s in la-la land - just as much as the ill-informed people who think if Oranga Tamariki doesn’t have a 100% success rate then it’s a basket case.
Now I’m not an apologist for OT in any way, shape or form. And I know that if any of my kids had ended up on their books and came to harm in some way, then I’d be coming down on them like a tonne of bricks. I know I would.
But I think part of its problem is that some people running the place seem to have forgotten that it’s a child welfare agency and run it as if it’s some sort of professional development outfit.
There’s no shortage of people there rushing off on courses and people doing their PhDs and being sent-off to cultural competency classes. There’s also no shortage of big internal projects that just suck up people’s time and energy.
And, like anywhere, some of these projects are more critical than others.
But they can have the finest IT systems in the world, and they can have the best indoor-outdoor flow at its residences, but there are always going to be statistics and aspects of its performance that will never meet whatever expectations we might have of our child welfare agency.
The only way Oranga Tamariki would be able to get things right every time would be if it was run by robots and if it was looking after robots.
But it’s not. It’s run by people, looking after other people. And these people that it looks after, come from the most dysfunctional and tragic backgrounds.
There’s all sorts of abuse and trauma. Absolutely horrifying stuff. Which must be so hard for the frontline people at Oranga Tamariki who deal with this stuff day-in day-out, to compartmentalise and not take home with them at night. I couldn’t do it.
These are the same people who must feel like they’re under constant attack when the outfit they work for seems to be in the news all the time for cocking things up.
Because it happens. OT makes mistakes. It cocks things up. And it will always cock things up. I wish it was different, of course I do.
But we’re talking here about an organisation that gets 70,000-to-80,000 calls every year from people who think a child might be in danger. When you’re dealing with those numbers, of course you’re going to fail.
Of course, there are going to be slip ups. I’m not saying it’s good enough. But, sadly, it’s inevitable.
And then, once those thousands of calls of concern have all been gone through and once the kids end up in the system, there will be slip ups again.
Maybe the caregiver who looked so good on paper, turns out to be a disaster. Yes, OT needs to do everything to make sure the people they’re placing these kids with aren’t disasters. But it won’t get it right every time.
Maybe a child placed in residential care turns out to be far more emotionally damaged than first thought and they should be living somewhere more appropriate, so they don’t end up harming someone. Yes, OT needs to prevent that happening. But it won’t get it right every time.
Oranga Tamariki itself needs to accept that, and not fall into the trap of promising something it will never deliver. And we need to accept that.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When I saw yesterday morning that ACT Party leader David Seymour was going to be giving what was billed as a “State of the Nation” speech, I didn’t quite anticipate how pompous he was going to be.
I saw afterwards that one of the news websites was saying that they had planned to run a livestream of the speech provided by the party itself, but they couldn’t because it was too shaky.
And I wasn’t sure whether they were referring to technological issues or the content of the speech itself.
So I went and had a read through his speech notes.
For a state of the nation, he talked a lot about other countries. His trip to America over the holidays, Trump. He said: “Nearly everywhere you look offshore, there be dragons”. He went all Shakespeare on it there, for a minute.
But, when he did bring things back to the nation he was assessing the state of, he launched a remarkable attack on Helen Clark, John Key and Jacinda Ardern - saying the past 20-or-so years have been what he called “lost decades”, thanks to their governments.
He said they ran the place without values. They made bad policies. And that Helen Clark, John Key and Jacinda Ardern had created a dependency on the government to fix our problems, and that they eroded the idea that we are the ones who can actually make a real difference in our lives.
A couple quotes: "The sad truth is, the values that made New Zealand strong, unified, and productive have been eroded over the last 25 or so years.
“The most important value, is that you can make a difference in your own life, and the lives of those you care about. In fact, you are the only person who can do that.
“We lost decades because too few people stood up to publicly defend these basic values. When did you last hear a New Zealand leader say that a person’s hard work, success, and wealth should be celebrated? That business is a force for good. That profit is a good thing.”
And, apparently, Helen Clark, John Key and Jacinda Ardern are to blame.
Unlike Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, who appears to have finally stopped talking as if he’s running an election campaign, David Seymour’s so-called “State of the Nation” speech yesterday sounded like something he would have trotted out hundreds of times last year, before the election.
It was more “slate” of the nation than state of the nation. Beneficiaries were targeted. “If you accept welfare from other taxpayers, certain responsibilities come with it.”
Parents were targeted. “Making sure your kids show up to school every day - with lunch - is your responsibility.”
Crims were targeted. “If you break the law, you are responsible. Not your mental health, or your workplace.” I wonder who he was having a go at there?
To sum it up, David Seymour reckons we’ve gone soft over the past 25 years and, instead of being prepared to make our lives better ourselves, more and more of us expect the government to fix everything.
But what David Seymour seems to have forgotten, is that there have always been deadbeats in New Zealand.
There have always been parents who don’t give a damn about their kids. There have always been people quite happy to sit on a benefit when they’re quite capable of earning money themselves.
There have always been people in New Zealand who commit crimes but think everyone else and everything else is to blame, instead of taking responsibility themselves.
In his speech yesterday, David Seymour quoted the rapper Eminem. But I’m going to quote Blam Blam Blam from their 1981 classic, There is No Depression in New Zealand.
Dripping with irony, the song says: “We have no dole queues. We have no drug addicts. We have no racism. We have no sexism. There is no depression in New Zealand. There are no sheep on our farms.” Meaning the complete opposite, of course.
That was 1981 when, based on what David Seymour had to say yesterday, things were rosey and us Kiwis had some backbone and we knew how to get on with stuff and we didn’t wait around for the government to wipe our backsides all the time. Unlike today, apparently.
But I’m not buying into his slate of the nation. I don’t think we’ve gone to hell in a handbasket. There is a lot to improve on, of course. But I’m not writing the place off.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I think I’m going to have to go and take my temperature.
Because, I’m either coming down with something, or I actually am agreeing with what a New Zealand First MP is saying about cigarette smoking.
I’m talking about Associate Health Minister Casey Costello, who’s in hot water with health advocates over her idea of freezing tobacco taxes for three years.
She isn't convinced the taxes are going to actually do anything to encourage people who still smoke, to stop smoking.
And despite all the gnashing of teeth that’s going on, I think she might actually be on to something.
Because, if you're still smoking, you’re obviously quite prepared to pay around $50 a packet. Which is about what it costs now.
And, if you’re happy to pay $50 a packet, I reckon no increase in price is going to stop you. You’ve reached the point of no return, haven’t you?
If you are so addicted, no price increase is going to make a difference. Which must be a nightmare for people who don’t smoke but who have partners who smoke. I can only imagine the resentment that must come through when they see that amount of money going down the drain.
I heard Boyd Swinburn on Newstalk ZB last night. He’s one of the people who thinks the Associate Health Minister should resign. He was saying about 300,000 people in New Zealand still smoke. And about 5,000 people die every year from smoking-related diseases.
Which is a stat I’m not going to argue with. It’s also not a stat that I’m not going to say is anywhere near acceptable.
But I think this idea of increasing prices until people ditch the cigarettes isn’t the answer for these so called “hard core” smokers.
The ones who haven’t been put-off by prices going through the roof because of the extra taxes successive governments have put on them.
Boyd Swinburn’s argument is that, if we stop increasing the taxes on cigarettes in line with inflation, cigarettes will effectively —over time— become cheaper, compared to everything else that goes up in price.
But there is a contradiction. And this is not me having a go at the anti-smoking brigade, because I’m as anti-smoking as the rest of them. I have never smoked. Which I’m thankful for. But I do come from a long line of cigarette smokers, and pretty much all of them died because of it. Including my own father. So, I’ve experienced what it does to people.
But the great contradiction here —with the anti-smoking crew saying the Associate Health Minister should quit for even questioning whether increased taxes are the answer to getting people off the cigarettes— is that they are often the very same people who bang on about not punishing people who use illegal drugs.
They say, don’t they, that instead of fining people who use illegal drugs or putting them in prison, we should be treating it as a health issue, not a law and order issue.
You know, get to the root of why these people are using drugs in the first place and, if they want to get off them, to help them. So why not the same with cigarette smokers?
Because, when it comes down to it, what’s the difference between a fine for possessing illegal drugs, and increasing the price of a packet of ciggies at the supermarket or the dairy?
There’s no difference. Fines and increased prices are both used as deterrents, or punishments.
And the health people seem quite happy for the big-stick approach to continue when it comes to tobacco —which, whether we like it or not, is legal. But not for people who use other drugs— which are illegal.
If it’s not hypocrisy. It’s certainly a massive contradiction.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I reckon that even if ACT leader David Seymour had gone to the Rātana Church celebrations yesterday, he wouldn’t have batted an eyelid.
Because that’s the thing about the ACT Party leader, isn’t it? Nothing seems to ruffle the feathers.
Not even the fact that his coalition partners don’t seem to want a bar of his treaty principles bill, which would define the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi along the lines of the Government having the right to govern all New Zealanders; all New Zealanders having the right to own their land and property; and all New Zealanders being treated equally.
And David Seymour’s modus operandi is to sell his bill as one of these great opportunities to “have a conversation”. If there’s an overused term that drives me nuts, it’s that one about having a conversation.
Because most of the time, that doesn’t happen. If we look at how things went down at Rātana yesterday, it didn’t look much like a conversation to me.
We had the Prime Minister being told in no uncertain terms not to mess with the treaty.
And we had the Prime Minister himself saying ‘hey, don’t worry people…nudge nudge, wink wink…not on my watch’. I’m just letting old David have his moment in the sun and look, he’ll be deputy Prime Minister in just over a year and he’ll be too busy to worry about all this treaty stuff. All G.'
But despite all that, David Seymour —the eternal optimist— was still talking on Newstalk ZB this morning about the “debate” and the “conversation”, saying we shouldn't be getting too far ahead of ourselves and to have a debate.
But there's a fly in the ointment.
David Seymour can bang on as much as he likes about having a national conversation about the treaty principles, but I don’t think that, as a country, we are anywhere near capable of doing that.
It’s only been five minutes, and we’ve had hui, and probably the most fiery Rātana Day I’ve ever seen. We’ve got that guy in the Far North planning to try and stop the big fishing contest this weekend. Not to mention all that hysteria we had last year about 3 Waters and co-governance.
Then there was all the nutbar stuff that happened before the referendum on the assisted dying legislation. I remember some clown not far from where we live having a sign up on their fence saying not to vote for assisted dying because kids would be able to do it without their parents knowing about it.
There weren’t “conversations” about those things. Just like we can see already that there isn’t going to be a “conversation” about the Treaty of Waitangi principles. It’s just going to be more hysteria.
And the reason for that, is that I don’t think we are capable of discussing issues without it turning into a bunfight.
Now you might say that, if we are going to have public “conversations” about big issues, then an inevitable part of that —or a critical part of that— is saying how we really feel about stuff.
Problem is, though, the tendency for people to come out firing like a bull at a gate, like we’re seeing with the treaty principles stuff, like we’ve seen with 3 Waters, and co-governance, and assisted dying legislation.
The problem with that, is that most people just step aside and don’t get involved. It becomes too much of a freak show for too many people.
Many of them don't want to say how they feel about something because they’re scared they’ll be shot down and get into arguments they’re not interested in having.
And if that’s how things are, what does that say about democracy in this country?
If we are incapable of discussing critical issues facing our country, without it turning into protests and shouting matches, are we kidding ourselves when we say that we are a democratic country?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What the hell are we doing?
When I say “we”, I mean the country. The Government. What the hell are we doing getting involved in airstrikes against the Houthi militia in Yemen and the Red Sea?
The Houthi militia that seized parts of Yemen and some of its Red Sea coastline in a revolution back in 2014.
The Houthi militia that is supported by the Iranian government and has been attacking ships in the Red Sea in retaliation for Israel’s attacks on Gaza.
What the hell are we doing getting involved in that?
New Zealand is sending six defence personnel to help out behind the scenes with airstrikes led by the US and Britain on Houthi bases connected to the attacks on ships in the Red Sea.
Which the Houthi militia are doing in retaliation for Israel’s attacks on Gaza. And they reckon that they’re only targeting ships associated with Israel, but vessels from other countries have been damaged as well.
And when I saw Christopher Luxon, Winston Peters, and Judith Collins on the news last night, I got what they were saying about upholding maritime security in the Red Sea”. I thought ‘yeah, I get that’.
Because 15% of global trade travels past Yemen.
According to the Prime Minister, 10% of New Zealand’s exports and about 20% of the stuff we import travels through the Red Sea between here, the UK, Europe, and North Africa.
So, 90% percent of our exports don’t. And 80% of our imports don’t.
I’m not saying nothing needs to happen in the Red Sea. Because it’s clear to me —not from the lines trotted out by the Government yesterday, but by statements from outfits such as the World Bank— that something has to be done about the attacks.
The World Bank is saying that what’s happening there could mean higher interest rates, lower growth, and persistent inflation. And, as we know, what happens to the global economy happens to our economy.
And so, the US has been on the blower to Wellington and said, “are you in” or “are you in”. And we’ve said - “we’re in!”
But if we are going to learn anything from history, then I think we are dreaming if we think this is going to be a “just pop-in for a few months to help our mates out” kind of thing.
Because since the first joint airstrike on Houthi targets a fortnight ago, the US has carried out at least six of its own more limited strikes at smaller targets, and there’s been no let-up in the attacks on ships in the Red Sea.
I was reading this morning that the Houthi believe they are doing God’s will coming to the Palestinians’ defence, which tells you doesn’t it that this is going to be long and drawn out.
What’s more, the US and UK are now being pressured by the official government in Yemen —which is backed by the United Nations— to provide its forces with equipment, training, and intelligence to mount a ground offensive against Houthi strongholds.
And just a few days ago when reporters asked US President Joe Biden if the airstrikes against the Houthi militia were working, he said they weren’t. But they were going to continue.
And that is why I’m asking, “what the hell are we doing?”
Because does the Government really know what it’s getting itself into? I don’t think it does.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Commerce Commission is huffing and puffing and threatening to blow the two big supermarket chains down over some of their pricing practises.
Well, it’s certainly huffing and puffing. Whether it’s going to do anything more than that remains to be seen.
In fact, I’ll tell you right now - it isn’t going to achieve anything more than that.
Because all it’s doing is going through the motions after getting a complaint from Consumer NZ about Woolworths (which runs the supermarkets which used to Countdown, until recently) and Foodstuffs, which runs New World, Pak'nSave and Four Square.
Basically, Consumer NZ isn’t sure whether supermarket pricing and promotions comply with the Fair Trading Act. That’s the official way of describing it.
It’s got about 600 examples of what it calls “dodgy specials”. Not sure whether that’s the wording it uses in the official documentation it sent to the Commerce Commission - but that’s what it’s on about. Dodgy specials.
Things like customers being charged more than the shelf price. Weird multi-buy specials where it’s actually cheaper to buy products individually. That sort of thing.
The one that really gets me is, you see a price for something on the shelf and it’s only when you get to the checkout that you find out that the discount is only available for clubcard holders, or something like that.
How many people do you think find themselves in that situation, and just shrug their shoulders and pay the extra because they just want to get out of there?
If it happens to me, I generally hand it back or get a cheaper option. But you’ve got to keep an eye on things. And I reckon a truckload of people walk out of supermarkets thinking they’ve got a special on something, when they haven’t.
And the problem Consumer NZ has with all that, is that it’s getting harder and harder for us to actually know whether we’re getting a good deal or not.
Just this morning, I went past a billboard which had an ad for one of the supermarkets telling me I could get one of their garlic bread sticks or something for the (quote) “low price” of $1.50.
That’s all it said. The “low price” of $1.50. A low price compared to what? A low price considering how much it costs them to make it? Of course not. Trust us John - it’s a “low price”.
And I see that and I think ‘yeah right’.
But I don’t get outraged about it. I’m not going to go marching in the streets about it. I just think 'oh yeah' and move on.
And that’s because we have such little faith in what the supermarkets tell us these days, that we see ads like that for what they are.
And yes, the Commerce Commission will look into these dodgy specials that Consumer NZ isn't happy about, and it’ll probably tell the supermarkets that they have to be more upfront about their pricing and specials.
But, on the basis of how things are now, they’re not going to have to do much to lift their game, are they?
You might have heard Jon Duffy from Consumer NZ on with Tim this morning. As well as the pricing practises, he doesn’t think the penalties dished out to supermarkets are tough enough.
Another thing he finds dodgy is the lines that supermarkets use about “everyday low prices” and “New Zealand’s lowest food prices”.
But I actually don’t have a problem with that sort of thing because that’s advertising. I can decide for myself whether the supermarkets live up to it.
It’s not quite so easy working out whether those everyday low prices are actually everyday low prices. And that’s what the Commerce Commission is going to try and do, on our behalf.
Good luck to it. But I don’t see anything major coming out of it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you still needed convincing that our politicians are hopelessly short-sighted, I hope you came to your senses late yesterday.
When Finance Minister Nicola Willis announced she was pulling the plug on the inter-island ferry upgrade. Or, more specifically, refusing to pour money into it which, KiwiRail says, gives it no option but to pull the plug on its mega ferries project.
There are big numbers involved. The last we’d heard from KiwiRail on the cost of getting the new ferries and bringing the portside infrastructure up-to-scratch was around $1.5 billion.
But that’s blown out to $3 billion and the Finance Minister has turned down the state-owned-enterprise’s request for more money, saying that Cabinet isn’t confident there wouldn’t be further cost blow-outs.
But is that the real reason? Really?
Well, it might be part of the story. But here’s something else the Minister said late yesterday when she announced there was no more money in the tin for KiwiRail. She said: “Agreeing to KiwiRail’s request would reduce the Government’s ability to address the cost pressures that are impacting on New Zealanders, fund other essential projects and get the Crown’s books back in order.”
So what’s really happening here, is the Government has chosen to put a major part of New Zealand’s transport infrastructure at-risk, so it can deliver one of the coalition partner’s election policies.
A policy that, as we now know, wasn’t even needed to get it elected into government. A policy that, we also know, most New Zealanders don’t support.
Yes, a key reason why the Government isn’t prepared to put more money into KiwiRail’s Cook Strait ferry project, is that it doesn’t want to jeopardise its stupid tax cuts. It is hellbent on them.
Tax cuts that are going to cost the country $14.6 billion over four years. Tax cuts that are going to cost the country more than four-times as much as what KiwiRail now says its mega ferries project is going to cost.
Tax cuts that the Finance Minister herself said pre-election would be delivered come hell or high water, or she would resign.
And so, because of that obsession with tax cuts - that most people don’t want anyway - KiwiRail is now in the position of somehow having to keep the ferry services running with ships that are going to reach their use-by date in a couple of years.
The same ships that are already packing a sad on a pretty regular basis.
I’m picking that the head honcho at KiwiRail will be the next Board chair to call it quits because of government policy. All the other board chairs who have quit since the election and have done it because they just don't like the direction the government is heading and they want to be free to speak out about it.
This is different, though. Because KiwiRail is the first to really get the chop. And I can’t see why the chair of the Board would stick around after this.
Nicola Willis has only been in the job five minutes. And what she did yesterday was amateur hour.
How she can possibly think it makes sense to bring such a significant infrastructure project to a grinding halt, I’ll never know.
Yes, KiwiRail may have undercooked the numbers to get the previous government over the line with its mega ferries project. Yes, maybe the Labour government was a bit gung-ho saying yes to everything KiwiRail was asking for. Because, apparently, it had even agreed in principle to the extra money the company was after.
Although, I heard last night that Grant Robertson decided that, since it was getting close to the election, he thought he should leave that decision to the incoming government.
So yes, KiwiRail and the previous government are not blameless in all of this.
But I can’t believe Nicola Willis didn't tell KiwiRail to go away and sharpen its pencil. To look into other options. To think about whether these mega ferries actually needed to run between Wellington and Picton, and whether it might have made more sense for them to run between Wellington and Lyttelton - where there is infrastructure already in place to handle ships of that size and type.
But no, she didn’t do that. Because she’s terrified she won’t be able to deliver the miserly tax cuts that most of us will qualify for under National’s tax plan. And which most of us don’t want anyway.
It is so short-sighted of this government to have done what it has.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger joined John MacDonald in the studio for the final time this year.
He discussed his views on the Ferry funding from the Government and whether it’s time to bring it to Lyttleton.
How does he feel about the Councils decision yesterday regarding asset sales, and how important is the SailGP to Christchurch?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Hear me out on this one. Because I reckon there is some logic in this idea of mine.
NZTA has been making local authorities come up with speed management plans. Which has meant 30 kph speed limits on many roads in the city limits, and 80 kph speed limits starting to pop-up on roads in the country areas.
Simeon Brown has been given the job of Transport Minister and he’s going to do something about all that nonsense. Because he can.
As Transport Minister, he has all the power in the world to tell NZTA and local councils what parameters they can work within when it comes to setting speed limits. And it is very clear that he doesn’t have much time for blanket 30 kph speed limits.
He wants to see a better balance between safety and making sure traffic isn’t brought to a grinding halt where it doesn’t need to be brought to a grinding halt.
He says this blanket approach we’ve been seeing, where people have been forced to crawl around at 30 kph where it isn't actually needed - is nuts. And I couldn’t agree with him more.
But I’ve been thinking about speed limits and whether they’re even needed. It’s a bit like the unlimited holiday leave thing that some outfits offer their staff these days.
That’s based on people knowing what they have to get done and if they can do all that and take a long holiday, then employers are happy with that.
And I reckon the same thing could be done with speed limits. Because whatever speed limits we set, there will always be people who drive like idiots. That’s a fact. But, most of us, we know when we’re driving at a speed that is comfortable and safe.
So why do we need limits?
The people working at the outfits where they give out unlimited leave, they know what they have to do. They have to do their job to a high standard and it doesn’t matter how long they spend at work doing it.
When we’re driving, we also know what we have to do.
We have to make sure that we don’t crash into anything; we have to make sure we don’t run people over; and we have to make sure we don’t do anything that brasses-off other drivers. That’s essentially it. Get from A to B safely. And most of us do that. Most of the time.
And when we do those things, we slow down and speed up as necessary. We don’t go all cruise-control on it and think ‘right, the speed limit’s a hundred, so I’m going a hundred all the way’.
No one does that. If we’re honest, most of us would admit going over the limit at times. But, generally, we drive at a speed that is comfortable to us and a speed that makes us feel in-control of whatever vehicle we’re driving.
Yes, mistakes are made. Which is why some people are very pedantic and don’t talk about road “accidents”. Instead, they say road “crashes”. There’s no such thing as a road accident because, generally, they can be prevented.
And that’s what the old Road to Zero campaign has been all about. Trying to prevent crashes. Not accidents. And part of all that, has been this instruction to councils, telling them that the speed limits have to come down. Because lower speed limits are the golden ticket to preventing crashes.
That's what they say. But they’re not. Driving slower is the golden ticket. Not speed limits. Speed limits only work when there’s a cop on the road or where a speed camera van is parked-up. Speed limits only work because we don’t want to get a ticket and hit with a fine.
Speed limits don’t stop muppets driving in the rain with no lights on. Speed limits don’t stop tailgaters. Speed limits don’t stop bozos overtaking where they just shouldn’t. Speed limits don’t get more people wearing seatbelts. See what I mean?
That’s why I reckon the powers-that-be can play around with speed limits all they like. Lower them. Increase them. It won’t matter. Which is why I think we don’t actually need them.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When I started at Newstalk ZB, I was on a 90-day trial, of sorts. So, if I can make it through, anyone can.
Seriously though, the honchos here said "we want to give you a go. How about doing it for three months and then you’ll know if you really want it and we’ll know if you’re the person for the job.”
That was two-and-a-half years ago. I was in my early 50s, two of the kids were still living at home, we were still paying a mortgage, but I thought ‘sod it, I’m going to give it a go’.
In fact, I remember thinking that —at the age I was— the chance to take a risk like that doesn't come along as often as it did when I was younger. So I did it. And I knew I had 90 days to prove myself.
Which is why I find the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Government extending the 90-day trial to all new workers all a bit over the top. There was a protest yesterday outside David Seymour’s electorate office.
Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson was there and she said the new government hates workers. That’s what she said.
She said: "National, ACT and New Zealand First are out there trying to make people believe that they are standing for workers. They do not."
Now, to be fair to Marama, the protest yesterday wasn’t just about the Government extending the 90-day trials. It was also about the Government getting rid of fair pay agreements.
Which were brought-in by the Labour government last year and they’re a little bit like the old awards system, because what they do is they set minimum employment terms for all people working in the same sector or industry. But they’re going to be gone-burger. And the 90-day trials are going to be in place for everyone.
But what all these people not happy about it aren’t admitting, is that someone would have to be pretty bad to be given the flick after 90 days.
Yes, I know in the past there have been shonky employers out there who might hire someone for 90 days with the full intention of getting rid of them after 90 days.
Maybe it was seen as easier to give someone a job and give them the flick three months down the track, instead of trying to find temporary workers. Who knows?
But I reckon most employers aren’t like that. And it’s not because they’re salt-of-the-earth do gooders. Not at all. The reason I’m confident most employers won’t go and abuse the 90-day thing is because of the hassle they have to go through just to get staff in the first place.
I’ve been there and done that. Hiring staff takes a lot of time. A lot of effort. And it can be pretty expensive too. You’ve got to advertise the job. Depending on the size of the business or the organisation, you might have to get a recruitment company involved. And then there’s the lost productivity because of job interviews, reference checks. All that stuff.
So the last thing an employer wants 90 days after all that, is doing it all over again. So you won’t find me weeping and wailing and gnashing my teeth over what the Government’s doing.
I saw Christopher Luxon on the news last night poo-pooing the claim made by those protesters yesterday that the Government hates workers. He was saying the 90-day trial will help people get jobs because employers will be more confident taking someone on, knowing that after 90 days they can move them on if they’re not up to it.
I don’t think that was the best response to that specific claim, because he seemed to be coming at it from the perspective of an employer. Even though he was trying to appear like he was talking about the workers.
But, either way, I have no problem at all with the what the Government is doing. Because I know from personal experience that, if you start a job knowing from day one that you’re on trial for the first three months, you really pull finger. Because you have to prove yourself. And what’s wrong with that? Nothing.
And I’m not convinced that employers will holus-bolus abuse the system and move people on after 90 days just because they can.
Finding staff and hiring staff is one of the biggest bugbears for employers. And they will only put themselves through that if they really have to. And if they really have to - because someone is a slacker, or is a troublemaker, and is the last person they want working for them - then why shouldn’t employers be allowed or able to give someone like that the flick?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you think I’m going to be cheerleading for the Catholic Church’s idea of building a new cathedral on its original site on Barbadoes Street, instead of in the central city, then think again.
Because, as far as I’m concerned, cathedrals in New Zealand have been nothing more than visions of grandeur.
And I think there are much more meaningful things the church could do with tens of millions of dollars, than pour it into another cathedral.
Little bit of background: the original Catholic cathedral on Barbadoes Street - the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament - was demolished after the church ummed and ahhed about whether to repair it or not after the earthquakes.
Eventually, the church decided to go for a brand new building on a different site in the centre of Christchurch. It was going to be real flash Harry with a carpark and a school. And it was going to be a few blocks away from the Anglican cathedral in the Square.
I say “was”, because the church announced yesterday that its thinking has changed and its preference now is to rebuild on the original site, down near the Moorhouse Ave end of Barbadoes Street.
I’m not sure how much this has been influenced by the 300-or-so members of the Catholic community in Christchurch who went to the Vatican earlier this year to try and get the central city development stopped.
They weren’t happy that the church was going to spend about a hundred million dollars on it. They thought that, if the church was going to spend that sort of money, it should be spent in the community and around parishes.
And, instead of building an edifice in the centre of town, these parishioners wanted the church to focus its attention on where the people actually go to church. You know: “Here’s a church and here’s the steeple. Open the door and here’s all the people”. And, for them, that’s all the churches around town. The parishes.
Now my reading of what the Catholic bishop announced yesterday, is that they’ve kind-of met the unhappy parishioners halfway. With a twist.
He still wants to build a new cathedral. But he wants to go back to Barbadoes Street. But the Bishop reckons it will cost $30 million less, and he wants to put that money aside for things like compensation payments to people who have been abused while in the care of the church and helping parishes around town build new churches when they’re needed.
Nothing was said in yesterday’s announcement about the likely cost of building back on the old site.
But let’s take the $100 million that was apparently going to be spent in the centre of town, take off the $30 million that the Bishop reckons he’s going to save, and assume that the church is still looking at spending about $70 million in some way, shape or form.
It’s also going to require fundraising and the sell-off of church land that isn’t needed.
But here’s the question: Should that $70 million be spent on a building? Or should it be spent on something else? I certainly don’t think it should be spent on another building.
Because in 2023, can another cathedral in a city the size of Christchurch really be justified? I don’t think it can. And nothing I’ve heard from the Bishop makes me think that this rebuild is anything but going back to the past.
He says: “The Barbadoes Street site is steeped in history, with many identifying it as an anchor for their faith in Christchurch.”
But, as someone who was raised a Catholic, I disagree. A church is not a building. It is a community. And a community is people. And that is where I think the Catholic Church should be putting its money. In the people.
What I reckon the Catholic Church should be doing, is instead of spending $70 million on a cathedral, it should be using it to help people.
And the way I would do it, is I would take the $70 million, invest it, and use the interest to support people in hardship. Now I know interest rates go up and down but, if you go and have a look at the rates at the moment, the average term deposit rate is about 6 percent.
So, on $70 million, the return on that would be $4.2 million a year. How many foodbanks could you run on that? How many night shelters? How many school shoes could you buy for hard-up families? See what I mean?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It hasn’t taken the new Police Minister long to start firing instructions to Police Commissioner Andrew Coster.
Mark Mitchell has sent through what is officially known as a Letter of Expectations. This is what all ministers send to the government departments they’re responsible for to make sure the people who work for them know what is wanted.
And, in no uncertain terms, Mark Mitchell has told Andrew Coster that he wants to see the cops in this country focus on what he calls the basics.
It seems, as far as the Minister’s concerned anyway, that getting back to basics doesn’t include Andrew Coster’s “policing by consent” approach, which we heard about a lot during the protests at Parliament last year. It looks like that’s being shown the door.
Or, more specifically, the minister would like to see it shown the door. Because, technically, the Police Minister can’t tell the Police Commissioner what to do. The commissioner has a level of independence.
But when you’re the commissioner and you’ve got the minister saying he wants you to get back to the basics of policing, you know he wants things to be done differently. And policing by consent which, in a nutshell, is about the police working in a way that encourages people to co-operate with them —instead of waving the big stick all the time— that’s not really the basics, is it?
So it’s very clear that Mark Mitchell doesn’t want the police being good guys to the bad guys anymore. And he certainly doesn’t want the commissioner being Cuddles Coster anymore.
Some people seem to be surprised that Mark Mitchell hasn’t got rid of the current commissioner. But the Minister said this morning he has full confidence in the Commissioner.
Besides which, under the Policing Act, the Minister can’t sack the Commissioner. Police commissioners are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
But back to Mark Mitchell's expectations of the Police Commissioner.
He says he wants the cops to make sure gangs don’t take over towns, public roads or public spaces anymore. He wants a strong focus on youth crime to stop kids getting away with running amok around the place.
Another thing - and this is the key bit for me - is he wants us to see Andrew Coster’s officers out and about more. Here’s a quote from the letter spelling out his expectations: “I expect police to be focused on core policing in and around communities, which includes being highly visible in communities and providing that community assurance.
“As part of our commitment to improving public safety, I want Police to continue building strong relationships within communities, including with retailers, shop owners and the security industry to improve safety and support.”
And that, for me, is what back-to-basics policing is all about.
I know it sounds old school and I know the world is much more complicated these days than it used to be. Which means policing these days is much more complicated than it used to be.
But cops on the beat in the centre of town; patrol cars doing the rounds in neighbourhoods; police having a quiet word with kids getting themselves involved in monkey business before they really go astray. That’s my idea of what back-to-basics policing is all about.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The new stadium in Christchurch, Te Kaha, is shooting up out of the ground and so are our rates.
The big news today is that those of us in Christchurch are facing rates increases of more than 30 percent over the next three years. Thanks to inflation, insurance and the cost of the new stadium.
Yes, I know our mayor said rates increases wouldn’t be any higher than the rate of inflation. But, if you believed that nonsense of his during the election campaign, you’ll believe anything.
At the moment, the expected rates increase for next year alone is sitting at around 13 percent. The mayor wants staff at the council to do some numbers and work out how they could get that increase —for next year alone— down to somewhere between 9 and 12 percent.
Annual inflation, by the way, is sitting at 5.6 percent. So, whatever they come up with, there goes Phil Mauger’s pipedream of rates increases matching inflation. And “pipedream” is putting it politely.
So Phil can tell the bean counters all he wants to play around with the spreadsheets and come up with different numbers, but let’s just leave him be and turn our attention to another councillor who, I think, has come up with a much better idea.
This is councillor Aaron Keown, who wants the council to go to the Government and ask for approval for a new regional rate —or let’s just be honest and call it what it is, a regional tax— to add the stadium costs to the rates bills of people beyond Christchurch.
I’ve always thought that it’s nuts that just Christchurch ratepayers are the ones who are going to be lumbered with these stadium costs.
Technically, if you don’t live in Christchurch city, you have actually already contributed to the costs because the Government has poured truckloads of money into it as part of the Crown’s contribution to the cost of rebuilding after the earthquakes.
But, then, so has every other taxpayer in the country. But, unlike a taxpayer in Auckland for example, someone living in Selwyn or Waimakariri or Hurunui is going to benefit from the stadium much more than someone further away.
So we can’t change the fact that Christchurch didn’t get off its chuff earlier in the piece and get the other councils to get some skin in the game with the stadium. That should have happened right from the start.
But, even if that boat’s already sailed, there is no way that Christchurch ratepayers should be paying for this on their own. Which is why I’m right behind Aaron Keown’s idea.
And it seems another councillor, Sara Templeton, might be behind it, as well. The two of them don’t want the stadium costs to be lumped-in with everything else, which is why Aaron Keown is floating this idea of a regional rate.
As for Sara Templeton, she says people are pretty angsty about rates increases and she’s worried that if too much gets ploughed into the stadium, then there won’t be enough money for climate change adaptation. Although, let’s face it, there’ll never be enough money for that.
She’s also concerned that the state of the city’s water infrastructure will go downhill even more. Which is probably more of a concern now, given the new government’s enthusiasm for local councils to hold on to their water assets.
But back to the stadium and Aaron Keown’s idea of a regional rate to help pay for it.
When someone comes to Christchurch from out of town to see a big sports match or go to a concert at the stadium, they’re not just going to do that and then sit in their hotel room the rest of the time.
They’re going to do other stuff. And that won’t just be within the city limits. There’ll be people going to Waipara to the wineries. Shooting through to the hot pools and the jet boat rides in Hanmer Springs. Heading up to Mt Hutt - and not just in winter, there’s mountain bike tracks there, as well.
See what I mean? The whole region is going to benefit from the stadium. So the whole region should be paying for it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today’s protest action instigated by Te Pāti Māori hasn’t taken long to happen, given the new coalition government was only sworn-in last Monday.
Not that the things being protested against today are major surprises. It was clear before the election that Māori weren’t going to be high on the list of priorities if National and ACT got their way. Despite Christopher Luxon saying that his party is here for all people.
And, yesterday, he was his coalition government is deeply committed to Māori.
So deeply committed that it’s getting rid of the Māori Health Authority. So deeply committed that it’s ditching smokefree changes that, those in the know, say would have made a massive difference - especially in regard to smoking rates among Māori.
And the new government is deeply committed to Māori, even though it thinks we can’t get our heads around names like Waka Kotahi and Te Whatu Ora and so it’s going to ditch all that nonsense and put te reo back in its place. Behind the English names.
So deeply committed to Māori.
I don’t buy it. And Te Pāti Māori doesn’t buy it, either. And that’s why it’s instigated this day of action against proposals to remove references to the Treaty of Waitangi from laws, change the smokefree legislation and make government department names English-first.
This is happening at the same time as one of our leading economists has come out and said that fixing the economy isn’t just about increasing productivity, getting rid of the 90-day trials, selling more stuff overseas. He says national unity is a massive thing.
In fact, he goes further than that. He says the new coalition government's biggest economic priority should be bringing the country together, because division creates economic risk.
This is Cameron Bagrie I’m talking about. He used to be chief economist at ANZ and, these days, he’s lead economist at his own private consultancy. So he knows what he’s on about.
And he’s saying that it’s all very well doing the usual economic management stuff, but it won’t come to much if we are divided. And the timing of what he’s saying is impeccable.
Because, what we’re seeing today - this protest action around the place, one week into the new government’s term - doesn’t look like a unified country to me.
And if those of us who aren’t Māori don’t sit-up and pay attention, and if we don’t listen, then we’re idiots. Because what’s behind today’s protest action is a cultural tsunami. And if those of us who aren’t Māori don’t see that, then more fool us.
Because the people involved in the protest action today aren’t demanding more. They’re just demanding that there isn’t less. They don’t want less progress in reducing smoking rates among Māori. They don’t want less recognition of the Māori language.
So they were out on the streets protesting this morning and people in Auckland were sending in furious text messages because it was taking them a bit longer to get into work.
Which paints a picture of the complete opposite of what Cameron Bagrie says we need if our economy is going to really recover. And I think he's right when he says that, if we really want the economy to fly, we need to be united - not divided.
We need to do whatever we can to reduce the gap between the haves and the have nots. That’s economic unity.
But we also need cultural unity. And that is all the protesters today are asking for.
They’re asking us not to waste time changing government department names. They’re asking us not to open the door to the scourge of smoking to young Māori. They’re asking us not to make the Treaty of Waitangi invisible.
Requests that, as far as I’m concerned, are perfectly reasonable.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
So, no surprises, the Government has officially pulled the plug on the $16 billion Lake Onslow hydro project in Central Otago.
Work stopped on Friday. Because the Government thinks it’s money down the drain; says it would be wasteful spending if it allowed it to continue; and reckons it would be a long time before we saw any benefits.
Instead, it’s going to focus on things like wind, solar and geothermal energy. There’s a catch to that, though. Which I’ll get to shortly.
The reason more than $20 million has been spent on this project already on what they describe in the industry as “investigative work”, is because Lake Onslow was seen by some as a potential solution to the problem we have when things are dry, lake levels are low, and fossil fuels have to be used more to generate electricity. To make sure we have enough.
If it had gone ahead, what would have happened was water from the Clutha River would have been pumped up to the lake and released through turbines when the hydro-electric lakes were running low.
But that was too much of a pipedream for the new government, with Energy Minister Simeon Brown going all energiser-battery on it and, just days after being sworn-in, he was on the blower telling them “don’t come Monday”.
Well, not quite. Because they will be back there today - decommissioning whatever’s in place already.
Not that the problem has gone away. How about this for a stat? Simeon Brown says demand for electricity between now and 2050 is expected to increase by two-thirds. So a massive jump in just over 25 years.
Which is why the Green Party and the scientist who came up with the idea in the first place are furious about Lake Onslow being given the flick. Because they reckon Lake Onslow would have been great for storing power and they reckon it would have stabilised power prices for 100 years.
Now that hundred-year bit, I reckon that’s pretty far-fetched. Because it was only 25 years ago when Max Bradford stood up and said that his electricity reforms would mean cheaper power. Do you remember? I’ll never forget it.
He said: “This will mean cheaper power”. So I think the claim that Onslow would have stabilised power prices for 100 is pretty fanciful.
So, instead of pouring billions of dollars of taxpayer money into another hydro lake, the Government is going to make it easier for the power companies to get consent for their projects and it’s going to rely on them to deliver this key infrastructure. And for me, this is the rub of the whole thing.
Because 25 years ago, Max Bradford said privatising the electricity sector was going to mean cheaper power. That never happened. And now, we’ve got the new government saying it’s going to rely on the power companies to invest in wind, solar and geothermal.
As Christopher Luxon said, the power companies are up for it and want to spend billions of dollars of their own money on wind, solar and thermal generation because “they’ve got great returns”. So the Government’s going to get rid of some of the consenting red tape so the power companies can get on with it.
I think ditching Lake Onslow is the right thing to do. Because this idea of generating power a million miles away from where it’s needed is so old-hat. Because, when you do that, some of that power is lost during the distribution process.
But if history is what teaches us about the future, I think we need to be very wary of the Government’s enthusiasm for relying on these private power companies for future investment in critical infrastructure.
Because if the “great returns” dry-up, these companies will have no obligation at all to keep pouring their money into power generation infrastructure. And I reckon it is a very slippery slope
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Do you think a leopard can change its spots? I think it can. The Labour Party, though, doesn’t.
Which is why it has come out with what I would rate as the second-most hysterical reaction to the new government’s plan to do away with aspects of our smokefree laws.
So Labour decided last year that anyone born after 2008 would never be able to buy cigarettes and tobacco legally. So anyone 14 and younger right now.
But the new government’s getting rid of that. And, as I’ve been saying, I think it’s shameful and unforgivable. And the headlines around the world haven’t been all that favourable, either.
But I think our left-wing politicians, in their reaction and comments, have taken things a bit too far.
The number one spot for most hysterical reaction has to go to Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, who is accusing the National/ACT/NZ First government of "deliberate, systemic genocide".
So that takes out the top spot.
Number two, though, is what Labour is saying. Specifically, it’s comments about National’s Chris Bishop.
Labour’s getting all excited saying, because he used to work for a tobacco company, he’s nothing but a sympathiser for those nasty outfits that make the cancer sticks. They reckon that he is one leopard who cannot change his spots.
A bit of background: back in the day, after qualifying as a lawyer and working in Gerry Brownlee’s office for a while, he went on the payroll at multi-national tobacco company Philip Morris, where he worked as a lobbyist.
And some of the stuff he did on behalf of Philip Morris, was lobby against plans to increase the excise tax on tobacco and lobby against plans to have cigarettes and tobacco wrapped in plain packaging.
Which, perhaps, shows he was pretty hopeless at that job and he’s better doing what he’s doing now. Because cigarettes and tobacco are taxed to the roof and the plain packaging is everywhere. So, maybe if Labour was really cruel, they’d be calling him a “failed lobbyist”.
So, when National chose him as its candidate in Hutt South in 2014, he had to go on the defensive. Saying his work for a tobacco outfit didn’t define him as a person.
At the time, he said: "Tobacco is a legal industry. It's controversial, but companies are entitled to legal and corporate representation and that's what I was doing."
He went on to say: "Two years at Philip Morris doesn't define me. I've done lots of other things in my life, both community development and working in a range of organisations and people should look at my whole CV."
The voters in his electorate obviously agreed. And, fast-forward to today, the former tobacco company lobbyist is the new Minister of Sport and Recreation - among other things.
Ayesha Verral, though - Labour’s health spokesperson - she doesn’t buy it. And she reckons there’s no way Chris Bishop is a different man from when he was on the payroll at Philip Morris trying to keep the colourful packaging and trying to protect smokers from more taxes on the ciggies.
This is what she’s saying: “When you make moral decisions as a politician, your background does influence them, and we know Chris Bishop is from a background where he has represented tobacco interests before.”
And she says he is bound to be “more sympathetic to the tobacco industry than others”.
My response to that is, “nonsense”. The only reason the Government is making these changes to the smokefree legislation, is so it can form a government with the Marlborough Man.
And I am in no doubt that, if this change wasn’t required to get a coalition deal, National wouldn’t be doing it. I’m also in no doubt that Chris Bishop’s old job as a lobbyist for the tobacco industry doesn’t make him a sympathiser for the tobacco industry.
Just like if someone’s a lawyer - it does that make them a sympathiser for criminals. And even if Chris Bishop was all in favour of smoking back in the day and if he did genuinely believe, at the time, that tobacco companies and smokers were being treated unfairly, it doesn't mean he thinks that way now.
That’s because I’m prepared not to define someone or base my perception of them on what opinions or beliefs they might have had in the past. Or what work they might have done in the past. But what about you?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Do you think Christopher Luxon might be starting to feel a little bit like Princess Diana, who famously said her marriage to Charles was never going to work because there were three people in the relationship?
And how she tried to turn a blind eye to his bad behaviour, until she couldn’t.
The new Prime Minister obviously isn’t at that point yet because there he was yesterday continuing to turn a blind eye to the nonsense his deputy, Winston Peters, has been getting up to pretty much on a daily basis since the coalition deal was announced last Friday.
You’ll know by now how he’s taken every opportunity to slam the last government’s Public Interest Journalism Fund and take potshots at reporters. Calling them morons during the big coalition deal reveal last week.
Having another go at them during the photo op at the first Cabinet meeting the other day. Saying in one interview this week that he’s at war with the mainstream media.
And, straight after being sworn in, he had a go at TVNZ ad RNZ - saying the two taxpayer-funded media outfits had been mouthpieces for the last government. That they lacked independence.
Which would’ve had Luxon squirming. Just like he was squirming when Peters started banging on during the coalition announcement. Remember that? The PM kind-of intervening saying “alright, alright”.
And that’s about as tough as the talking has got from Luxon when it comes to Winston Peters. And the weasel words continued yesterday at the post-Cabinet media conference and the announcement about the 100-day plan.
When he was asked about his deputy’s behaviour and his allegations that journalists and media organisations were bribed by the Labour government, Christopher Luxon said: “It's not the way I would describe it.”
Then he went on to say that he actually doesn’t support the fund either and that many New Zealanders feel the same way.
But that’s not the point. Whether-or-not Luxon agrees with Winston Peters’ opinion is irrelevant.
Example: I’m as disgusted as the next person by the embarrassing u-turn on the smokefree changes. But, even then, I’m not going to start saying that the Government is guilty of "deliberate, systemic genocide". That’s what Māori Party co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer is saying today.
Now I agree with her opposition to the changes, but I’m not going to sign-up to the language she’s using.
And that's what Luxon should be doing with Winston Peters. It’s fine if he agrees the Public Interest Journalism Fund was a bad idea, but there is no way he should be letting Peters away with the stuff he’s been getting up to. And the way our deputy Prime Minister has been abusing journalists.
A key thing for me from Luxon’s performance yesterday, was something he said about his dealings with Winston Peters.
It was when he was asked whether he had spoken to Peters about his comments and his behaviour.
He refused to say specifically whether he had had a word to Winston about all the anti-media stuff. But he did say: “We’re going to say things in different ways as different leaders, that’s acceptable.”
Hold on a minute. We’re going to say things in different ways as different leaders? That might very well be the case when you’re talking about leaders of different parties. But that is not what you say when you’re talking about a government.
Because, in a government, there is only one leader. And Christopher Luxon needs to show he is the leader and tell his deputy to pull his head in.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Yesterday, I was contacted by someone who, I think it’s fair to say, has had a gutsful of the Christchurch City Council.
They are someone who is involved with business groups and community groups in Christchurch and they’ve felt compelled to get in touch after all the goings-on over the last couple of weeks.
We’ve had the chief executive quitting, the chief financial officer quitting, the KPMG report which looked into that $6.5 million budget blowout in the Three Waters division - where we had a whole lot of unapproved spending on hiring more staff.
Not to mention all the other comings and goings —generally goings— throughout this year. To the point where the council in New Zealand’s second-largest city has no chief executive and no CFO. And other senior people away on “leave”. There’s been a lot of that this year. It seems that if you’re on leave at the Christchurch City Council, it generally means you’ve left.
Then there’s the other crazy stuff going on. Stuff like the money being blown on that beautification trial on Gloucester Street, in the centre of town, near the Turanga central library and where the new Court Theatre’s being built.
So, quite rightly, people are scratching their heads and wondering what the hell’s going on at that outfit.
You may have heard that the new Local Government Minister is keeping an eye on things and wants to find out more. It’s also being reported that the Auditor-General’s office is taking an interest.
It says it’s been in touch with the council and wants to “further understand” what’s going on. Particularly, the $6.5 million in unapproved spending, and the other issue that’s emerged in the last few days. This leaked report by external consultants Aurecon which says a lack of leadership and accountability at the council is putting billions of dollars of public assets at risk.
These are things like underground pipes, roads, parks and playgrounds, as well as facilities such as libraries, pools and community centres.
I understand the report that was leaked is still in draft and not yet finalised. But the council’s had the draft since September.
As it’s being reported, the report talks about the council’s ongoing failure to document the condition of many of its core assets and some maintenance is understood to be years behind schedule.
So, when you consider all of these things, you can see why this person involved in business and community groups has had enough.
They say the majority of Christchurch citizens are sick and tired of the incompetence, and lack of accountability and common sense at the council. And they think the Government needs to step-in and appoint commissioners to take over.
We know the Local Government Minister is aware of reports about the city council and is taking his time to get across all the details. He also expects to be briefed on the resignations of the chief executive and the chief financial officer.
Personally, I think we’re close to needing government intervention. But I don’t think we’re at that point just yet. Because I think we need to know first whether the departures of the chief executive and the chief financial officer were more than just “resignations”.
Because if they were given their marching orders, then that would give me a little bit of confidence that there is some hope that the council can sort out its own mess.
But, I tell you what, I'm not far away from joining the call for commissioners to take over. Not far away at all.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger joined John MacDonald live in studio to discuss the recent departure of Dawn Baxendale, Three Waters overspending, and whether the public's confidence in the City Council has diminished.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Forget about it.
That’s pretty much the message the Government is getting today from the owner of the Marsden Point oil refinery.
That’s the Marsden Point oil refinery that doesn’t do any refining these days because, as you’ll remember, it was shut down in April last year by its private owner which, back then, was known as Refining NZ. These days it’s known as Channel Infrastructure.
240 jobs went in the process and, ever since, the closure has been blamed for all sorts of things from high fuel prices to cruddy roads.
That’s because, when it was operating, Marsden Point produced about 70 percent of the bitumen used in New Zealand for roads. Now we have to import 100 percent of the bitumen we need.
And we seem to think that the stuff from overseas is second-rate, which is why Marsden Point always comes up when we’re talking about potholes.
And, of course, we now also import all our refined fuel. Because we don’t have a functioning refinery here.
So, prior to the election, NZ First picked up on all this talk about Marsden Point and, as part of its deal with National, the coalition government is going to investigate re-opening it.
Which I predict will mean a truckload of time and taxpayer money going into something that will go nowhere. It will come to nothing.
That’s because the people who know a thing-or-two about running Marsden Point are saying today that it would cost billions to get it up and running again because there is nothing there that can just be plugged-in and cranked up again.
“There is no part of the former refinery that can be restarted.” That’s a direct quote from the person speaking on behalf of the owner.
They’re saying they haven’t done costings but expect it would be billions and it would take a number of years.
So, as far as I’m concerned, that horse has bolted and we need to forget about having an oil refinery here.
Perhaps if there’s one thing the former government can be criticised for when it comes to Marsden Point, is whether or not it did enough to keep it going.
We all know how the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter is pretty much only operating because the owners get big power discounts. So maybe that’s somewhere where Labour did drop the ball, and perhaps it could have done more to keep Marsden Point operating.
Because the reason why it was closed in the first place is that the fuel companies - which were shareholders in the refinery - thought it would be more cost-effective for them to import pre-refined petrol and diesel, instead of doing it here.
So maybe the former government could have done something to make it more attractive to keep it going. In fact, former energy minister Megan Woods did float the idea of saving the refinery by underwriting its operations for up to 10 years, but her Cabinet colleagues weren’t up for it.
So that didn’t happen. The refinery is now closed. And I just think we have to get over it and I think the Government needs to drop this idea of looking into re-opening it.
Because, if the people who know a thing-or-two about running a refinery think it’s a stupid idea, then who am I going to listen to? The people who know what they’re on about? Or a politician who has heard a bit of noise and reckons there might be some political mileage in it?
I’ll go with the refinery experts any day, thanks. And I think the government should do the same.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I hope just as much as the next person that good things do come from our new Government, but what it’s planning to do to our smokefree laws is just unforgiveable.
You’ll remember that, last year, the Labour Government passed one of the toughest laws in the world to try and reduce smoking rates in New Zealand.
Which would have meant that anyone born after 2008 would never be able to buy cigarettes and tobacco legally. So anyone 14 and younger right now.
All the kids in New Zealand’s primary and intermediate schools. Plus a few year 9s as well.
But the new coalition Government is going to get rid of that. And, let’s face it, what the new coalition Government is going to do, is it’s going to enable some of the kids I just mentioned to grow up, start smoking and die of smoking-related diseases.
National’s Nicola Willis was on Q+A yesterday banging on about not wanting her 13-year-old daughter to take up vaping but not saying the same thing about cigarettes.
If National, ACT and NZ First weren’t poking their noses into it, it would have been impossible for Nicola Willis’s daughter to grow up and buy cigarettes legally.
And I’ve got to give her credit for keeping a straight face when she explained why National has been convinced by ACT and NZ First to sign up to changing the smokefree laws.
She said that David Seymour and Winston Peters were really concerned that if people found they weren’t allowed to buy cigarettes at the dairy, they’d ramraid the place. Or the black market for cigarettes would go nuts.
Which is a cock and bull story, if ever I've heard one.
Someone said to me last week, before we knew all the details about the coalition agreement, that if Winston Peters ended-up being Deputy Prime Minister, the Government would be providing free cigarettes in schools.
They were joking, of course. But this change to our smokefree laws is the next best thing. Because it will just open the door to more people smoking, more people needing treatment for smoking-related illnesses, and more people dying.
Nicola Willis wasn’t buying that yesterday, though, on Q+A.
Jack Tame pointed out to her that around 5,000 people die every year from smoking-related diseases and modelling had shown that Labour’s policy was expected to about 8,000 lives by the year 2040.
She said: “There is an ongoing commitment from this Government to reduce the number of people smoking, to stop people smoking in the first place, to reduce the harm from smoking, to support people to quit.”
And she thinks we’re going to be just fine doing what we’re doing now with the age limit on buying cigarettes, signs up in shops telling people how dangerous it is to smoke, hiding them behind cupboard doors in shops.
Another thing Nicola Willis thinks is serving us well in terms of reducing the number of smokers is making them super expensive. But hold on a minute. Isn’t that one of the reasons why the ramraids have been happening? Aren’t people nicking cigarettes to sell on the black-market?
So there goes ACT and NZ First’s argument that we should let more people buy cigarettes, and let more people die from smoking, because it’ll mean less ramraids.
Christopher Luxon was dancing on the head of a pin too when he was on Newstalk ZB.
He said Labour's legislation would have created a black-market that was "untaxed”. And that’s what this is all about.
Because Winston Peters wasn’t prepared to go along with the foreign buyers plan to fund tax cuts, National is going with NZ First’s plan to let more people die from smoking instead.
Which, in my mind, is shameful and unforgivable.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If the mayor or any councillors at the Christchurch City Council are reading this, it's probably going to make you feel a bit uncomfortable.
Because, if you think you’re going to get away with letting the chief executive carry the can for the shambles that has obviously been going on under your watch, you’re going to have to think again.
Especially now that we know how slack things have been when it comes to dotting the Is and crossing the Ts right through the executive, finance and HR departments at the council. This is all coming to light thanks to an external report done by KPMG.
So we know already that Dawn Baxendale has quit under a cloud. We know that because she’s gone and she’s not coming back - and none of the councillors are saying anything about it.
Apart from the usual platitudes, of course, from the mayor in the statement put out by the council the other day.
And a number of other top-level people at the council have also left. One more today, even.
Just as we’re finding out why things have been going so pear-shaped. This report by KPMG says there was a $6.5 million staffing budget blowout in the Christchurch City Council's Three Waters unit because staff were hired without approval.
This is the part of the council that used to be run by Helen Beaumont, who was one of the top brass who disappeared mysteriously for months. And who, eventually, left the council around the middle of the year.
But that’s not all. This $6.5 million budget blowout is being attributed to poor financial management and poor documentation which KPMG says hasn’t just been happening in one division - it’s been happening right through the executive, finance and HR departments.
So the slackness that’s been going on in one part of the council is symptomatic of what’s happening in other parts.
And this is the council led by a mayor who, you will remember, was going to get in there and go through everything line-by-line.
The mayor who said not long ago that libraries were just buildings with books in and that pretty much no one would notice if a few of them were shut down. And who talked about an 18 percent rates increase next year unless there was some cutting of the cloth.
To be fair to Phil Mauger, this KPMG report may actually be evidence of his line-by-line thing in action. Which is great. But if he and any of his councillors think that this is it, that the buck stops with the chief executive falling on her sword, then they’ve got another thing coming.
Because why is it good enough for central government politicians to feel the heat over budget blowouts and runaway spending and slack financial management in government departments, but not local government politicians?
In fact, local government politicians have far more visibility to budget and actual expenditure than government ministers do - which is why I’m calling-out these councillors and telling them this morning that they are to blame as well for this fiasco.
Because that’s what it is. $6.5 million spent on hiring staff without approval. In just one department of the council. We’re not talking here about a few thousand bucks for a couple of part-timers just to get through a busy few weeks. $6.5 million.
I should point out that KPMG doesn’t say the staff weren’t required. But it does say that they were hired without the usual checks and balances and without approval. And the slackness hasn’t been limited to the Three Waters division.
Unfortunately, the ones who I think are ultimately responsible for this mess - the mayor and the councillors - we’re stuck with them for another two years. We’re stuck with a mayor and councillors who were quite happy last week to accept Dawn Baxendale’s resignation. Quite happy to let her shoulder all the blame.
But if they have any backbone, they will put their hands up and apologise for overseeing such a chaotic waste of ratepayer money.
If they don’t admit their part in all of this, then the whole lot of them - the mayor and the councillors - should hang their heads in shame.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Forget about the Commonwealth Games. We need to start campaigning to get another global sporting event in Canterbury.
Can I take you back to Monday March 20. So just over eight months ago.
It was the Monday after that brilliant weekend when we had two days of the SailGP yacht racing on Lyttelton Harbour.
Remember that? The weather was spectacular. People in the official fanzone said they’d had a great time. And truckloads of people were calling up saying how they’d watched the racing from spots on both sides of the harbour.
Some of them had even been on the boats that were on the water parked up around the edges of the race course.
So it was held over two days. The Saturday and the Sunday. And, on the first day, we decided to go over to the peninsula and, I remember when we got to Charteris Bay, we could see that if we just went a little bit further we’d find a prime spot.
And we did. We got to the turn-off down James Drive, I think it’s called - just before the main part of Diamond Harbour - and snaked our way down to a little area between the houses called the Coastal Cliff Reserve.
That was on the Saturday. And it was chocker with people. There was even someone with a set of speakers playing the live commentary.
And, when the racing started from that side of the harbour, I was blown away and any pre-conceived ideas I’d had about SailGP just being another thing for the hoi-polloi - well, they went out the window and I was hooked.
Which is why we went back to the same spot to watch the Sunday races.
And then, the next day on the show - on the Monday - we were all pretty much in agreement that it had been a brilliant event and how great it was to have something like this happening here after all the events we’d missed out on because of the quakes and Covid.
So what about this news then in the last 24 hours that the New Zealand leg of next year’s Sail GP can’t be held in Auckland, as it was going to be, because of an issue with the site the organisers wanted to use for the official spectator or fan zone?
The SailGP crowd wanted to use an area at Wynyard Point. Problem is, there used to be tanks there that stored fuel and so the land is considered to be contaminated and it’s going through a remediation process.
And, because of all that, it’s not safe to use. And it won’t be safe to use in time for next year’s event.
So the SailGP people have said that if they can’t have the spectator zone there, they’re not interested in racing in Auckland.
Do you hear an opportunity knocking? Because I do.
I see SailGP is saying that it still wants to have a New Zealand leg next year. So it’s not pulling the plug completely. And I reckon it would be a no-brainer to bring the event back to Lyttelton.
I seem to recall them saying that they’d be back here the year after next - in 2025 - once Auckland had had its turn. And who’s to say that somewhere other than Lyttelton would also be a great location?
But we’re nearly into December and the racing is due to happen in March. So, what’s that, three-to-four months away. And, if Auckland’s been planning since 2021 to have the racing there next year, do you really think anywhere else in the country - other than here - could get itself organised in time?
Of course not!
ChristchurchNZ is being pretty quiet on it but it’s understood that it will be pushing to have the event here again next year. And so it should.
Because, aside from the massive feel-good factor, a whole lot of money poured into the region over those two days back in March.
You might remember that ChristchurchNZ and Sail GP didn’t quite agree on exactly how much money it put into the economy. Sail GP reckoned the total visitor spend was $13.9 million. ChristchurchNZ thought it was more likely to be around the $4 million mark. But whatever it was, not to be sneezed at.
There is no way anywhere else in the country could get itself organised in time. And there is no way we should miss out on having that fantastic event here again. Auckland’s loss has to be our gain.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Nik Kershaw exploded onto the UK pop scene in 1984 as a solo artist.
Recording a string of global hit singles – including ‘Wouldn’t it Be Good’, ‘The Riddle’, and his biggest hit, ‘I Won’t Let the Sun Go Down on Me’.
Nik will be part of the wonderful line up at Selwyn Sounds in March, and joined John MacDonald to talk about the concert, and his career, including a surprising admission about his Live Aid performance.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It appears Christopher Luxon’s tight lid on things could be about to blow, with all this talk about who is and who isn’t going to be Deputy Prime Minister in the new government.
If I was National’s deputy leader Nicola Willis, I’d be finding it hard to keep the smile on the dial. But she’s managing it so far, from what I’ve seen of her on TV outside the hotel in Auckland.
Because I would have thought that she was a shoe-in to be 2-I-C. But not so. Well, not according to ACT leader David Seymour. He's saying that, of the three parties signing up to the coalition, ACT is the second-largest (based on share of the vote) and so it should get more seats around the Cabinet table than NZ First.
And one of those seats should be the Deputy Prime Minister’s seat.
As one reporter pointed out, if that was to happen - if we had Christoher Luxon Prime Minister and David Seymour deputy - they would be the least experienced PM and Deputy combo in New Zealand history. Because neither of them have been in Cabinet before and Luxon is only into his second term in Parliament.
What that reporter didn’t say, is that if Nicola Willis is deputy - the Luxon/Willis combo would be even less experienced. Because Seymour has four years more experience as an MP than Nicola Willis. He got into Parliament in 2014. Nicola Willis was elected four years later.
And like Luxon and Seymour, Nicola Willis has never been a Cabinet minister before, either.
So, if choosing who of the three becomes Deputy Prime Minister based on experience, Winston Peters wins hands down, doesn’t he? What’s more, he knows what the job is all about.
He’s been Deputy Prime Minister twice. The first time with Jim Bolger. The second time with Jacinda Ardern. And you’d be crazy not to think that, right now, he’ll be gunning to be Deputy Prime Minister for a third time. I would if I was him. You would too, wouldn’t you?
But, until Luxon put down the pre-election welcome mat for NZ First, Seymour was probably thinking that if it wasn’t going to be Nicola Willis, then he’d be the person for the job.
Because, there was ACT, polling above the 10 percent mark a lot of the time. The final result wasn’t quite what he would have expected. ACT ended up getting 8.64 percent (or 11 seats) while NZ First got 6.08 percent (or 8 seats).
So, with just three seats difference between them, I think Seymour’s belief that ACT is the dominant minor coalition partner is a bit of a stretch.
And I can’t work out whether this is Seymour throwing his toys out of the cot because he’s already been told he won’t be Deputy Prime Minister. Or is he warming us up to the fact that he is?
But I think for Christopher Luxon to trot out this line that the Deputy Prime Minister role is not much more than “ceremonial”. That was the word he used yesterday. He said it’s a ceremonial role. Just someone who looks after the shop when the PM’s not around. They don’t really do much.
For him to say that, either shows just how inexperienced he is. Or that’s what he told David Seymour when he told him he’s not going to be 2-I-C. And so now, we’ve got Seymour going against the whole confidential approach they’ve taken during these coalition talks, and he’s telling us why he should be deputy.
Luxon’s very obviously brassed-off. He threw-in another Weetbix joke when he was asked about it. But you can see through that. He wasn’t laughing on the inside. And he said as much when he pointed out that all parties had agreed to keep the talks confidential.
He also said that he want “the right person in the right place - with the right skills, abilities and experience and competency to do the job.”
So if he wants someone with “experience”, then Winston’s his man.
And if he wants a deputy he can rely on and trust they aren’t going to go AWOL when he’s off pressing the flesh around the world, David Seymour isn’t his man.
Because, what David Seymour’s been doing over the past 24 hours, tells me he is completely unfit to be Deputy Prime Minister. What’s more, this is the guy who threatened before the election not to go into coalition and to sit in the cross-benches because “he’s not there for the baubles of power”.
What a load of old nonsense that turned out to be. But, even though Winston Peters has been Deputy Prime Minister twice before, there is no way the leader of a party that only scraped past the five percent threshold should be Deputy Prime Minister.
That’s why I’m in no doubt that the person who should be Deputy Prime Minister, is Nicola Willis.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I bet Dawn Baxendale is feeling like a new woman today. Because, as we now know, she is about to be the ex-chief executive of the Christchurch City Council.
And God help the next person who takes over. Because what an outfit that place is.
Don’t get me wrong. There are lots of good people there. People doing the day-in, day-out stuff that local councils do. But when you’ve got so many of the head honchos running for the hills, something is seriously wrong isn’t it? And I reckon a full-on, external review of the whole council is way overdue. Top-to-bottom.
Already this year, we’ve had the boss of the council’s water division and the general manager of infrastructure disappear on leave for months and then eventually resign.
Two other senior leaders went on leave recently. The chief financial officer is on sick leave and the head of HR is on leave - after only being in the role a few months. A couple of other key senior people have left too to take up new jobs elsewhere.
Would the last executive to leave please turn the lights out!
And, further down the chain, people have been leaving in droves too. People who, ultimately, Dawn Baxendale has been responsible for. Because, as chief executive, she is the only staff member answerable to the councillors. Everyone else in that building is answerable to the chief executive. And the buck has stopped with her. And she’s gone.
She handed-in her resignation letter two weeks ago yesterday. Last Wednesday, we had all that drama when the council went into closed meeting out-of-the-blue. Which, as we now know, is when councillors were told about it by the mayor. That was also when they decided to accept her resignation.
And then, yesterday, the council announced that she’s gone-burger.
She had been on leave and was apparently going to be back at council HQ yesterday but she’s now going to stay on leave until her resignation takes effect.
So I think we can assume there’s not going to be any morning teas, or speeches, or whip-arounds, or giant farewell cards saying the sorts of things you see on those cards. You know: “our loss is their gain”.
Although, who knows if she’s moving on to something else or not. Because the council has been a very closed shop. No councillors were talking on or off-the-record last week when this first came up.
And it’s been the same since the announcement yesterday. Nothing to say. See ya later.
I suppose, eventually, we’ll find out what’s behind it all. The official word is that she is leaving because of personal reasons and that it was her choice.
Now personal reasons could simply be that she’s had a gutsful of working at that outfit. And who could blame her. That’s a personal reason. Or it could be something else.
And as for it being her choice. Well a line I’ve heard a few times since yesterday’s announcement is that she might have jumped before she was pushed. So yes, technically, it was her choice. A choice she may have made before it was no longer her choice.
In the statement the council put out yesterday, Dawn Baxendale said she is extremely proud of what the council has achieved during a very challenging time over the past four years.
But, on paper, her time as chief executive has been a disaster. And it’s being reported that a preliminary report on a review of her performance since she took on the job in 2019 pretty much says that too.
The final report was or is still to be done. But it’s understood that the survey of a whole range of people, including staff, didn’t paint her in a very good light. Staff aren’t happy, the public isn’t happy and truckloads of people - at all levels - have been quitting their jobs there.
So what’s going on? Well don’t look to our elected councillors for an honest answer. Because they’re the ones who like to bang on about building trust and confidence in the council. That they’re there for the people blah, blah, blah. So forget about them.
What needs to happen, is an independent reviewer - perhaps someone appointed by Local Government New Zealand - needs to be sent in to go through the whole place with a fine tooth comb.
Just looking at the chief executive’s performance isn’t enough. Because how do we know that Dawn Baxendale wasn’t set-up to fail right from the start by an organisation that may be - who knows - may be toxic to its core.
And unless we know the problems behind all these departures - not just at executive level, but right through the organisation - if that isn’t looked into and remedied, then the next chief executive is going to be resigning under a cloud too. And the next one. And the next one.
And this is where we need to see some real leadership from the mayor and the councillors. Just accepting Dawn Baxendale’s resignation and appointing someone else to the job isn't enough. Isn’t good enough.
If those councillors really are serious about increasing trust and confidence in the council, then they need to initiate a full-scale, external review or enquiry into why the outfit they lead is performing so badly.
And that would include them too. The whole place needs a good going-over.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I have never negotiated a merger. And I have never negotiated an acquisition.
But I still think I could teach our incoming Prime Minister a thing or two.
Because here we are into another week of coalition talks between National, ACT and NZ First and, after all the to-ing and fro-ing from the Cordis Hotel in Auckland, we still don’t have a new Government.
But the bit about it all that seems so obvious to me - but not to the great negotiator, it seems - is why didn’t he sort out this sticky stuff right at the start instead of leaving it until now?
The sticky stuff or the sticky things I’m referring to are NZ First’s opposition to National’s plan to tax rich foreigners buying houses here to help pay for its tax plan. And National’s weariness of ACT’s plan for a referendum on the Treaty of Waitangi principles.
As you probably know, ACT and NZ First have found some common ground on the Treaty referendum idea, which is obviously proving to be a bit of a fly-in-the-ointment for National.
So why on earth didn’t National sort this out right at the start? Then Luxon would have known whether there was a realistic chance of forming this strong stable Government we keep hearing about.
Of course it was easy for Luxon to stride past the cameras in the early stages and bang on about making great progress. Of course he could say that when his plan was to leave the tricky stuff to the end.
They probably were making great progress if they were doing all the easy stuff first. Not so great now, though. By the end-of-the-day yesterday, he wasn’t talking about progress. He was talking about the meeting with Winston Peters being “helpful”.
You‘ll have your own interpretation of what that means. My interpretation, is that Luxon was saying the meeting was “helpful” because he got a better understanding of why Winston was digging his heels in.
That’s pure speculation on my part.
But even I - who isn’t the great negotiator and who doesn't claim to be the great negotiator - can see a mile away that this is turning into a cock-up. If it isn’t already.
What was Luxon’s plan, do you think? To get Winston Peters and David Seymour so far down the track with all the simple stuff that they’d cave-in on the tricky stuff, because he thought they’d already be seeing themselves in Government?
You know what it’s like. You apply for a job. You get an interview. Then maybe a second interview. And this is over a few weeks. And, by then, you’re drafting your resignation letter in your head, practising your farewell speech, working out the best route to take to get to the new job in the mornings, and then they offer you the job but the pay is less than you wanted. But you’re so invested in the new job that you just say yes.
Is that how Christopher Luxon saw it all playing out, do you think?
Either way, his minimal political experience versus David Seymour and Winston Peters’ political experience is proving to be his achilles heel.
Remember all the big talk on election night? “I’m going to use the next three weeks until the special votes are fully counted to actually progress the relationships and the arrangements with each individual party.”
That’s now starting to look like a lot of hot air, doesn’t it? And if hot air - at best, political naivety.
I was reading Matthew Hooton’s column in the NZ Herald at the weekend and he was saying that Luxon is a talker, not a listener. And he reckons there’s growing frustration with with his “I-know-best” approach.
Which makes these talks look more like a hostile takeover than a merger.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The leadership structure at the Christchurch City Council is falling apart.
And it had mayor Phil Mauger in a real tizz at the start of yesterday’s council meeting.
This was when he announced that they had to kick people out and go into closed meeting straight away because there was something urgent they needed to discuss about chief executive Dawn Baxendale.
I’ve sat through a lot of council meetings in my time and I have never seen anything like that happen. Normally, this sort of thing happens at the end of the open meeting. So they do all the stuff that isn’t confidential or commercially-sensitive first, and then they get people to leave so they can have their private convos.
But yesterday was different. It was urgent, apparently, and it had to be done right at the start. So council staff and members of the public who had turned up had to stand around outside for nearly two hours while the councillors discussed this urgent, confidential stuff about the chief executive.
Here’s a quote from what Phil Mauger said about why they had to go into closed meeting straight away: “The reason this report cannot wait, is because there’s an ongoing statutory process already under way and we need to resolve the next steps.”
And he said they had to do it there and then because there’s only five weeks until Christmas and only two further council meetings between now and then.
The key words, though, in the little bit that Phil gave away before the meeting was closed to the public, were “statutory process”. Phil said there was a statutory process already underway.
Of course, there were enquiries left, right and centre as to what this statutory process was that the mayor was referring to. One report I’ve seen says the council said it was a direct quote from the Local Government Act which relates to the terms of Dawn Baxendale’s employment.
I should say too that one of the few people allowed to stay in the room for the closed meeting was Susan Rowe, who is a partner in the law firm Buddle Findlay.
She leads the firm’s employment and health and safety team in Christchurch.
So, as you can imagine, we’ve all been on the phones since then texting councillors. And not one of them has been prepared to say anything. It’s a really closed shop. Even one in particular who I thought might say something was a no-go. So I think we can assume that what was discussed in that closed council meeting yesterday is quite significant.
The word I’ve heard is that more will become apparent next week.
But what we do know is the chief executive is under some sort of cloud. The head of the council’s water division and the general manager of infrastructure have gone.
The chief financial officer is on sick leave and the head of HR is on leave - having only been in the role a few months.
What further evidence do you need that the leadership at the Christchurch City Council is crumbling?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How cringing are these coalition negotiations getting?
I’m very tempted to send Christopher Luxon a text message saying ‘you reap what you sow mate’.
And I would do that, if I had his number. But then he probably wouldn’t reply because he might not believe it’s actually from me.
But if he did. If he did text back and say “Hi John. Great to hear from you. Not sure what you mean.”
I’d say: “Mate, that daft idea you had before the election to say you’d work with Winston Peters. You reap what you sow.”
That would probably be the end of the conversation because, even though he’s not admitting it, he must know now that he’s starting to look sillier and sillier by the day.
Mr Mergers and Acquisitions must be thinking to himself ‘it was never like this back in the day’. And I think it went next-level last night, when we saw him and David Seymour rushing through Wellington Airport getting the last flight back to Auckland.
And why were they doing that? Because Winston was up to his old tricks again. He was a no-show yesterday when all three of them were supposed to get-together in Wellington, for their first face-to-face meeting since the election.
So, like two teenagers fighting for the same girl, there was the National leader and the ACT Party leader scrambling for the plane to try and get an audience with the Great One who, for some reason, decided he wasn’t going to bother travelling to Wellington yesterday.
Mr Mergers and Acquisitions telling reporters that everything is going swimmingly well. Great to see you. Seymour putting on a brave face too. When you just know that the two of them will have been cringing running the gauntlet like that, knowing that we know they were snubbed.
And imagine, once they got on the plane, how long that short flight to Auckland must have felt. Knowing that everyone else on board would have been looking at them thinking that Winston is giving them the complete runaround.
I reckon the person sitting next to Luxon would’ve spilt their tea and just about choked on their Cookie Time biscuit when he started banging on about how well things are going. ‘Yes, shame about APEC, but things are going really well and do you know I used to run this airline?’
Not that I’m having a go at Luxon and Seymour. No. Even though I said the other week that I thought Winston Peters’ political experience might be useful for our relatively inexperienced incoming government, I think he’s taking the other two for a ride.
In fact, he’s not just taking them for a ride. He’s taking us for a ride. And just like the girl that falls for the bad guy time and time again, I hope those who voted this guy back in are starting to wonder why.
“Will I ever learn? He does this to me every time. But then I see the hair and the suit and that smile - that smile - and I just turn to mush in the polling booth. And I know it will end in tears but I just can’t help myself.”
And thanks to them, we are in the situation we are in.
There was a lot of speculation yesterday that Winston wasn’t in Wellington for the meeting with ACT and National because he was in Christchurch for the races. How bad would that have been? Putting the races before coalition talks.
But that wasn't the case. Because Auckland was where Luxon and Seymour were screaming off-to last night on the last flight out of Wellington for their audience with the mighty one.
And it was cringing to watch. It was embarrassing. But it was also, all-so-predictable.
And New Zealand First voters will probably be cheering their Winnnie on. Because that’s why they want him on the scene. They want him keeping those National and ACT whipper-snappers on their heels.
They want him to keep everyone guessing. But is that what the rest of us deserve? Is that what Christopher Luxon and David Seymour deserve?
Of course they don’t. And we don't either.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National may as well just come out now and say its tax plan is history. It’s toast.
Because, as we all knew it would - and as National should have known - the good old NZ First handbrake is proving to be the fly in the ointment in the coalition talks.
And it appears National’s idea to partially fund tax cuts by letting foreign buyers back into the housing market and charging them a 15 percent tax for the privilege of buying a place with more than $2million is proving to be the big stumbling block.
Not that the incoming Prime Minister is saying that. Mr Mergers and Acquisitions is pressing-on, telling us it’s all going well.
But, maybe for the first time ever, I’m actually thankful for the NZ First handbrake. Because I always thought the foreign buyers idea was nutbar.
I thought it was nutbar - not because I’m necessarily opposed to foreign buyers - but because National is dreaming thinking it could get that much revenue from foreigners buying expensive houses here.
National said that it could raise $740 million a year taxing the foreign buyers. Which pretty much every economist and expert, right from the start, questioned.
But, oh no, before the election we had the party’s finance spokesperson saying she’d stand down if the tax cuts weren’t delivered. Not that bluster is unusual to National or any political party. Especially at election time. “Rock solid”. That was the line Luxon used every time he was questioned about the numbers behind the tax plan.
Now I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but Christopher Luxon is still saying this week that the promised tax cuts will be delivered, but he’s now started saying that the way they are paid for may change as a result of the coalition negotiations with ACT and NZ First.
And let’s not leave ACT out of this, either. Because David Seymour has been very sceptical of the tax plan too.
About three weeks before the election he looked at the Government’s books - which were opened for all the world to see in the Pre-Election Fiscal Update (or the PREFU, as it’s also known). ACT looked at those numbers and said ‘ hold on a minute’.
It had been keen for us to pay less tax as well. But, after seeing the state of the finances, it decided that now is not the time for significant cuts. That’s exactly what ACT said: “Now is not the time for significant tax cuts”. And I agreed 100 percent then. And I agree 100 percent now.
So National has got an uphill battle on its hands. In fact, I think it’s a battle that - if it hasn’t lost it already - it will have lost by the time the signatures go on the coalition deal.
Because without the money from the foreign buyers tax, they’ll need to find $740 million from somewhere else - per year. Not just $740 million once. But per year.
As tax expert Geoff Nightingale said on Newstalk ZB this morning, it could mean deeper cuts in the public sector if the foreign buyers element is torpedoed in the coalitions talk. Or more borrowing.
The whole thing has been smoke and mirrors from the start. Remember all the fuss about how many people would actually get the full saving National had been banging on about. It turned out - not long before the election - to be about 20,000 households that would get the full whack.
Everyone else would get the crumbs. And now, it seems, the chickens are coming home to roost for National in the coalition negotiating room.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Matt Cross called his first New Zealand Cup at the age of just 26.
Now four years on, Matt prepares for the biggest racing day on the harness calendar once again: the New Zealand Trotting Cup.
It's a huge week for Canterbury, and Matt will call 60 races over eight days of the carnival.
He kindly joined John on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings to talk about his preparation for the big day, and who he thinks will win the $750,000 New Zealand Trotting Cup.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch really is putting on a show this week. And I’m not talking about Cup and Show Week.
I’m talking about the city council’s ridiculous show of wasteful spending of public money on its beautification trial on that little bit of Gloucester Street where the Turanga central library is on one side, and the new Court Theatre is being built on the other side. The Isaac Theatre Royal is just down the street a bit.
The council’s spending $1.4 million on a 10-week trial of changes to that little piece of Gloucester Street and, if it decides that it doesn’t really work, it’s going to rip it all up again and go back to how it is now.
They’re going to bring-in a 10kph speed limit and do some other things to make it prettier. Or, as the council puts it: to make the street “a more inviting space for hospitality, performers and theatre-goers”.
Which is really going to work wonders when you consider all the trucks going to and from the Court Theatre construction site. And today, all that work is getting underway.
This is at the same time as the council is realising that it’s going to have to pull the pin on other permanent cycleway and transport projects in the city because the funding it was expecting to get from Waka Kotahi has been put on hold.
So 11 projects designed to make it easier to walk, ride a bike or use public transport in Christchurch.
Total cost for the 11 projects expected to be $26 million. With 90 percent of the money coming from Waka Kotahi’s Transport Choices programme, which is funded by the Government’s climate change emergency fund.
Just like the money for the Gloucester Street debacle is mostly government money too. $1.2 million in taxpayer money. The rest - ratepayer money. On something that might not even be permanent. A $1.4 million experiment.
And the fact that most of its government money doesn’t make it any less wasteful.
So the work on that starts today. And on Wednesday this week, city councillors are going to have to decide how they deal with the fact that they’re now going to get less government for these other projects.
By the way, too, all of the money for these other projects is on hold until the new government is in place.
So what the Christchurch City Council has to do, at the very least, is work out how to cut costs on these 11 projects by 10 percent. And councillors are going to get -together on Wednesday to try and suss that one out.
And one of the things they’re going to be considering is pulling the plug on is a cycleway project.
Which is where all of this makes absolutely no sense. Because who-on-earth would think that spending $1.4 million on a temporary thing in a location where there’s a construction site operating with trucks coming and going is a good idea? At the same time as your being forced to cut back on other permanent projects.
That’s the key point here: spending money on something that could turn out to be temporary, but cutting spending on things that will be permanent. In fact, not just cutting spending. It's looking like the council is going to cut some of these projects altogether. One of them is a new cycleway on the southside of town.
If I had my way, I’d be heading to Gloucester Street and telling the crew in the high-vis jackets to find something else to do.
Because how can these councillors possibly think it makes sense to cut back on permanent projects, but blow more than a million bucks on something that might not be there on the other side of Christmas?
I said months ago that they should have told mayor Phil Mauger to get on the blower to Waka Kotahi and say ‘hey, about that money. We think there are much more important things for you to spend it on, so we’re going to say thanks-but-no thanks’.
But, oh no. They’re pressing on with the work today. And then, on Wednesday, they’re going to decide what they’re not going to do about these other projects because there’s going to be less money coming from the Government.
What do these council muppets not get? Why is this Gloucester Street thing so obviously nutbar to me, but not to them? The answer lies in the fact that so much of the money for Gloucester Street and these other projects is coming from the taxpayer. Not the ratepayer.
Do you remember when they were talking about Gloucester Street and one councillor said it would be a shame not to do it because they’d miss out on the government money? Remember that?
They’ve got their noses in the taxpayer’s trough and it seems to be impossible for them to pull them out.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Helen Clark has dropped a bombshell. Saying that she reckons if Winston Peters doesn’t like what he’s being offered in a coalition deal with National and ACT, he’ll turn around and try and stitch something up with Labour.
Now I know the first thing you might say to that, is ‘what about Chris Hipkins saying he would never work with Winston again’?
Well, a couple of things on that. If Labour really wanted to get back into government and a deal with NZ First was the meal ticket, one of two things could happen.
Hipkins could fall on his sword and step aside. Or they could dump him.
The other thing is, let’s remember what Chris Hipkins himself has been saying this week since being reaffirmed as leader. Everything is back on the table.
So far that’s all been about taxation - in particular, the idea of a wealth tax and a capital gains tax. So if everything’s back on the table, why wouldn’t a coalition arrangement with NZ First be on the table as well?
To pull it off, the Greens and Te Pati Māori would also have to be onside. Te Pāti Māori has six seats. The Green Party has 15. Labour has 34. And NZ First has eight seats. Add them all up and you get 63 seats. A majority.
National has 48 seats. ACT has 11 seats. And with NZ First’s eight seats, you get 67. A slightly larger majority. But what Helen Clark is saying, is that National and ACT shouldn’t be taking things for granted and think that they are NZ First’s only options.
As she points out, in 1996 Winston banged on about not letting National become government again. And then, what did he do after keeping us all waiting for weeks and weeks and weeks? He put National into government again.
The way he explained it, though, was that a National/NZ First coalition government was different than a National government. Weasel words, yes. But at least he satisfied himself that he hadn't gone back on his promise to get rid of the National government.
This time around, he said NZ First “will not return Labour to power”. In a way, exactly the same thing. In 1996, he said he wouldn’t allow a National government to return and claimed that a National/NZ First government was different. He could say exactly the same thing if he went with Labour.
A Labour/NZ First/Greens/Te Pati Māori government would not be returning Labour to power. In his mind, anyway.
Another thing you might be thinking about this is the likelihood of the Greens and Te Pati Māori having any interest in being in government with NZ First.
On paper, both those parties would run a mile. But do you think it’s possible, a few weeks down the track since the election, that the Greens and Te Pati Maori are looking at the record number of MPs they’ve ended up with and thinking that they’re all a bit wasted in opposition?
I’d be thinking that if I was them.
And as for Labour itself. I know it's saying that it’s going to use the next three years to “take stock” and “digest” the election result, and rebuild for the 2026 election. But still hold the government to account blah, blah blah.
But do you really think that, if it had a choice, Labour would go with three years of digesting and taking stock? Or do you think it would go with another three years in government?
Just like if I was the Greens or Te Pati Maori, if I was Labour, I’d take government over opposition any day. Wouldn’t you?
So I’m not going to write Helen Clark’s comments off. And, as Jim Bolger is saying today too - which I see as a bit of a warning for National and ACT - he’s saying that the current negotiations could go on for a couple of months like they did back in 1996.
He’s says Winston Peters is a very experienced and smart political leader. Anybody who goes into with Peters thinking he’s a pushover is stupid. That’s what former National leader Jim Bolger is saying.
But on Helen Clark's comments. I think she’s on the money. I agree with her when she says anything is possible. A lot of dead rats would have to be swallowed by Labour, the Greens and Te Pati Maori. But politicians are very good at that.
And think about this. If Helen Clark - former Labour Prime Minister and endorser of Labour’s election campaign this year - if she’s saying that a Labour-led government involving NZ First is a possibility, then I’m listening.
She is still very much connected to the party. And if she was convinced that there is absolutely no way Labour would do a flip-flop and get a deal together with NZ First, then she would be saying so today. But she’s not.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday John MacDonald was joined by Labour's Reuben Davidson and National's Matt Doocey live in studio.
He pressed Doocey on the coalition talks: what on earth is the hold up?
Has Labour made the right call to stick with Hipkins as leader?
And what needs to happen with the Electoral Commission?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Imagine building a road and it lasts 70 years. That’s what a concrete expert from the US is saying we could do here in New Zealand if we used more concrete instead of asphalt everywhere.
Eric Ferrebee is the Senior Director of Technical Services with the American Concrete Pavement Association.
Now I’m no concrete expert. I’m no asphalt expert either. But I reckon concrete roads would be a gamechanger here in New Zealand. Because, let’s face it, if we’re going to keep on using the stuff we’re using at the moment, we’re going to see no improvement in the state of our roads and footpaths.
Potholes being the obvious downside of asphalt. You imagine concrete. Completely different story.
I remember after the earthquakes when the multi-storey library at the University of Canterbury was having some remediation work. And, on every floor, they were squirting some sort of resin into the cracks and one of the guys doing it told me that the floors would be even stronger with the resin than they were before the quake.
As I say, I’m not an expert. And yes, even concrete roads would crack. But I’m guessing you could do the same thing to repair a concrete road or footpath. And that increased strength would be the same. Imagine that.
This concrete expert from the States did say that building roads and footpaths using concrete would be more expensive upfront. But the need for less repairs as the roads age would be a money-saver.
He said in the US they use a mix of concrete and asphalt. Some states use more, others use less. And for some states, the up-front cost is a factor.
But when you think about the number of potholes we have and the repairs which only seem to last a few days, then concrete roads are a no-brainer.
And not just roads. Concrete footpaths too. Again, I’m not an expert. But I reckon you’d still get tree roots poking through on footpaths, like you do now. But, when you compare it to asphalt, concrete roads and footpaths have to be the future, surely.
The biggest producers of concrete are China and India - but we do make it here as well. Golden Bay Cement is one outfit that comes to mind. Holcim is another one.
It’s probably no coincidence that this expert from the States is in the country now. Because there’s a big conference going on about roads
It’s called “Future Roads” and it’s all about discussing strategy and planning for roads. And I know there is going to be some talk about concrete roads because the chief executive of Concrete NZ is one of the speakers.
And he’s going to be telling people at the conference that concrete is key to making our transport network in New Zealand more resilient and long-lasting. I’ve been reading his latest newsletter where he says that he thinks concrete is the solution to the pothole plague we have here.
Now you might think he would say that, being the head of the outfit that represents the concrete industry. But I’m not going to argue with him. I’m also not going to argue with this expert from the States who reckons we could build roads that last 70 years with concrete.
It’s a no-brainer.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
“I’m back.”
That’s what Chris Hipkins said to media after being reaffirmed as leader of the Labour Party. Kelvin Davis has stood aside as deputy and Carmel Sepuloni is now 2-I-C.
Chris Hipkins is going to be accused left, right, and centre of an enormous flip-flop in relation to a wealth tax and a capital gains tax. Because, remember how he said before the election, that neither of those would happen?
Today, he’s saying both of those things are back on the table. And what good is a mind if you can’t change it?
That’s why I'm not going to rip Hipkins to shreds for coming out and saying in the past 24 hours that these things could very well now happen under his watch. A few weeks ago he was saying the complete opposite.
And why wouldn’t he? Labour has been defeated. If it lost the election without a wealth tax and a capital gains tax in its policies, then why not re-consider?
The other thing I’ve taken from Labour keeping Hipkins on as leader, is whether or not the party’s done it with a view to the 2026 election or, perhaps, something sooner.
This morning he was saying that he’s the person to lead Labour to victory and the political comeback of the century three years from now. Which, of course, he would say. He was saying that yesterday too.
But is that why he’s still leader? Do you reckon it’s possible that they’ve kept him on just in case there’s another election sooner than 2026? As in way sooner.
Remember, before last month’s election, how National’s campaign boss and MP Chris Bishop made that veiled threat about us possibly needing to have another election if National and ACT didn’t get enough votes to form a coalition on their own?
And how the last thing National wanted was to go into government with Winston Peters.
Well, the voters are getting the last laugh on that. And look at how one of those potential coalition partners is conducting themselves. With NZ First's Shane Jones saying that any tax changes that could worsen housing affordability were not in NZ First’s DNA. What he was getting at there was National’s plan to tax foreigners buying flash houses here in New Zealand.
Then he went more broad-brush in his criticism of National. And I’ll quote the great orator himself. “The north, the west, the east, and the south - they recall that we have in our DNA a deep aversion to tax cuts if it worsens the prospect of Kiwis getting on the property ladder and those things were well and truly aired during the campaign.”
That’s Shane Jones. And then there’s what Winston Peters has been saying about coalition negotiations. This is what he told the NBR about going into negotiations knowing that "you might lose".
"You go there with the right purpose but, if you want to be true to yourself and the people who voted for you, you’ve got to have that view as well that this may not happen.”
And Winston Peters goes on to say: “We’ll do the best we can to make sure it happens - if we can.”
Not when we can. Not because we can. If we can.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I’ve thought that a few times listening, watching and reading some of the media coverage of the coroner’s inquest into the 2019 mosque attacks.
It’s obviously something that Mike Ardagh has thought too. If the name rings a bell - he’s a professor of emergency medicine at the University of Otago in Christchurch. He’s also a specialist in the Emergency Department at Christchurch Hospital.
He’s been in the news a lot over the years. And he’s in the news again today with some pretty strong comments about the inquest into the mosque shootings, which has been going for the last three weeks and is expected to go for another four weeks.
In a nutshell, he’s saying that the way it’s being run is unfair and mean to the emergency responders who have been hauled-in to give evidence. Those are the words he’s using to describe it - “unfair and mean”.
He says ambulance and police staff are being treated as if they’re the ones on trial. Saying it appears to be all about winning arguments instead of finding facts. And, from what I’ve seen, I think he’s spot on.
There was one line of questioning in particular that I couldn’t believe one of the lawyers representing the victims’ families asked. It was last week. When a member of the Armed Offenders Squad involved in the response that day was in the stand.
Lawyer Kathryn Dalziel wanted to know why he stopped people outside the mosque from going in after the shootings, and he explained that he didn’t know who they were and there was a risk that one of them could have been an offender. Or a “sleeper”. So someone pretending to be a member of the mosque community but actually being a terrorist themselves.
And, as she told the court, these people were desperate to get inside and help.
She then went on to say this. And this is the bit that staggered me.
I’ll quote her directly. She said: "My clients, and this is really important to them, they want to know, would you have been so cautious about there being a possible sleeper if you had been talking to a group of white people?"
The report I saw said the AOS member “appeared surprised by that question”, which is probably putting it mildly. But he responded as you would expect an AOS person to respond. He said: "I would have dealt with the situation the exact same way".
Which, of course, he would’ve. But this is what Mike Ardagh is getting at. He’s saying today that the whole approach seems to be about challenging the emergency responders. Prove to us that you didn't cock-up. That’s why he thinks it is unfair and mean for the emergency responders giving evidence.
You can imagine how gobsmacked the Armed Offenders guy would have been with that question. And, from the coverage I’ve seen, it does feel like the lawyers representing the victims and families are doing what lawyers normally do in criminal trials. They create murkiness. They create doubt. And we’ve seen plenty of that so far.
As Mike Ardagh says, the emergency responders being questioned and treated this way are good people. They are not accused of any crimes. But it seems, doesn’t it - from the way they are being spoken to and questioned - that they are on trial.
In some respects, the response that day itself is on trial. But how fair is it that individual people - who put their own lives on the line that day - are questioned and treated the way they are in such a public way? I think it is very unfair.
Because, as Mike Ardagh points out, many of these people are already significantly distressed by what they went through on that day. And he reckons what he calls a “more collaborative exploration” would not only be better for the responders in the dock, but it would probably get more useful information.
And I’m with him 100 percent. I think it is completely unfair that individual emergency responders are being asked to publicly defend suggestions that they were too slow, confused or biased in their decision-making.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you get a text message today from David Seymour - just reply. Just in case it is him.
Which is what Winston Peters should have done. Instead of thinking that the text message he got after the election from “David Seymour” wasn’t from Seymour himself, but was from someone pretending to be David Seymour.
But I suppose that’s what happens when you’ve been Foreign Minister before. You get all “5 Eyes” on it and you don’t trust anyone or anything.
So, with the final election results in, Christopher Luxon now has the job of cobbling together a government with ACT and NZ First. And he’s putting on a brave face but did it really have to be this way?
I don’t think it did. And I’ll tell you why.
National has 48 seats. The Green Party 15 seats. Add them together. What do you get? You get enough to form a government. That’s what you get.
Now think about how, before the election, Christopher Luxon used to bang on about how little time he spends in Wellington.
Remember that? Every opportunity, he’d say that if he didn’t need to be in Parliament he’d be out of Wellington, on the road, meeting people up and down the country.
Well, he might be regretting that. Because I think he would be a much happier man today if he’d actually spent a lot more time in Wellington over the last three years.
If he had, he could’ve come up with a much more exciting, forward-thinking, innovative government than the one he’s been lumbered with now that the special votes have all been counted and we have a final result.
His strategy over the past three years shouldn’t have been getting in the faces of as many people outside Wellington. His strategy should’ve been to get in the faces of key people in Wellington as much as possible. Selling them the idea of creating a truly transformational government.
Yes, he’s Prime Minister and National is going to be in government again. And, if he pulls off the “strong and stable” bit, then he will have done well, given the personalities he now has to work with. But, overall, his strategy has failed.
It’s failed because he hasn’t convinced enough people that two coalition partners are better than three and the best we can hope for during the next three years is a steady ship with no mutinies.
But if Luxon had done things differently, imagine how things could have looked today.
Imagine if Luxon had spent the last three years working the Green Party around to the idea of a National/Greens government?
Look at the number of seats now the final result is in. National has 48 seats. The Greens have 15. Put those together - 63 seats. A majority in the House.
Now I said before the election that I thought, for the first time since we’ve had MMP, people were going to be voting to have their values represented in Parliament - as much as voting for a government.
And I think we’ve seen that. Especially when you consider how the minor parties really are the winners.
But of those minor parties, and based on the results, it’s the Greens who have come out best. A record 15 seats. Compared to ACT’s 11 and NZ First’s 8 seats.
Now you might think that Christopher Luxon would have just as much of a handful keeping James Shaw and Marama Davidson in check, as he will with David Seymour and Winston Peters. And you may very well be right.
But imagine the possibilities.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
So the gangs are bringing in the lawyers and all the legal experts are on the TV news sitting in front of their bookshelves going tut-tut-tut to National over its plan to ban gang patches and tattoos, saying it breaches the Bill of Rights.
And then, in the other corner, we’ve got Christopher Luxon saying ‘yeah, nah - we’re going to do it anyway’.
Which he would say anyway. But, as I’ve said all along, I don’t think this tough talk we’ve been hearing from National is going to come to much.
And I don’t actually think that is going to matter to most people. Because, let’s face it, even talking tough about gangs is a lot more than Labour did over the past six years. So a pretty low bar has been set for National.
Now, before I go any further, let’s get it clear that I am not a gang sympathiser in any way, shape or form. I despise gang culture. I despise the things that gangs get up to —especially their criminal activity— but also the way they do their darndest to get young people involved.
I also despise the impact gangs have on the lives of other people. People who have no interest in gang life but find themselves drawn into it because their kids have either signed-up to the dream of flash motorbikes and flash cars, or have become chained to the gangs through drug addiction.
I remember talking to a chap whose son got hooked on P and got his drugs from gang suppliers. He found himself in that much debt and under such pressure from the gangs, that he took his life during one of the COVID lockdowns.
And I distinctly remember his father telling me how they couldn’t hold a proper funeral for his son because of the COVID restrictions, but how incredulous they were that the gangs got away with holding big funerals at that time.
Another father told me about his son getting hooked on drugs —who also got his stuff from gangs— and this guy had gang members turning up at his place in the middle of the night looking for his son, pointing a shotgun in his face.
Do you want more examples of why I hate gangs? What about those Black Power muppets who viciously attacked that innocent guy who was just walking down the street to have lunch at McDonalds, and they followed him into the restaurant and gave him a hiding because he was wearing a red sweatshirt.
There were about a dozen of them and they thought he must’ve been connected to the Mongrel Mob because of the red sweatshirt.
So, I’ve got zero time for gangs. But I’ve also got zero time for politicians who treat us like idiots.
And that’s exactly what National has done with its talk about gangs. And is continuing to do.
Because for Christopher Luxon to bury his head in the sand like he has in the past 24 hours when asked about these concerns about the legality of a patch ban and a tattoo ban, is a continuation of election campaign rhetoric.
Someone needs to tell Christopher Luxon that the campaign is over and the time for cheap talk and empty promises is over.
The ban on gang patches and gang tattoos sounded great during the campaign. But this is where the rubber hits the road. And National needs to realise and admit that some aspects of their gang policies are never going to fly.
And the sooner they do that. The more forgiving we will be.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, John was joined by Labour’s Megan Woods and National’s Matt Doocey.
They discussed National's gang policy, and the fact that the Mongrel Mob is now getting legal advice.
Why were decisions made to move the Metro Sports Centre to its current location, given the issues with sinking land we are facing now?
And what will happen to improve Oranga Tamariki?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A year ago tonight, it was pandemonium up Pegasus way after fireworks caused a massive fire.
People had to evacuate. I remember talking with someone who had been at the Woodend Beach Holiday Park. He was telling me about helping a family get out of there.
They were packing up a caravan van and he said you could see the orange glow from the flames getting closer and closer.
In total, about 130 people evacuated from the area and about 70 firefighters were involved. You might remember, too, that a bunch of racehorses had to be evacuated as well from the training stables at Woodend Beach.
And as soon as I heard about the fire on the night I thought ‘oh, here we go…fireworks’.
The Fire and Emergency people didn’t say that straight away but, eventually, they confirmed ‘yes, it was fireworks’. Which didn’t surprise us, did it? And we were asking ‘why the hell are we still doing this?’
But, a year on, here we go again - with fireworks going on sale from today until the end of the week. Just as a new survey finds that most people want them banned from public sale.
According to data released by AA Insurance, 53 percent of people surveyed want a ban on recreational use and a further 20 percent want fireworks banned outright. So, what’s that, 73 percent of people want them gone in some way, shape or form.
If I could have my way, I would ban people from being idiots. I wouldn’t ban fireworks. But that’s never going to happen. So I’m going to have to go with my second option - which is the ban on public sale and recreational use which so many people seem to want.
Because even though it was hot and windy a year ago today —meaning Pegasus was tinder dry and it was never going to take much to start a fire— those conditions weren’t a one-off.
And the muppets who ignored those conditions and still thought it was a good idea to set-off fireworks in the area, they’re not the only idiots on the planet are they? So if we can’t stop people being idiots, the only option is to stop them from getting their hands on fireworks.
And I reckon a lot of us are only one or steps away from being idiots with fireworks ourselves. I know our kids have some very fond memories of Guy Fawkes night and us dads setting them all up in the backyard and setting them off. And it has not always been plain selling.
Back in the day, you’ll remember, fireworks were in the shops weeks before Guy Fawkes Day. And kids would be going around the streets after school letting off the Tom Thumbs and the Pohas. Blowing up letterboxes.
There were stories too of university students firing skyrockets at eachother between the halls of residence in Dunedin. And there were plenty of stories too about people getting injured by fireworks.
And while all that was going, we had the Fireworks Lady campaigning day-in, day-out to have fireworks banned from being sold to the public. Beverley Pentland was her name. She visited school-after-school educating kids about the danger of fireworks.
And thanks to her efforts, the Explosives Amendment Bill made its way through Parliament and was passed in 1973 (50 years ago), which limited the period fireworks could be sold to just 10 days before Guy Fawkes Day.
That’s gone down even further and, these days, anyone who wants to buy fireworks only has four days to do it.
And I think that is four days too long.
Yes, I’ve had a great time over the years setting-off fireworks. But times have changed.
For starters, what relevance does Guy Fawkes Day have to us here in New Zealand? Zero relevance. It’s all about a guy who wanted to blow-up Parliament 19,000 kilometres away in London. So zero relevance.
Times have also changed when it comes to the environment these fireworks are being used in. Whether you choose to believe in climate change or not, you can’t tell me that we are living in much drier conditions than we used to.
Not to mention the fact that people just seem to be more and more ignorant of what’s going on around them and seem to think they have some sort of God-given right to set these things off whenever they want, wherever they want.
Like I say, we can’t ban people from being idiots - so the only option is to ban them from buying fireworks.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger joined John MacDonald live in studio this morning for their weekly chat.
John asked about the ongoing Parakiore Metro Sports situation and whether the project will continue to face delays.
They also talked about the Council's response to the Bromley Plant fire, and why it’s come under fire.
Plus, why has Christchurch East been treated so poorly?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Do you reckon we’re kidding ourselves thinking that a $150 fine is enough to put people off using their phones when they’re driving?
From what I see, I think we are. I was at an intersection the other day, waiting for the lights, and I saw this driver in the car next to me had their phone sitting on the steering wheel.
So they were using the steering wheel as if it was a computer stand at home or in the office.
And I thought, ‘oh well, when the lights go green, surely they'll put the phone down’. But, guess what? They didn't.
The lights changed and they just cruised through the intersection, tap-tap-tapping on the phone, which was still sitting on the steering wheel.
I could say to you that I couldn’t believe what I saw. But that would be lying. Because it was no surprise to me at all. We are such a bunch of idiots when it comes to using phones while we drive.
And yes, I say “we” because there are times when I reach for the phone when I shouldn’t.
There’s a truckie speaking out today because he is sick and tired of seeing drivers texting and emailing on their phones. And not just on their phones. Would you believe that he’s seen people using laptops behind the wheel too?
Tony Brooke is his name. He drives trucks in the North Island. And he says he has
“seen it all” when it comes to drivers being distracted because they are really super important and need to send that text message or post something on Facebook ASAP.
No time to pull over. Has to be done now.
Trucker Tony has had cars nearly ploughing into his 50-tonne haulage truck because of drivers distracted on their phones, and he wants us to get real with punishments dished out to these drivers.
He thinks the $150 fine isn't enough. And I fully agree with him. Even as someone who has been pinged myself for using the phone while driving.
In my defence, I had one hand on the phone which was sitting on the passenger seat and I was looking at it while the car wasn't moving, waiting to go through a roundabout.
And a particularly committed traffic cop who patrols our part of town - “particularly committed” isn't the way most people describe him - but there he was watching me
So I’m not coming at this with any sort of holier-than-thou attitude. But I reckon if the penalties were increased to the tune of what Trucker Tony is calling for today, we would see a lot more people taking the ban on using phones while driving much more seriously
He thinks that instead of $150 it should be $500. And as well as the fine, you should lose your phone for 24 hours.
That bit of it could be tricky for the cops. Finishing the day with a bunch of phones to store somewhere overnight. But if we are going to get serious about this, then we need to get serious about the penalties.
A $500 fine would really make me think before I did the old sly phone resting-on-the-leg trick. And hopefully it would really make the driver I just told you about before think. Driving with the phone sitting on the steering wheel.
Because we are so slack in this country when it comes to giving our full attention to driving. We treat driving as just another multi-task, don't we? And if you think you don’t, then you’re either dreaming, in denial or you’re the safest driver New Zealand has ever seen.
But most of us aren’t like that. And that’s why I’m with Trucker Tony. Because you don’t have to drive a 50-tonne truck to know that mobile phones and driving are a menace, and something has to be done about it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How about this for a statistic to make you proud to be a New Zealander?
In the past seven years, since Oranga Tamariki was established, 57 kids have died because of abuse or neglect in New Zealand.
They’re the numbers being reported today as we try to get our heads around the death of another toddler, Ruthless Empire, who died just days before his second birthday from what the police described as “blunt force trauma”.
Not only that. But none of the people living in the house where he was living bothered taking him to hospital for another 12 hours after he was assaulted.
So he didn’t have a hope, did he?
There was one comment that the cop in charge of the investigation said over the weekend that really stuck with me. Detective Inspector Nick Pritchard said the level of violence towards Baby Ru was “difficult to fathom”.
And when you get a detective talking like that - who will have seen all sorts of things - you just know that this poor little boy really suffered.
When the anti-smacking law came into effect in May 2007, supporters of it said it would reduce the number of infant deaths in New Zealand. When I say the law “came in”, it was actually an amendment to existing legislation.
Because, up until that point, the Crimes Act said parents couldn’t be prosecuted for assaulting their kids because there was a legal defence of “reasonable force”.
So Green Party MP at-the-time, Sue Bradford, championed the amendment which became known then, and is still known now, as the anti-smacking law.
And you may well remember people who supported it at the time saying that it was going to mean a reduction in the infant death rate.
Because if parents weren’t allowed to smack their kids, then there was less likelihood of someone really losing the plot and smacking a child to death. That was one of the arguments in favour of it
And I thought the same too at the time. But kids are still dying. 57 of them in the past seven years. Baby Ru being the latest.
Which tells me that the anti-smacking law has failed. Yes, there will undoubtedly be less kids getting smacked by their parents than there used to be.
But is a child being killed every six-and-a-half weeks - because that’s what this stat being reported today averages out at - is that a good reason to say ‘woohoo, that anti-smacking law really worked’.
Because it hasn’t. And it is shameful that kids are still dying in these numbers here in New Zealand.
But even though I think the anti-smacking law has failed, I don’t think that’s a reason to get rid of it or amend it back to what it used to be. I think we still need it
Because why would you change the law and make it ok to beat kids? You just wouldn’t, would you.
But my thinking is that as long as there is a law to protect kids - even though it’s failing - as it’s there, it is going to make some people think twice about how they discipline their kids. So my view is that it’s failed, but we still need it.
And then there is Oranga Tamariki. It’s been around for seven years and, in that time, 57 kids have died because of abuse or neglect in New Zealand.
That’s another fail. How could it be anything else? But it was always going to fail. Because when you’ve got an organisation that gets 70,000 to 80,000 calls every year from people who think a child might be in danger, of course there are going to be failures.
I’m not saying it’s good enough. But, sadly, it is inevitable. And kids like Baby Ru are the ones who suffer the consequences.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you hadn’t heard of Tom Foley before yesterday, you’ve probably heard of him now.
He was the Television Match Official - or TMO - in yesterday’s Rugby World Cup final. If you were watching the match on TV, he was the guy in the jacket and tie who kept popping up in the corner of the screen.
In fact, did he “pop up”? Or was he on screen the whole time? It felt like he was there the whole time.
And it’s him and the other faceless match officials who have been in the firing line. Especially over that farcical situation where we had two players committing pretty much the same offence, but only one of them getting a red card.
It was the faceless match officials who made the call there. They’re the ones who go through the video when a player is sent off with a yellow card and it’s them who decide whether it’s upgraded to a red card.
So what’s the solution? Well, I reckon robots are the solution. Not completely. But I reckon robots or artificial intelligence would be much better for making the calls on things like whether a yellow card is upgraded to a red card.
If they reckon lawyers could be replaced one day by Artificial Intelligence, why not match officials as well?
I remember reading about a TV documentary that featured an experiment with artificial intelligence (AI) technology, which found that a robot going through a complex legal document was able to do it faster and more accurately than humans.
There was a huge outcry at the time, apparently, from people in the legal profession who reckoned you could never replace a human when it comes to doing legal stuff.
And some of the concerns they raised were about things like privacy. Because, if you’ve got a robot dealing with confidential stuff, what happens if it goes AWOL and starts sending sensitive material to every Tom, Dick and Harry?
We’ve actually seen, haven’t we, with one of the latest versions of Artificial Intelligence - Chat GPT - cases where the machine has gone rogue and has been doing things like getting into arguments with people, apparently.
So you can see why people might be a bit antsy about letting the robot deal with their private, sensitive information. I can’t imagine wanting a robot to defend me if I ended up in court either.
But sport is different. Yes, it can be high stakes. But nothing like the law.
But, just like the law, inconsistent decision-making in sport is an issue. We get inconsistent legal decisions. We get inconsistent refereeing decisions too. And that’s one of the big talking points to come out of yesterday’s rugby world cup final.
Which is why I think the robots should be brought in. We’ve got four years until the next World Cup. Surely, by then the technology could be in place where the faceless, off-site match officials could be replaced by a machine.
Someone asked me how the robots would announce their decisions. Easy. It would come through on the big screen at the venues.
Take the human decision-making out of it and you would get a lot more consistency.
You’d still want to have an on-field referee. But there'd be less of the nonsense we saw yesterday and there'd be more consistent decisions at times when it really matters.
Like, as we saw yesterday, times when a single decision can determine whether both teams see out the game with the same number of players on the field - or not.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
To say that Winston Peters is the Donald Trump of New Zealand politics would probably be going too far. But after his nonsense on the X social media platform about Dame Jacinda Ardern and the Christchurch mosque attacks, you’ve got to say he’s got a touch of the old Donald about him.
And it’s being suggested today that, after all his nonsense this week, he has shown once-and-for-all that he’s not fit to be in government again.
Political commentator Matthew Hooton is saying this in the NZ Herald and he reckons the NZ First caucus should read the tea leaves and ditch Peters as leader. And, if that doesn’t happen, Christopher Luxon should just pull the plug on any idea of going into coalition with NZ First.
Now the first option is never going to happen, is it? There will never, ever be any sort of coup within New Zealand First. Because they know the only reason they’re MPs in the first place is because of Winston Peters. So they’re never going to bite the hand that feeds them and get rid of him.
So that leaves Christopher Luxon who, according to one headline I’ve seen, was having dinner at Winston’s house on Wednesday night when he was busy talking nonsense on social media.
Maybe when Winston kept getting up-and-down from the table, Luxon thought he was just ducking-off to the kitchen to stir the sauce. But he’ll know now, won’t he, that Winston was actually stirring the pot on social media.
So what he did, was go online and say that it was outrageous that it wasn’t until the start of the coroner’s inquiry into the March 15 mosque attacks this week that we found out that the Prime Minister’s office had been alerted of the attacks just before they happened.
This was the email the terrorist sent to the PM’s office and others, including media.
Here’s what Winston Peters said in his tweet: “We waited until today to find out, for the first time, that the Prime Minister's Office received information about the March 15 terrorist attack before the massacre took place.
“Jacinda Ardern should be called to the hearing and asked to explain this appalling lack of transparency to the New Zealand public - let alone to the Deputy Prime Minister and government coalition partner.
“This was a crisis event. To keep this basic information hidden is not only unacceptable it is now clearly indicative of how that office worked. The next question is, who else inside Cabinet knew and said nothing?"
Which is just balmy. Because Jacinda Ardern revealed the day after the attack that her office had received the email from the terrorist. But it’s not just balmy, it’s sinister - because it implies some sort of government cover-up, doesn’t it?
Then later on Wednesday night, he went online again and acknowledged the email had been discussed at a media conference the day after the attacks. But he doubled down on his criticism of Jacinda Ardern saying, that when he had a phone conversation with her immediately after the attacks, she didn’t tell him about the email.
What’s more, he still hasn’t deleted the original nonsense he posted about “shock, horror, this is the first time we’ve heard about this. This is a government cover-up. Blah, blah, blah.”
Just absolute nonsense. And I agree with Matthew Hooton. Winston Peters has well-and-truly shown that he is past his use-by date and shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Cabinet table.
As he says in the Herald today, NZ First’s Shane Jones, Jenny Marcroft and the rest of them now need to decide if they want to be able to look themselves in the mirror. Or whether they’re going to turn a blind eye to their leader trying to score political points out of the mosque tragedies. Which, in my mind, is unforgiveable.
Matthew Hooton is also saying today that Christopher Luxon and National now have some soul-searching to do, as well. He says if Winston Peters’ online activities on Wednesday night aren’t enough for him to be persona non-grata for National, then what would be?
And I agree. In my mind, Winston Peters has blown it. And National should get real, show some fortitude, and stand up and say it wants nothing more to do with Winston Peters.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday John MacDonald was joined by Labour’s Duncan Webb and National’s Gerry Brownlee.
They discussed Winston Peter's comments about the mosque attack and whether he is fit for a role in a potential government.
Is New Zealand's response to the Gaza situation strong enough?
And will National's plan to have gang members wear makeup to cover up offensive tattoos work?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
All Blacks legend Frank Bunce joined John MacDonald on the show ahead of Sunday's World Cup Final.
He relived his experience against the Springboks 28 years ago, and also spoke about the importance for our retiring players to have a plan for when life in rugby has finished.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’ve been keeping an eye on all the international news networks, just in case there’s breaking news about something.
Of course, there’s breaking news about all sorts of stuff. But not the breaking news I’ve been looking out for.
And I reckon if I flicked between the channels all day, I still wouldn’t see any coverage of little old New Zealand’s call for a “humanitarian pause” in the conflict in Gaza.
So what’s happened is New Zealand has made a formal statement to the United Nations and it’s been reiterated by caretaker Prime Minister Chris Hipkins who has said: “We call on all parties to the conflict to commit to a humanitarian pause for Israel and Egypt to use a cessation of hostilities to rapidly facilitate unimpeded humanitarian assistance to civilians living in Gaza.”
Which is diplomatic speak for 'stop the fighting you lot so we can get food, fuel and other supplies through to the people in Gaza who are getting more and more desperate by the hour'.
This humanitarian pause, by the way, isn’t a call for a ceasefire. It’s probably one or two steps down from that. I’m no expert, but that’s my take.
The interesting thing about the timing of New Zealand’s statement is that it comes after the United States blocked a UN Security Council resolution this week calling for a pause in fighting to create a humanitarian corridor.
But I see, since then, it has said that it would support a humanitarian pause - like New Zealand is calling for. The US seems to think that this would be different to the pause in fighting that it was opposed to earlier in the week. The reason being that the US seems to think that a humanitarian pause would still allow Israel to continue its military operations.
But even though we’re not going to see Chris Hipkins on CNN, Sky TV, BBC or Al Jazeera talking about New Zealand’s call for a humanitarian pause in Gaza, that’s not the point.
Because I think it’s critical that even New Zealand - a tiny little country in the South Pacific - takes a stand and we say what we think about stuff going on in the world around us.
Because it would be very easy to fall into the trap of thinking that no-one cares what New Zealand thinks and so we don’t bother piping up because we don’t think anyone’s interested in what we’ve got to say.
And then, one day, we look up and realise that we’ve become a nation obsessed with road cones and potholes and not much else. Completely out of touch with the rest of the world and left wondering why other countries don’t want to talk to us about things like trade agreements.
And wondering why we’ve been left high and dry by the rest of the world if we find ourselves in strife and needing help.
Because that’s what global citizenship is all about. Having a view. Taking positions. Trying to influence outcomes. Saying what we think. Even when we know that what we say isn’t going to interest the global news networks.
Because if we didn’t take a stand on global issues, we would become much more of a hermit kingdom than some people think we already are.
What’s more, we have a proud history in New Zealand of actually giving a damn when we see things we don't like.
Nuclear testing in the South Pacific. Apartheid in South Africa. Are those things happening anymore? No. Can New Zealand take credit for it? Of course not. But we were part of the global movement that brought those terrible things to an end.
Just like we were part of the global movement that took on Nazi Germany.
So even though what New Zealand is saying today isn't making headlines around the world, it's not a reason to stop saying what we think.
We might be a tiny little country at the bottom of the world. But what we think about what’s going on in the world does actually matter. And to think otherwise, would be selling ourselves short, big time.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you thought the election campaign lasted forever, it seems the counting of the special votes is taking forever too.
It’s also looking like this drawn-out process is going to cost a lot of money. Because it’s looking like Labour is going to keep the money tap running all the way until the bitter end.
It is nuts, even though it knows full-well that the incoming government wants to scrap the Three Waters reforms, that Labour seems to be turning a blind eye to truckloads of money still being spent on its reforms.
This is the situation where the boss of one of the big new water entities created as part of Three Waters is still recruiting for a whole lot of honchos.
He’s on the hunt for a chief financial officer, a chief operations officer, and six other executives to help him run the Water Services Entity for Northland and Auckland.
Even though he will know full-well that, if National is true to its word, the outfits he runs will be gone-burger by lunchtime. Well, not quite lunchtime, but scrapping Three Waters is certainly on National’s to-do list in its first hundred days. Whenever the first hundred days start.
But you know how it is in the public sector. Let’s just press-on until we receive different instructions from the powers-that-be. Which is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the public sector. Particularly when it comes to spending public money.
This is not a beat-up on the people in the public sector, by the way. Although I think the guy running the water authority who’s still going gung-ho hiring people, I think he needs to get real.
But I am definitely beating-up on the outgoing Labour government which is banging-on about wanting to deliver a seamless transfer of power to National and ACT and maybe New Zealand First too when the time comes.
But then, at the same time, is turning a blind eye to some of the spending that is still going on despite some significant changes that will come once that seamless transfer of power to Christopher Luxon and his crew happens.
I suppose if there’s any saving grace, it might be the people who would normally apply for these roles smelling the coffee, reading the tea leaves and seeing the writing on the wall, and not even bothering applying because they could be out of a job in a few months time.
But how nuts is it that this hiring process is still happening?
A similar kind of thing happened during the election campaign, when the crowd running the Auckland Light Rail project spent $33 million buying a commercial building because it wanted the land for train stations and other infrastructure.
$33 million spent, even though National was making it very clear that, if it won the election, it would be scrapping the whole project.
I suppose that, during an election, it’s a bit different because you don’t know who’s going to win and so the public sector does have to press-on as if it is business-as-usual.
But after the election? When you know that the government’s been rolled and when you know that the one about to take over is going to pull the plug on certain things?
For this spending still to be happening is, at the very least, a complete disregard for public money.
And the fact that the outgoing Labour government seems to be perfectly fine with it and obviously isn’t telling this guy to calm the farm, shows why so many people think Labour has spent so much for so little return.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Yes and Yes. They’re my answers to the two questions about our justice system and whether change is needed when it comes to parole.
Because who says it’s right that someone sentenced to two years or less gets out after serving half their sentences?
And who says it’s right that someone serving more than two years can be considered for parole after serving just a third of their sentence? That’s unless their sentence has a non-parole period.
But, generally, you serve a third of your time and you’re up for parole. Who says that’s right? I don’t. But the law does.
The law which allowed the guy responsible for that appalling road crash near Timaru, just over two years ago, to walk free from prison this week.
You’ll remember this. August 2021 it was. Five teenagers died after a car smashed into a power pole. The impact of the crash was so severe that the car was sliced in half.
Four of the teenagers who died were in the car. The other one was in the boot. And the teenager who was driving had only just got his restricted licence which meant he wasn’t even supposed to be carrying passengers.
He'd been drinking, as well. Another thing you can't do when you’re on your restricted licence, which he'd only got three days before the crash.
But he didn’t give a damn about any of that.
Tyreese Fleming is his name. He was 19 at the time. He’s 21 now. And, in June last year, he was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison for five counts of dangerous driving causing death.
He was originally facing five counts of manslaughter but it was five counts of dangerous driving causing death that he was eventually done for.
And he got two-and-a-half years. 30 months. Or, if you want to think of it this way, he got six months for each of the kids he killed with his stupid behaviour and his total lack of respect for the law.
So, June last year, he’s sent to prison for two-and-a-half years. But, today, he’s on parole. Out of prison after serving 17 months of his 30 month sentence. Which, whether we like it or not, is perfectly within the law.
The law which says that someone serving a prison sentence of more than two years can be considered for parole after serving a third of their sentence. And the law which says someone who is sentenced to two years or less gets out after serving half their sentence.
Last year, when Tyreese Fleming was sentenced for taking the lives of those five kids with his appalling driving and his complete disregard for the restrictions you have when you’re on a restricted licence, I thought that the judge had done the right thing and the wrong thing.
The right thing - because he needed to be punished. The wrong thing - because how was prison ever going to be the best place for him to get his life back on track?
And today, I’m not going to bag the Parole Board because - technically, as the law states - the Parole Board has done the right thing.
But where things are completely wrong, is the law itself.
Because this guy, whether we think prison was the best place for him or not, he should still be there. That’s what some of the families of the teenagers who died in the crash think too. And I’m with them.
If someone gets a two-and-a-half year prison sentence, that’s what it should be. This thing about getting released after doing half your time if your sentence is less than two years, and being eligible for parole after serving a third of any sentence over two years is just nuts.
And I don’t know whether it’s this particular case that‘s made the penny drop for me the way it has today or not, but when I ask if our parole law is nuts and needs changing, my answer has to be yes.
And when I ask myself whether this idiot should still be in prison and should be serving his full sentence, my answer has to be yes.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today John MacDonald spoke to Labour's new Christchurch East MP, Reuben Davidson, and National's Matt Doocey on Politics Friday.
They discussed the election result and coalition agreements. Plus. what is wrong with our justice system when we see so many offenders getting granted home detention and early parole?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Black Caps might be on a winning streak at the world cup. But things aren't quite the same for the Canterbury Cricket Trust, which is struggling to re-pay a $1.5 million loan to the Christchurch City Council for the lighting towers at Hagley Oval.
Originally, the council was charging a 2 percent interest rate. But that’s gone up to 5.4 percent. Which means the cricket people are really struggling just to pay the interest - let alone the rest of the loan. And the Council is being really tight about it.
You’ll remember this - the big stoush over the lighting towers at Hagley Oval. Which, by the way, would have to be the best - if not one of the best - sporting facilities in the country.
So there was the big stoush in the first place over the Oval development. But then things went next-level when the cricket people started talking about putting in the big lighting towers. Six of them. Just under 50-metres high.
It was all pretty much connected with getting the Women’s Cricket World Cup here.
We’d already had games here for the men’s world cup. But to get the women’s world cup here - particularly the final - we needed lighting that was up to international broadcast standard.
In the time between the men's world cup in 2015 and the women's world cup, technology had improved and so the TV companies had different quality expectations and demands.
So all the people who thought the world was going to end back when the Hagley Oval development at Hagley Park was first brought-up, they got all fired-up again because those lighting towers were going to be absolute armageddon.
They were going to be like flames from the mouth of some giant dragon casting a giant shadow over Hagley Park. Spitting fire and scorching our beautiful pristine park, which dates back to 1855.
That wasn’t quite how the crowd opposed to the idea described them. But you get the gist.
Never mind the fact that Hagley Park is 164 hectares - bigger than Hyde Park in London, which is 140 hectares. Despite all that space, the anti-cricket oval people were all antsy that the lighting towers would be the end of Hagley Park, as we know it.
Thankfully, the pro-cricket people had the post-earthquake regeneration legislation on their side which meant that, if it could be shown that the lighting would be good for Christchurch’s recovery, then they’d get the go-ahead.
And that’s exactly what happened. Which meant that, by the time the women's world cup was happening in March and April last year, Christchurch had the set-up to be able to host the night-time final between Australia and England. Which Australia won, by the way.
So the outfit that led the charge on the lights was the Canterbury Cricket Trust, which needed a loan from the council to pay kits share of the cost for the lighting towers.
But because of the increased interest being charged by the Council, it asked for an extra five years to pay the loan off and that the loan be made interest-free loan from here on.
The council agreed to extend the loan but refused to make the loan interest-free. Which is nuts when you consider how the city has already benefited and stands to benefit because of the Cricket Trust’s fortitude to make the lights happen.
Anywhere else, the local council would pay for facilities that benefit the wider community. Especially when you can show there is an economic benefit.
And $5 million is what they reckon the women's world cup was worth to the city. And it wouldn't have happened without the lights.
But that means nothing to our council. Which is treating the loan to the Canterbury Cricket Trust the same way it treats other loans it’s got going. A recent example would be the loan given to finish a new bar in that heritage building on Manchester Street.
There is interest being charged on that loan. But there is a commercial operation happening there. So there’s revenue - money coming in the door.
Unlike the Canterbury Cricket Trust, which is saying today that the interest payments are “crippling”. And we’re being warned that the way things are going, the cricket clubs around Canterbury might have to stump up.
Which is absolutely crazy, when Sydenham Rugby Club - for example - isn’t paying for the lights at our new stadium, Te Kaha. So why should cricket have to pay?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The legendary Rodger Fox Big Band is coming to Christchurch this weekend.
They’re fusing the modern big band sound with Aotearoa-New Zealand hip-hop, and collaborating with multi-award-winning Aotearoa hip-hop legend King Kapisi and special guest Erna Ferry.
John MacDonald spoke to Rodger ahead of the concert.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger.
He pressed the Mayor on his threats to cut funding to libraries and pools in order to avoid rates increases. Does the Mayor stand by those comments?
And what will happen following the review of the Bromley Wastewater Plant fire?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A year ago today, Christchurch man Tony Kelly was rushed to hospital after being kicked in the head “martial arts-style” by a teenager in Cashel Mall, outside Ballantynes.
Tony didn’t survive his injuries. And, as we are finding out today, insult is being added to those injuries.
It was just after six o’clock at night, when Tony was followed by a group from the bus interchange in town who had some idea in their heads that he’d been taking photos of them.
It’s important to note that, as of now, no evidence has ever been found to support this claim that he had been taking photos of this group. Nevertheless, Tony was asked by security at the bus interchange to leave and, when he did, this group followed him.
They followed him down as far as Cashel Mall and, when one of them approached him, he obviously felt intimidated and so he threw a punch in self-defence. And that’s when things went from bad to worse.
Because, after he threw the punch in self-defence, he was kicked in the shin and another person in the group - his name’s Mark Nagel - stepped forward and kicked Tony in the head with his right foot using a martial arts-style kick.
Tony immediately lost consciousness and fell to the ground, with his head hitting the pavement.
Then this group all took-off back to the bus interchange and the two involved in the assault high-fived eachother and jumped on a bus. That was while people on the scene back at Cashel Mall were giving Tony CPR. He was taken to hospital, put in an induced coma, but tragically he died 10 days later.
I suppose if there’s any positive at all - not that it’s any compensation to Tony’s friends and family - but if there’s any positive, it would be the fact that the guy who kicked Tony in the head was caught and done for manslaughter.
He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two years in prison.
I know. Two years seems like nothing for kicking someone in the head in the street, pretty much in broad daylight, and killing them. But it gets worse.
Because the judge who dished-out the two-year sentence has told this guy that he can apply for home detention.
How would you feel if Tony was a friend or relative of yours? Killed after being kicked in the head outside Ballantynes by some thug. A two year sentence, with the prospect of that sentence being served-out on the couch at home.
I’m absolutely appalled.
Because this was not one of those manslaughter cases where, say, two people are having a bit of an argument and one of them feels threatened and pushes the other person out of their way and that person trips and hits their head and dies.
This wasn’t like that. This was a case where a guy was followed and intentionally kicked in the head by some creep getting all martial arts on it. He didn't punch Tony. He went absolutely next level and did this martial arts kick to the head.
And for him to get two years is bad enough. But for him to have the opportunity to apply for home detention and not even do his time behind bars - that is just insulting.
It’s not just insulting to Tony himself, and to his friends and family. It’s also insulting to the rest of us who expect the system to make it clear to people when they do these sorts of awful things, that there is no easy, alternative option.
Because no one can tell me that home detention isn’t the easier option, when you compare it to two years in a prison cell.
Tony’s family doesn’t have options. I wasn’t surprised to see that his son stormed out of court when the judge told this guy that he could apply for home detention.
Because Tony’s son doesn’t have options. He’s lost his father. His father’s dead. There’s no alternative. No other option.
So why should the creep who killed his father have options?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How confident are you in the Christchurch City Council’s ability to run its finances?
Because, just like Auckland and Wellington, we’ve now got the Christchurch council saying it’s in a financial mess.
Mayor Phil Mauger is saying that the council’s finances are "deep shtuck". That’s how he’s politely putting it. He’s also saying that the council is up a certain creek. And you know which creek that is.
So things are tight at the council. In fact, so tight, that they are looking at rates increases of 18 percent. But Phil says, before that happens, they’ll be doing the old “line-by-line” thing with the budget.
If that sounds familiar, you might remember that that’s what Phil banged-on about before he was elected mayor last year. Line-by-line. Cutting spending. All that stuff.
And yet, here we are - a year on - the budgets are blowing out and we’re potentially facing an 18 percent increase in rates.
And part of the line-by-line thing, could be cuts to things like libraries and pools to try and save money. That’s what Phil Mauger is saying. He’s also saying that some new water mains might not be put in, roading work might be delayed and cycleways could be on the chopping block.
But here’s the nub of the problem. And here’s why I have such little faith in the council getting on top of this. Because if you’ve got elected councillors making the decisions and running the finances, they’re only going to protect their patch.
They’re only going to fight for the things they want. Forget about the collective good.
Case in point. Phil Mauger’s new pothole repair crew. Remember that was one of his things he promised during his election campaign?
Well, he’s saying in one breath today that the council is in deep shtuk and needs to make cuts, which are going to make some people “seriously unhappy”. But then, in the next breath, he’s saying that his pothole repair crew won’t be one of the things that gets the chop.
That costs $10 million a year to run. Half the money comes from the government. The other $5 million is council money. But. even before all councillors have been briefed on the state of the finances - which is happening today - you’ve got the mayor saying ‘don’t touch my pet project’.
And that is what’s going to happen right around the council table.
We’ll have Phil protecting his road repair crew. We’ll have councillors like Tim Scandrett protecting the $10 million that needs to be spent on the South Library. Sara Templeton won’t be wanting to budge on cycleway spending.
Which is another one of the things Phil Mauger is talking about stopping to save money.
So it’s going to be an absolute bunfight. And that’s why I have very little confidence in the council’s ability to get on top of this and get its finances in order.
The only way it could do it properly would be to take the elected councillors completely out of the picture. Because I’ve seen it time-and-time again, when you get the council bean-counters coming to the table and saying we need to save this amount, and to do that we need to cut this.
And what happens is the politicians around the table can’t bring themselves to agree on anything. Because they all have their own special interests and causes. Special interests and causes that, most likely, got them elected and around the council table in the first place.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Let’s kick-off with a bit of financial advice. If you have shares in a sausage roll factory or an ice cream shop, sell them now.
Because, after today, sales are going to plummet without the politicians screaming around the country filling their gobs and scooping the cold stuff into cones.
Come midnight tonight, we are done for another three years. Although the real action is still to come with voting still happening until 7 o’clock tomorrow night and then the results.
I love election night. But what I think is going to be very different this time around is how people are going to react if the result isn’t what they want.
I’m picking that the mood of this campaign is going to linger.
That’s because I agree with business leader Sir Ian Taylor who is saying today that this has been the worst campaign he’s ever seen because of how divided everyone is. Not just the politicians and the parties, but us voters as well.
I have never known people to be either totally forthright in saying how bad they think the parties, the policies and the individual politicians are; or terrified of getting involved in arguments about politics.
Especially socially. I’ve even heard stories about social occasions being delayed until after the election because people just don’t want to risk getting groups together and it turning into a row about politics.
But that’s not going to end tomorrow night, or whenever we know which parties are going to be in government.
That’s because I reckon that this is the most divided we have been as a country since the 1981 Springbok rugby tour. The division among people then as to whether the tour should’ve been happening or not was probably the most divided we have been as a country.
But the way things have been during this election campaign - and even before that - would have to be a close second to the division during the Springbok Tour, don’t you think?
I’m definitely with Sir Ian Taylor when he says that this has been the worst campaign ever because of the anger and division.
Which is obvious in some of the policies that have been touted by the various parties. Policies designed to try and calm the farm because we’re all so angry.
GST off fruit and veggies. A crazy policy. But, hey, it could mean we’re less angry when we go to the supermarket.
Ending co-governance. Yep, apparently we’ll be less angry if they stop that blimmin’ “iwi takeover”.
Less road cones. Yep - that’ll make us less angry.
And, as Sir Ian is saying today, with all these politicians coming up with ideas that they think will make us less angry - or policies that just put oil on the squeaky wheel - none of the parties have come up with a long-term vision for our country.
The sort of vision you might expect politicians to come-up with. But that isn’t happening, because of the divisiveness and anger.
Which was apparent in last night’s Leaders’ Debate on TVNZ, wasn’t it? Man alive, Chris Hipkins especially was just letting rip. Especially when Christopher Luxon was going-on about Hipkins having no control over his Cabinet, and the Labour leader came back with that line of the night, saying: "None of my MPs beat people up with a bed leg."
Which was a reference, of course, to National MP Sam Uffindell. And depending who you talk to, it was either a very low blow or a brilliant piece of debating.
I think it was both. It definitely made me sit up and pay attention! Put it that way.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In the final edition of Politics Friday before election day, John was joined by Labour’s Megan Woods and National’s Gerry Brownlee live in studio.
They discussed the campaign, whether it’s been the most negative they’ve seen, and the policies they’re the proudest of leading into the election.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Can you imagine what it’s like on the National Party bus today after those three poll results that came out in the last 24 hours?
All three of them - the 1News Kantar poll, the Newshub poll, and the Guardian poll - have Winston Peters being the coalition kingmaker.
They’ve got NZ First somewhere between 6 percent and 8.2 percent. Anything over 5 percent, and Winston, Shane and the rest of the crew are back in Parliament.
In one poll, 9 percent are undecided. In another, as many as 12 percent don’t know yet who they’re going to vote for.
But I think it’s fairly safe to assume that, come Saturday night, Christopher Luxon will be reaching for the phone and “making the call”.
He is saying, of course, that he doesn't regret coming out and announcing that he will go into coalition with NZ First if it means getting rid of the current government.
But there seems to be no shortage of people saying that, as soon as he did that, he opened the door for Winston Peters because people then realised that a vote for NZ First might actually be worth it.
And that’s what I think too. I think Winston Peters and NZ First would be going nowhere fast if that hadn’t happened.
But then, in my defence, I didn’t know at the time that Christopher Luxon was going to put the welcome mat out.
Luxon himself probably didn’t know that, either. Which is why I would love to be on the National Party bus today.
Because, can’t you imagine it: Chris Bishop - he’ll be sitting down the back absolutely stewing. Because I reckon, even though he’s campaign manager, he wouldn’t have been up for the big video announcement from Luxon welcoming Winston into the tent.
Christopher Luxon, though, he’ll be up at the front of the bus, probably chatting with the driver about potholes and road cones.
Because, that’s the thing I’ve noticed from my dealings with Christopher Luxon, is when you meet him, he clicks into your world.
So he’ll be up front chatting to the driver. Chris Bishop will be parked in the back row. And old Gerry - Gerry Brownlee - he’ll be going up and down the aisle trying to keep the peace.
Because he's seen it all before, hasn’t he? There’s not much that gets him panicking. Not even the prospect of sitting around the Cabinet table with Winston Peters.
And maybe Gerry’s right. Maybe there is no reason to panic.
Maybe, it would be a good thing having Winston Peters in cahoots with National and ACT.
How many times have you heard Winston Peters say this campaign that he’s the one to bring experience into Cabinet. And I tell you what, you can’t argue with him on that front.
He’s been Deputy Prime Minister. Treasurer. Foreign Minister. He’s been around. For yonks.
Unlike some of the main players in National and ACT. By my count, only six of National’s Top 20 have been in Cabinet before. And, as we know, Christopher Luxon and David Seymour have never been in Cabinet.
So maybe Winston Peters is exactly what Christopher Luxon’s government would need to succeed.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There is an ad on the radio at the moment featuring a brilliant impersonation of Labour’s Finance spokesperson and current Finance Minister Grant Robertson.
The Taxpayers Union is behind it. They’ve also got a website that goes with it and even have vehicles painted up, as if they are a legitimate business.
They're calling it "Robbo’s Removal Company” and the gist of the whole thing is that Grant Robertson and Labour have made things so bad that they are literally making it very easy for people to move. To get out of New Zealand.
So, imagine this is a website you’d expect any moving company to have. And this one’s got cartoon pictures of Robbo and Chippy, with the big statement: “Since 2017, we have helped more than 218,000 New Zealand citizens move to other countries in pursuit of lower taxes, greater reward for hard-work and a more affordable cost of living. We make moving the quick, easy and obvious choice for skilled and successful people across the country.”
And just like a genuine website for a genuine business, it includes customer testimonials.
They say things like this from Isabella, a fictional doctor: “Robbo’s Removals made moving to Australia the obvious choice. Of course, I was initially sad about leaving behind my fellow co-workers at the hospital but they have now decided to move here too!”
Then we’ve got the attack ads coming from the other end of the political spectrum. The Council of Trade Unions, especially. These are the ones you will have seen everywhere with the image of Christopher Luxon looking like some sort of dictator.
And the message that the National Party leader is out of touch and there’s too much to risk voting him to be our next Prime Minister.
And it’s not just the ads. The CTU sent out that crazy email to all its members the other weekend saying that National wants to cut superannuation, get rid of the winter energy payment and get rid of 10-days sick leave for workers.
All wrong. In fact, if you wanted to, you could say these claims weren’t just wrong - they were actually lies. And I think they were lies. There’s no other way to put it.
And then, after the fact, the CTU came out and said it was all just a mistake.
So that’s some of the stuff the so-called “third parties” have been up to. And by third parties, I mean the likes of the CTU and the Taxpayers’ Union.
But the politicians and the parties themselves have really ramped up the attacks too.
And it’s not just the leaders. Individual MPs have been getting all negative about their opponents on social media.
So we’ve had Labour saying that National’s tax plan is a “scam”. That it should’ve been upfront from the start and said that only 3,000 households would qualify under its plan for the full “up to $250 a fortnight” in tax relief.
And yesterday, National’s Christopher Luxon was describing Chris Hipkins as the “Prime Mis-informer”. That was in relation to Labour’s plan for state-funded dental care for the under-30s.
National is saying that Labour should’ve been more open and honest and made it clear that what it was talking about was basic dental-care only. That’s why Luxon was calling Hipkins the “Prime Mis-informer”.
But is all this dissing of each other by the politicians and all the expensive ads and billboards and posters being put out there by the parties themselves and other outfits like the CTU and the taxpayers, is this actually going to make any difference?
Are they having any influence over which way you decide to vote?
At best, I’m finding some of them entertaining. But that's about it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Now in the final week of the election campaign, Labour leader Chris Hipkins joined John MacDonald live in studio to discuss the issues that matter the most to Canterbury.
They discussed the state of the region’s afterhours care, whether there’s any fat in the public sector spending, and what will have to go in order to fund their GST policy.
Plus, does he think Jacinda Ardern’s support will help Labour?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Remember the old Ministry of Works? Reckon we need it back again?
I reckon we do. Because we have another example today of what happens when you rely on governments and individual organisations to run big infrastructure projects.
So think of all the drama over the new stadium in Christchurch. Think of all the money wasted on the Auckland Harbour Bridge cycleway that went absolutely nowhere. The City Rail Link blow-outs. KiwiBuild.
You name any big infrastructure project in recent times and it seems that we have just become hopeless at doing stuff we used to be brilliant at.
So the latest example that we’re hearing about is the big Scott Base rebuild. Which has been put on hold because the Government and Antarctica New Zealand can’t agree on a deal with the contractor.
What’s happened with this particular project, is Antarctica New Zealand got just over $500 million from the New Zealand Government to rebuild Scott Base.
But, as always happens with these things, the cost of the whole thing has headed northwards and they haven’t been able to come to an agreement with the contractor.
This is Leigh's Construction, by the way. A very successful Christchurch-based outfit, which really came into its own after the earthquakes.
And it is the preferred contractor for the work. Which involves the new structures for the base being built in Timaru and eventually being shipped down to Antarctica.
And the reason this work is all happening in the first place, is because Antarctica New Zealand wants to make sure it’s set-up for research work at Scott Base for the next 50 years. So it’s come up with this plan for three new inter-connected buildings and to upgrade the wind farm down there.
I do get the sense that maybe they’ve done the usual thing and gone for the gold-plated option and told themselves that they’ll make it work come hell or high water.
But that wing-and-a-prayer approach doesn’t seem to be working and we’re finding out today that things have come to a halt. And they’re going to do a review - not exactly sure yet what that’s going to involve - but it is going to be done by internal and external experts.
Which, as you and I know, will involve more money.
It's amazing that work even started in the first place without an agreed contract. Which is why I reckon these big public projects need to be run by an outfit that knows how to run these kinds of things. An outfit like the Ministry of Works.
Because, back in its day, the MOW did all sorts of stuff. It built railway lines, tunnels, hydro dams, motorways. It was also involved in other things like airport developments.
It was originally known as the Department of Public Works. Eventually it became the Ministry of Works. And it operated from 1870 until 1993 - when Jim Bolger’s National government dished out its policy work to other government departments and created a new State-Owned Enterprise, with two divisions: Works Consultancy Services and Works Civil Construction.
Three years later they were sold off and that was the final chapter in the Ministry of Works story. But who says it couldn’t make a comeback?
Because, when you think about it, it is crazy that we expect the likes of Antarctica New Zealand to run its project and do all the negotiating and procuring. Then we expect every other outfit using public money to do the same with their big projects. All working in complete isolation from each other.
We’ve got Waka Kotahi doing the roads. We’ve got Transpower doing all the electricity infrastructure stuff. We’ve got local councils doing their thing. And we’ve got outfits like Antarctica New Zealand and the government running the big Scott Base rebuild project.
But if we had something like the old Ministry of Works, that could all be co-ordinated. I’m not saying it would be free of political interference. That would be impossible.
But how many more examples do you need, to show that we have lost our way when it comes to big infrastructure?
Waka Kotahi is a prime example of an outfit trying to do too much and failing. Imagine if its job was just the road safety stuff and we had another nationwide infrastructure agency building and maintaining the roads.
Building all the state houses the government wants to build. Building new motorways. And, yes, even building the new base in Antarctica.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch Airport’s nose is going to be out of joint today. Because the boss at Queenstown Airport, Glen Sowry, has come out firing over Christchurch’s plan to build a new airport at Tarras, in Central Otago.
He’s saying there is no need at all for another airport in the South Island and he’s put out a statement saying “it’s time to set the record straight”. Which is a statement of intent if ever I saw one.
Because he goes on to say that Christchurch Airport is spending tens of millions of dollars pushing a solution to a problem that just does not exist, and he accuses Christchurch of making what he says are “many false and unsubstantiated claims about Queenstown Airport”.
Now what he’s getting at there, is the claim that Christchurch Airport has made all along that Queenstown Airport is running out of space and so Christchurch is coming to the rescue with this plan to build a new airport at Tarras.
Which is an idea that I think is absolutely nutbar.
Here we are in Christchurch, with a council that says we’re in a climate emergency, but it seems quite happy for its airport company - which it has a 75 percent stake in - to spend gazillions building a new airport 400 kilometres away.
An airport that the people living there don’t want. An airport that the local tourism sector there doesn’t want because the area just can’t sustain massive increases in visitor numbers. And now - today - an airport that we’re being told just isn’t needed.
Now I’m fully aware that what we’re seeing today from Queenstown Airport is just as much about commerce as anything else. Because Queenstown Airport is a business, just like Christchurch Airport is a business. And, of course, Queenstown Airport doesn’t want Christchurch Airport moving-in on its patch.
Nevertheless, I’m with Glen Sowry. Christchurch Airport needs to butt out. Because you might have seen the stuff in the news recently showing what this airport in Tarras would actually look like.
I’d describe it as Westfield Mall dumped on a lifestyle block. It would be appalling.
And Glen Sowry makes it sound even worse in his statement today, when he says what Christchurch wants to do in Tarras is build a large-scale airport capable of handling widebody long-haul jets from Asia and beyond, operating night and day.
And that it would be the local community dealing with, not only the visual and noise pollution, but also the environmental costs and additional strain on infrastructure.
Christchurch Airport, of course, is hitting back. It’s just put out a statement saying “Mr Sowry's claims there's no issue with airport capacity in Central Otago just don’t add up“.
This is Christchurch Airport’s Chief Strategy and Stakeholder Officer Michael Singleton saying this.
He says Queenstown Airport’s own numbers show a significant lack of capacity beyond 2032 which, he says, will only get worse. He says if demand isn’t met, it won’t go away. Instead passengers will fly to other airports and then drive to Central Otago.
Christchurch Airport is saying that its modelling shows that people could be driving an extra 500,000 kilometres on South Island highways every day by 2050 if nothing’s done.
But what Christchurch Airport doesn’t get, is that it’s this type of bombastic nonsense that is really brassing people off in central Otago. It’s brassing-off the people living in Tarras. It’s brassing-off the tourism operators down there. And, naturally, it’s brassing-off its airport competitors - particularly Queenstown Airport.
Which, when you add all those things up, tells you - and should tell Christchurch Airport - that it has absolutely no social licence to bowl into central Otago and plant an airport there.
Because what social licence is, is public acceptance of a commercial activity. And, from what I can see, there is next-to-no public acceptance of what Christchurch Airport is proposing for Tarras.
And this “we-know-best” attitude that’s been coming through - and comes through loud and clear in its response to what the Queenstown Airport boss is saying today - makes it very clear that getting public acceptance of this Tarras Airport pipedream is going to be a very steep uphill battle for Christchurch Airport.
An airport company, 75 percent owned by Christchurch ratepayers. 75 percent owned by the Christchurch City Council which is already talking about 18 percent rates increases next year. 75 percent owned by the council that’s talking about selling assets to get the books in order.
But, at the same time, a council that seems quite happy for its airport company to spend truckloads of money on an airport 400-kilometres away that we know isn’t wanted and, apparently, isn’t needed either.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I reckon the National Party is feeling more than a little bit nervous. In fact, I think it’s starting to look desperate. Almost as desperate as Labour is looking.
Because, if I go on what people left, right and centre are telling me, Labour is toast and we’re going to see a change in government. And, as far as I’m concerned, Labour deserves everything coming at it because of the way it has started promising us things that it could so easily have done any time over the past six years.
But it’s only talking about them now because it wants to be re-elected.
And National’s desperation is all of its own making too. Just like Labour.
Because, even though people are saying they definitely want change, the poll numbers aren’t quite as definitive as some voters seem to be.
The latest one came out last night —this is the 1News Verian Poll— and it had National on 36%, Labour on 26%, the Greens on 13%, ACT on 10%, and NZ First on 6%.
Plus a bunch of the other parties all bubbling away around the 2% mark.
So last night’s numbers show that National and ACT still don’t have enough support to avoid making the phone call to Winston Peters and getting NZ First involved in what I think, we all agree, would be something of a three-headed monster.
That’s what a coalition government involving Winston Peters would be.
And so today, National has rolled-out Sir John Key in a social media campaign, basically saying that anyone thinking about voting for NZ First should forget about it and vote National instead.
He isn’t as explicit as that. But it’s very clear that the call Luxon made the other week when he announced that, if he had to, he’d get on the blower to Winston Peters and talk to him about being part of a coalition government, that that has backfired on National.
Because Luxon is now realising that there is a very real prospect that, if he wants to be Prime Minister, he’s going to have Winston Peters in the mix.
So what he’s done, is he’s got former National leader Sir John Key to make a wee video using the emotion that marketers use alot of the time - fear. When they’re selling cleaning products, they try and get us all scaredy-cat about all the invisible bugs around the house, don’t they?
And that’s what Sir John is doing. He’s getting us all scaredy-cat about a National, ACT, NZ First coalition.
Now the reason this looks so desperate, is because Sir John isn’t just promoting National or writing-off the parties on the left. He’s actually trying to put the fear of God into us over a party that National has already said it will work with to form a government. If it has to.
Because Sir John is, very clearly in his video, painting a picture of the day after the election and Luxon being in a position of having to start coalition negotiations with Winston Peters.
Which we know is an absolute last resort for National. But it’s looking more and more like it’s going to be a reality. And so National is panicking. It’s getting desperate. Because the decision to rule NZ First in is backfiring on Christopher Luxon. As most of us knew it would. Right from the start.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger is back from his sister-city trips and joined John in studio today for his regular catch up.
They discussed the trip and benefits that came from it, as well as the reason rates are looking to increase so drastically.
They also touched on just what is going on with the city's speed limits.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you needed any further evidence that our criminal justice system is out-of-whack, we’ve got it today.
And if you thought the bail system was tickety-boo and doing what it should to keep you and I safe, you might want to think again.
That’s because a report which has just been released under the Official Information Act paints a very different picture of the bail system that I’m guessing you imagine operating here in New Zealand.
It certainly paints a very different picture, as far as I’m concerned.
The overarching message that comes through in this report is that, a lot of the time, when it comes to doing checks on people on bail, the police focus on the wrong ones.
They tend to focus on low-risk offenders because it’s easier to deal with them than high-risk offenders. But also because they don’t really know who is high risk and who isn't.
The Bail Project Management Report - that’s what this report is called - has been obtained by media. And it says just 0.4 percent of offenders are flagged as being high-risk.
That’s not because only 0.4 percent are actually high risk. It’s because the IT systems the Police use aren't up-to-scratch and are failing. Meaning police don’t actually know how many are high risk.
For example, the report says that when the police rely on its automated systems - 0.4 percent of offenders are deemed high-risk.
But when they go through the list of people on bail themselves and flag people they consider to be high-risk, the stat goes from 0.4 percent to 13 percent.
Which says, doesn’t it, that the automated system vastly underestimates the number of high-risk offenders on bail.
Which means that, a lot of the time, we have the police doing more bail checks on people who don’t really need a lot of supervision - and they’re not getting around to check on the more high-risk people, the ones they really should be keeping a close eye on.
Here’s a quote from the report itself: "Current bail checks tend to focus on quantity over quality. For example checking bailees that are convenient to check rather than high priority".
“Convenient to check, rather than high priority”. How about that? That’s the state of the bail system in this country.
The report also says "there is no clear policy or guidance on how to conduct a reasonable bail check”. And what that means is things tend to vary from police district to police district.
There’s also very little oversight to ensure that, when police do a bail check, they’re complying with policy and best practise.
Now a major part of the problem is the huge increase there’s been in the number of offenders on electronically-monitored bail. And that’s expected to increase by another 35 percent over the next 18 months.
The total number of people on bail has dropped. But the number on electronic bail has gone through the roof. And the cops just don't have the systems to cope.
Another interesting fact from this report: offenders on electronically-monitored bail are eight-times more likely to breach their conditions than an offender on home detention.
Now I don't know about you. But I have never heard any politician say this election campaign that they want to throw more money into police IT systems.
They're all banging on about more cops on the beat. But none of them have said anything about the bail system and, more to the point, none of them have told us exactly how bad the bail system is. And how poorly-resourced it is.
But we know now. Thanks to this report. Which says the bail system is failing us. And we deserve much better protection from dangerous criminals.
So, if we don't have the systems to provide a safe bail system, then we need more people behind bars, don't we?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The feathers are flying with Labour accusing Christopher Luxon of being too chicken to front up to a leaders debate here in Christchurch.
And I mean, literally, too chicken. Because it’s going nuts on social media saying Luxon’s running scared with a photo of him in a chicken suit.
And I reckon National will be quietly loving it. Because how desperate does Labour look? How desperate? Very desperate.
So a bit of background. Chris Hipkins has got COVID, he’s isolating in a hotel and so can’t make it tonight - which is when the debate was going to be held in the Christchurch Town Hall in front of a couple of thousand people and beamed out online, as well.
It seems that Labour has been bending over backwards to try and re-schedule. But National isn’t quite so forthcoming with alternative dates.
Which is a bit of an understatement, actually. What National is saying is that Christopher Luxon is booked-up every night between now and the election and ‘no can do’.
It has suggested that perhaps the deputy leaders of Labour and National could have a debate instead. But we know why it’s suggesting that, don’t we? National’s Nicola Willis would wipe the floor with Labour’s Kelvin Davis. So, of course, Labour would never go for that.
So Labour is saying National is taking advantage of Hipkins being crook and it is running scared.
I read something where Megan Woods was saying something along the lines of Christopher Luxon being spooked by Chris Hipkins’ strong performance in the second televised leaders debate last week, and so he’s taking any chance he can get to avoid the Christchurch debate.
The National Party says that's nonsense. Which I agree with, by the way. Because Luxon hasn’t pulled out at all. Hipkins has pulled out because he’s stuck in a hotel room with COVID. So no-one’s to blame.
Hipkins has pulled-out - for perfectly good reasons. He’s got the COVID. And Luxon can’t re-schedule because he’s got other stuff on.
Although, I thought that National’s campaign boss Chris Bishop was a bit over-the-top yesterday when he said “guess what, people in the South Island have TV” - saying we’re not missing out at all, because we can still watch next week's debate on the telly.
If there’s any legitimate question to ask National about this, is how committed it really is to the South Island. And I’ll be asking Christopher Luxon that, when he’s here between 10 and 10:30.
Because, even though ‘yes, we do have TVs here in the South Island’ - as Chris Bishop said yesterday. Even though we can watch the debate next week from a TV studio in Auckland, there is nothing like locals having the chance to see the leaders of the two main parties in the flesh.
And having the chance to raise local issues with the two guys who want to be leading the next government after the election in just under two weeks.
But, as they say, it is what it is. And not much can be done about it. In fact, nothing can be done about it. Hipkins can’t make it tonight and Luxon is busy every other night.
And Labour just needs to get over it. It needs to drop the stupid ads on social media. Can you believe that this close to the election, it’s put thought, time and energy into making ads with Christopher Luxon dressed-up in a chicken suit?
Not to mention the fact that it is just so child-ish. And this is where a very clear distinction is starting to emerge between the two main parties. And it’s why - whether you like him or not - Christopher Luxon is looking more and more like a Prime Minister.
And, because of Labour’s stupid antics - especially this stuff with Luxon dressed as a chicken - because of this stuff, Chris Hipkins is looking less-and-less like a Prime Minister.
Thanks to some turkeys behind the scenes at Labour thinking it looks really clever.
Well it doesn’t. It’s the complete opposite. It looks desperate. And has egg all over its face.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Chris Luxon told Canterbury Mornings the photoshopped pictures of him wearing a chicken suit circulating social media, after pulling out of The Press Leader's debate, was "a load of rubbish".
"Let's be clear, [Chris Hipkins] is isolating in his hotel with Covid, we're ten days from an election and we have a debate next week anyway with TVNZ," the National leader said.
"We have a busy schedule... you know what the last ten days of an election campaigning are like."
Although he's across the country pushing his party's agenda - Luxon doesn't plan to bring his National Party campaign bus to the South Island.
"It would take too long to bring across the ferry."
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald was joined by Duncan Webb and Gerry Brownlee in studio for Politics Friday.
They discussed the need for a police chopper in Christchurch after word was released that National may seek to bring one to the city.
National's fiscal plan is out later today, will it hold all the information voters need?
And which coalition will truly be the most chaotic, if any at all?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you want proof that people will see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear, I’ve got it for you.
And it’s to do with last night’s leaders’ debate on TV3. Which, by the way, blew last week’s debate on TV1 out of the water, didn't it?
Not just because Chris Hipkins appeared to be awake this time. But also because it had a much better structure and didn’t waste time on pointless questions about what book the two leaders are reading at the moment.
Yes, there was quite a bit of Chris Hipkins and Christpher Luxon talking over eachother. Especially at the start. But Paddy Gower didn’t let them get away with not answering questions.
Although there were a couple of times when he realised he wasn’t going to get an answer. But that spoke volumes and so he let it be. In fact, someone texted me afterwards saying they thought Paddy was the winner on the night.
But, right from the start, Chris Hipkins showed that he had obviously listened to Helen Clark who, apparently, called him up after last week’s debate and said he’d been as weak as tea and needed to harden up.
I made that bit up about her saying he was as weak as tea last week. But it is being reported today that Helen Clark was so unimpressed last week that she got on the blower and gave Hipkins a bit of a talking to.
And he listened. And he was much stronger last night. Much stronger.
And, as always happens, people are asked who they thought won the thing. Which I’ll get to.
But first, I’ve got to say that aside from beating TV1 with the debate itself, TV3 also beat TV1 hands-down when it came to the panel they put together to provide analysis afterwards.
You’ll remember last week how we had Tau Henare and David Cunliffe going into overdrive with the sporting analogies, which was just cringe-material, wasn’t it?
Last night, TV3 had Josie Pagani, Julian Wilcox and Janet Wilson. And there were zero sporting analogies. Which was brilliant in itself.
And, as I say, the inevitable question was asked: who did they think won? And they all pretty much said Hipkins was the winner. I agreed with them, though, when they said that Hipkins performed more like an Opposition leader and Luxon performed more like a Prime Minister.
But, overall, they thought Hipkins was the winner.
And then you read all the analysis by all the other political commentators. And they’re saying the same thing. Luxon wasn’t necessarily bad, but Hipkins upped his game big time from last week and they’re all saying he was definitely the winner on the night.
Which brings me to what I was saying earlier about people —especially voters— seeing what they want to see and hearing what they want to hear. And the evidence today that that is definitely what happens.
There’s an online poll running on the NZ Herald website, asking people who they think won last night’s debate.
And the results, so far, are the complete opposite of what all the commentators are saying.
When I last checked, 62% of people were saying that they thought Christopher Luxon won the debate, and 32% were saying Chris Hipkins was the winner.
Which I think says a lot about how effective these debates are when it comes to informing voters. I know they’re promoted as being the big chance to find out which leader sings from your songsheet, but I don’t think they are at all.
Wherever you are on the political spectrum, how could anyone think that —based just on what we saw last night— how could anyone think that Chris Hipkins wasn’t the winner on the night?
Yes, I’m just as tired of Labour as the next person. I’m just as cynical as you are of all the about-turns Labour has done in the last few weeks, desperately trying to stay in government.
And, like most people, I think Labour’s GST off fruit and veggie policy is just lame. It’s sudden interest in having more cops - I think that’s rich coming from a party that’s been in government for the past six years.
In fact, I’ll go as far as saying that I don’t think Labour even deserves another shot.
But, even then, I can still see Chris Hipkins’ performance last night for what it was and acknowledge that, yes, he was definitely the winner on the night.
But it seems —going by this poll on the Herald website— that the majority of voters can’t do that. And that the majority of voters watch things like these televised debates and see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Tami Neilson is bringing her Rock’n’Roll Revue, featuring the original mod, Dinah Lee, and star-studded girl group The Up Doos, to Christchurch.
The tour represents a once-in-a-life-time opportunity to see the original and the latest Mod Girls and will visit the Isaac Theatre Royal in October.
She spoke to John about the tour, and her special collaboration with Country music legend, Willie Nelson.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How do you feel about you and I paying the legal bills for the Mama Hooch rapists, while their victims have had to pay for their own counselling?
Because it's been revealed today by the NZ Herald that the Jaz brothers have had nearly $900,000 in legal aid so far. And that bill is just going to increase, now they’re appealing their convictions and their sentences.
So you and I are going to cough up more money to pay for them to stand up in court and say all those women are making it up and they shouldn’t be in prison.
You probably don’t need too much reminding of what these two monsters are in prison for. But here are the main points.
They were jailed last month after being convicted of 69 charges between them. Which included rape, sexual violation, indecent assault, stupifying, disabling, making intimate recordings of women without their knowledge or consent, and supplying illegal drugs.
Danny Jaz is away for 16-and-a-half years. Roberto Jaz has a 17-year sentence. Although, they could be out sooner than that because, after they’ve served half of their sentences, they can be considered for parole.
All this offending happened while they were running the Christchurch bar that their family owned. Which, at the time, was called Mama Hooch. It’s called something else these days and the Jaz family has nothing to do with it.
Their father, Michael Jaz - who they were working for - has done a runner to Australia owing creditors 235-thousand dollars. So, overall, they’re a “wonderful” family, aren’t they?
He owes more than $200,000 to creditors. And his low-life sons - who were born in Australia - have had their noses in the legal aid trough to the tune of $896,000. And their noses are still in the trough, because they’re relying on legal aid to fund their appeals.
Now I get the whole legal aid thing. And I get that there will be cases where it just seems outrageous that the taxpayer is paying the legal costs of some absolute low lifes.
The mosque terrorist is another example. We paid more than $392,000 for his legal representation. Another Australian.
And if these Mama Hooch rapists qualified for legal aid, then it is what it is.
The rules say that someone can get legal aid if they can’t afford a lawyer and have been charged with something that could end up with them going to prison for six months or more.
You also qualify for legal aid if you’re appealing your conviction or sentence.
But what really sticks in my claw is the fact that, while these two were having everything paid for, there were women suffering because of the monstrous way they were treated by these two, who were paying for their own counselling to try and deal with what they’d been through. Let alone recover.
And that’s exactly what one of their victims is saying today too. Her name is Sophie Brown. She is the only Mama Hooch victim who has chosen to drop her statutory name suppression. Meaning she can speak publicly about the case.
She says she feels sad about the amount of legal aid money that has gone into the Jaz brothers. And, as she points out in the Herald story, as a taxpayer she’s paying for it too. Just like you and I are.
And she says, apart from being paid for their time during the trial and having travel sorted out for them and getting a bit of counselling from a local charity, the victims have pretty much been left to fend for themselves.
Some have had to move out of town, because of the trauma. No costs covered there. They’ve had to pay for their own counselling. No costs covered there.
And, as Sophie says: “Why shouldn't the brothers be paying for the counselling services that they've put on these girls.” And who could argue with that?
Someone else who is speaking out on this today is victim advocate Ruth Money.
She says the amount of legal aid money spent on the Mama Hoch rapists is “absolutely obscene”. Again, who could argue with that?
She says if only their victims could get even just 10 percent of that to help with the therapy they need.
Here’s how she puts it: “Victims have to wait years and years, and self-fund most of their help themselves. And yet predators receive these extortionate rates of support from the state.”
Could the system be any more degrading?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Welcome to the People's Republic of Pushovers.
Because, as much as I think I want to, I just can’t bring myself to support this idea of an amnesty for overstayers who have been here more than 10 years.
It’s a policy that Labour’s announced, saying it’s all about New Zealand making good for the dawn raids back in the day when cops would turn up first thing in the morning, drag people out of their beds and throw them in the paddy wagon.
The irony, by the way, is that the dawn raids were first introduced in 1973 by Norman Kirk's Labour government. A year later, they pulled the plug. But Rob Muldoon brought them back again down the track.
And they were shockingly racist. Racist, state-sanctioned home invasions. That’s what they were. Because, back in the 1970s and 1980s, even though Pacific people made up just a third of all overstayers, they made up 86 percent of prosecutions.
People from the United States and Britain, by the way, who also made up about a third of all overstayers, only accounted for about five percent of prosecutions.
So fast-forward to July this year and the revelation that, even though the Labour government had done the big apology for the raids back in August 2021, the immigration raids on overstayers had continued.
And the government, quite rightly, got a caning for the hypocrisy of it all.
So it’s licked its wounds and has come out with this policy of an amnesty for overstayers who have been here longer than 10 years, saying that this is all about making good for the dawn raids.
Except it’s not. Because this amnesty would not be limited to overstayers from Pacific countries.
Here’s exactly what Labour says in its media release. It says it’s come up with the amnesty idea to "make good on the dawn raids apology by providing a one-off regularisation programme for Pacific and other migrants who have been in New Zealand more than 10 years”.
And the key words there are “Pacific and other migrants”. So not just Pasifika people. Claiming that it’s all about the dawn raids is absolute nonsense.
Which is one of the reasons why I can’t support it. Because it’s not actually about the dawn raids at all. It seems it’s about anyone who decides that they’re bigger than our immigration laws. From anywhere.
And according to Labour, we’re talking about as many as 20, 000 people who would be let-off coming here illegally and allowed to stay. Between 14,000 and 20,000, that’s what Labour itself is saying.
The other reason why I think it stinks, is that nowhere else in the world would you find a country willing to turn such a blind eye to illegal immigrants.
Years ago, when we moved overseas for a while, it never entered my mind to go somewhere and just stick around until the authorities caught up with me. That’s because I knew pretty much every country in the world didn’t tolerate that sort of thing.
But here in New Zealand? Absolute pushovers.
I probably wouldn’t feel so strongly about it if the amnesty was just for overstayers from Pacific countries. Because the relationship New Zealand has with these countries is quite unique. Places such as Tokelau, Niue and the Cook Islands even use the New Zealand currency, don’t they?
But to go all open-slather on it and say that this amnesty would be for all illegal migrants who have been here longer than 10 years - well, that’s going too far for me.
And that’s why I think Labour’s policy of turning a blind eye to as many as 20,000 illegal immigrants is further proof that we are well-and-truly the People’s Republic of Pushovers.
It appears the Immigration Minister, Andrew Little, feels the same way and is another Labour minister being pushed aside by Chris Hipkins.
Because here’s what Andrew Little said in Parliament just last month: “We have to think about the signal that we’re giving to people if they think ‘oh gee, this is a government that just routinely gives amnesties. If we stick around long enough, we’ll be OK.”
That’s what Labour’s Andrew Little said just last month. And I’m with him.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
So the clocks went forward one hour yesterday morning.
And then, today, National leader Christopher Luxon winds them back again. In fact, he’s wound the clocks back to 2017. Which is the last time we had Winston Peters deciding the outcome of an election.
And today, it looks like there’s potential for that to happen all over again this time around. Because Luxon says that, if he has to after the election, he will be getting on the blower to Winston Peters and talking turkey about including NZ First in a coalition government.
After weeks and weeks of dancing on the head of a pin over this, Luxon has said pretty much the complete opposite of what Labour’s Chris Hipkins said a few weeks back.
Hipkins said he’s not in the least bit interested in forming a government with Winston Peters.
But Luxon has gone completely in the other direction. He is shaking off the welcome mat, he’s got it out in the backyard, whacking it with a broomstick, getting it all nice and clean and says he will be rolling it out for Winston Peters if he has to. If that’s what he needs to do to form a government and get rid of the current Labour government.
And if he does that, it could even mean Winston Peters being Deputy Prime Minister again. Because he did not rule that out when asked on Newstalk ZB this morning.
ACT leader David Seymour was being somewhat diplomatic on the radio this morning.
But I think Christopher Luxon has made a big mistake. Not because I necessarily think he’s going to need NZ First to form a government. He might, who knows.
I think he’s made a mistake because it makes him look desperate. I hear what he’s saying about doing whatever it takes to get a change of government. But David Seymour and Winston Peters?
Can I take you back to 2017 and something one of Luxon’s National Party predecessors said.
This is Jim Bolger, who knows full well what it’s like to be in a coalition. Especially a coalition with New Zealand First. Here’s what he said about forming coalitions.
"You have to be able to put past differences in the past, leave them in the past and look at what you can do. Because what you're talking about is forming a government for the future, not to re-litigate the past.”
That was Jim Bolger six years ago. Jim Bolger who not only formed a coalition government with Winston Peters, but also kicked Winston Peters out of Cabinet in 1992. The Jim Bolger who, four years later, welcomed him back like the prodigal son.
I don't think that sort of kissing and making-up would ever happen between David Seymour and Winston Peters. And I think Christopher Luxon is dreaming if he thinks otherwise.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Winston Peters joined Canterbury Mornings this morning following National's announcement that they will consider working with NZ First should they need to form a government.
John asked Winston if he received a phone call from Chris Luxon, and how he felt about working with National. They also covered co-governance, the campaign for NZ First, and why Winston still feels so passionately about running again.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National’s tax fantasy is dead.
Now, if you’re one of the people who seem to go completely ape whenever I mention the National Party and who accuse me every time of being anti-National, calm the farm for a minute. Because what I said is a quote. I’m not saying it. It’s a quote.
It’s a quote from the headline on political commentator Matthew Hooton’s weekly column, which is published every Friday morning.
Matthew Hooton who was the PR man for Todd Muller when he was National leader for five minutes. Matthew Hooton who said this time last year that the current Labour government is the most inept government New Zealand has ever had.
So he’s not saying what he’s saying today in the NZ Herald because he’s anti-National.
The reason he’s saying National’s tax plan is dead, is because the ACT Party has looked at the Government’s books - which were opened for all the world to see last week in the Pre-Election Fiscal Update (PREFU - and has had a re-think on taxation.
And, as part of that re-think, it’s decided that now is not the time for significant tax cuts. And I agree.
ACT is saying now that it reckons the country could afford tax cuts of several hundred dollars a year. Compare that to National, which is still trotting-out the old “trust, us, everything will be fine” line. And is still telling us that a National-led government would reduce income tax by as much as several hundred dollars a month.
ACT says several hundred dollars a year. National says several hundred dollars a month.
And Matthew Hooton, in his article today, is saying that ACT’s revised approach on tax is the final nail for National’s policy because there’s no chance it could get 61 votes in Parliament.
And he is spot on. ACT wouldn’t support National’s tax plan. Neither would New Zealand First. Winston Peters has made it very clear that he doesn’t support National’s policy.
He said at a public meeting on Monday that he would even consider trying to get rid of National’s tax cuts as part of any coalition discussions.
So you can see why Christopher Luxon, pretty much every time he speaks, tells people to give both of their votes to National. Because without an outright majority in Parliament, the tax cuts are history.
But we know that National doesn’t have a hope-in-hell of getting a majority like Labour has at the moment. I think we’ve learned from the last three years that an outright majority is a disaster.
So without its coalition partners supporting its tax plan, then Matthew Hooton is spot-on when he says National’s tax policy is history.
As he says in his article, when National found itself being criticised left, right and centre for its policy, it could have done something simple like tweak the timing of it and voters would have accepted that, because of the current financial situation.
But National didn’t do that. In fact, it dug its heels in. Telling us all that it had the modelling; it had the numbers; and it would be pressing-on with the cuts if it ended up in government. Rock solid.
Or as Matthew Hooton describes it: “National then decided to double-down on its lie, smearing the professional reputation of the country’s most reputable economists, financial analysts and tax experts.”
So I think in light of National’s obvious coalition partner, ACT, coming out and saying now is not the time to be promising big tax cuts, and revising its own tax policy, National needs to do the same.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by Labour's Duncan Webb and National's Gerry Brownlee.
They discussed tax policies, Labour's changed stance on the prison population, and just who is to blame for the shocking state of Oranga Tamariki?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by Labour's Duncan Webb and National's Gerry Brownlee.
They discussed tax policies, Labour's changed stance on the prison population, and just who is to blame for the shocking state of Oranga Tamariki?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Dinah Lee, the original Mod, joined John MacDonald on Canterbury Mornings.
She became a household name in the 60s with her hit songs ‘Do The Blue Beat’, ‘Don’t You Know Yockomo’ and ‘Reet Petite,’ and a fashion trendsetter in the 60s and 70s.
She's part of ‘Tami Neilson’s Rock’n’Roll Revue’, also featuring star-studded girl group ‘The Up Doos.’
The tour represents a once-in-a-life-time opportunity for fans to see the original and the latest Mod Girls
John spoke to Dinah about the show, and some of the remarkable things she has done in her career.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I don’t know how some lawyers manage to sleep at night.
Especially ones who say an innocent guy who was viciously attacked by about a dozen Black Power gang members wasn’t as vulnerable as the court had made out.
Especially ones who are trying right now to get these monsters out of prison and sitting at home with an ankle bracelet on.
What this is all about, is something that happened in September last year when an innocent middle-aged man was brutally attacked by up to 13 Mongrel Mob guys.
And I say “innocent”, because the only thing this poor guy was guilty of, was making what turned out to be a bad decision to put on a red sweatshirt before he walked down to his local McDonalds restaurant for lunch. Something he did most days.
I’ll get to some of the outrageous things the lawyer representing some of these gang guys said in court yesterday shortly. But first, let me run you through a bit of the background.
So it was September last year in Hawera, and this poor guy was on his way to Maccas. And these Black Power guys spotted him in his red sweatshirt and they went all red-rag-to-a-bull on it, thinking he was a rival from the Mongrel Mob. Just because he was wearing the red top.
So they followed him to the McDonalds restaurant and, after he’d ordered and was waiting for his food, they let rip.
He ended up on the floor and was punched and kicked 14 times. This included punches in the head. He was stabbed in the torso, as well.
It was all caught on security cameras. Not all of the attackers could be identified - but seven of them ended up in court and, in June this year, they were sentenced.
And, at the time, he told the court that the attack had shaken his world. He said he pleaded with the gang members to stop, telling them that he had nothing to do with the Mongrel Mob. But they kept going.
He said he was terrified at the time and was still terrified and finds it hard to leave the house sometimes.
The court also heard that the 40-year-old man lives with his parents and suffers from a mental illness, which he takes medication for everyday.
And so three of these cowards, who ended up in prison, aren’t happy with their sentences - think they’ve been hard done by - and their lawyers made their cases yesterday to have their sentences reduced, be let out of prison and allowed to sit at home with ankle bracelets on.
The judge who heard yesterday’s appeal has reserved her decision. So we have to wait for the outcome.
But some of the comments the lawyers representing these guys made in court yesterday are staggering. Which is why I'm wondering how they sleep at night.
Nathan Bourke is the lawyer I’m going to quote first.
He said, aside from the stab injury, the victim only came out of the beating with a cut on his face and general bruising.
He said that, even though the victim was outnumbered by about 13-to-1, he was a grown man, not elderly and heavily built. This lawyer - who, in my honest opinion, should really be ashamed of his comments - also said that the victim’s mental impairment didn’t make him any more physically vulnerable.
The other lawyer, Paul Keegan, was just as bad - in my honest opinion - when he said in court yesterday that his client only dished out two punches to the victim which he described as being “not a high level of involvement”.
Now I get that lawyers have a job to do. But these comments in court were absolutely shameful. They not only disrespected the victim, they tried to minimise the impact of this vicious assault on this innocent guy.
An innocent guy whose only wrongdoing was getting up that morning and putting on a red sweatshirt.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Last night’s leaders’ debate on TV was a brilliant advertisement for the minor parties.
In fact, I reckon Labour and National could make some money out of it because, as far as I’m concerned, I thought it provided 90 minutes of reasons not to go with the traditional red and blue parties.
So what I reckon Chris Hipkins and Christopher Luxon should be doing today, is writing out some invoices and sending them to all the minor parties, because that kind of primetime TV advertising doesn’t come cheap.
The common consensus among the commentators seems to be that Christopher Luxon’s performance was stronger than Labour leader Chris Hipkins’. It happens all the time - people chiming in with their thoughts on who “won”.
But I actually think neither of them won. It was the minor parties who won.
And as for the analysis after the debate. Man alive, if you stuck around for that, what about all the ridiculous sporting analogies?
We had former National and New Zealand First MP Tau Henare, former Labour leader David Cunliffe and TVNZ’s deputy political editor Maiki Sherman. And all the two guys could bang on about was the All Blacks and the Warriors and the World Cup.
At one point, poor-old Maiki obviously felt she had no option but to go down the sporting analogy route. She said as much.
Because it seemed every time Tau Henare and David Cunliffe opened their mouths, they’d go on about it being “a bit like the Warriors”, or “Christopher Luxon was like France and Chris Hipkins was like the All Blacks…and, like the All Blacks, Hipkins needs to come back and show he’s got more in the tank.”
I don’t know about you. But when I sat there watching that, I thought to myself ‘if this is high quality political analysis, then God help us’.
So the sporting analogies have to go from the next debate. So too do some of the meaningless questions. I don’t care what book Christopher Luxon is reading at the moment. I don’t care how many times they’ve been into churches this year.
What I did want to know last night, though, is why Chris Hipkins - just hours before the debate - made that haphazard announcement that Labour was ditching its goal of reducing the prison population by 30 percent.
It happened yesterday afternoon and had some people speculating that it was a pre-emptive move ahead of the debate. A pre-emptive move that Corrections Minister Kelvin Davis didn’t seem to even know about until after Chris Hipkins had announced it.
That’s the stuff I wanted to hear about. But we didn’t, of course, because these debates are carefully stage-managed and the topics up for discussion would have been settled-on weeks ago.
Which meant all it did, was reinforce the view some people have that our two main political parties are increasingly becoming one and the same.
Christopher Luxon said it himself - several times. It was something along the lines of “we both want the same things, but we’ve got different ideas on how to achieve them.”
The question there then is that, when it comes to voting, do we vote for outcomes or do we vote for methods of achieving those outcomes?
Hands down, we vote for outcomes. So if you’ve got the leaders of the two big political parties saying they want the same outcomes - then bring-in the minor parties. Because last night’s debate showed us that the minor parties really are the only alternatives to what we have now.
Political commentator Matthew Hooton wrote a piece in the NZ Herald recently saying that voter confidence in what he calls Labour and National’s “increasingly lazy, cynical and arrogant” duopoly in New Zealand politics has collapsed.
He says never before have Labour and National been rejected by so many voters at the same time.
And I reckon, based on what we saw in last night’s TV debate, support for the purple vote is about to get even lower. And I’m in no doubt that, when it comes to picking a winner from last night, it was the minor parties. It wasn’t Luxon and it wasn’t Hipkins.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings John MacDonald was joined by ACT Leader, David Seymour.
John asked him if he felt voters could now look to the smaller parties after last night's Leaders Debate. They also talked about why his party is against co-governance, and how his policies on law and order will bring crime under control in New Zealand.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you’re in the market for a new car, maybe you should think about getting a horse and cart instead. Because the Christchurch City Council wants to lower speed limits big time.
Down to 30 kilometres per hour in a lot of areas. Even down to 10 kph - just like they’re planning for that stretch of Gloucester Street where they’re going to blow a truckload of money on that 10-week trial.
The council wants to extend that 10 kph speed limit and have it pretty much in any area where vehicles and pedestrians use the same bit of asphalt or paving. Now that part of all this makes sense to me. As for the rest of it.
It’s all part of the council’s Draft Safer Speed Plan, which it put out for feedback yesterday.
Here are some of the other key numbers in what the Council’s proposing. It wants to have a speed limit of 30 kph in all residential streets and 40 kph on busier streets.
On roads like Memorial Ave, Blenheim Rd, Aldwins Road and Linwood Ave, the council wants the speed limits to go down to 50 kph. And any rural roads that are part of the council’s network, it’s talking about making speed limits of 60 and 80 kilometres per hour.
This is all at the same time as a new study which has found that most people think speed limits are fine as they are and don’t want to see any change.
Sixty-five percent said they thought the limits are about right as they are now. Although, don’t ask me what they are - because it seems the speed limit changes every 200 metres these days, doesn’t it?
Other results form this study show 20 percent of people think speed limits should be higher than what they are now. Twelve percent think they should be lower. And 3 percent of people are unsure.
So it’s against that backdrop of public opinion that the Christchurch City Council has come out with this plan to lower speed limits over the next few years.
Its Transport Operations Manager Stephen Wright is saying that making roads safer is a key priority for the council, and evidence shows that safer speeds save lives.
One of the stats he’s using to justify the changes is that if a pedestrian is hit by a car travelling at 50 kilometres per hour, their chance of surviving is 20 percent. But, if they’re hit by a vehicle travelling 30 kph, then the survival rate increases to 90 percent.
Now I’m not going to argue with that. Because I don’t have any other evidence or statistics to back-up any argument against it. But also because it seems commonsense to think that the slower a vehicle is going, the less of a threat it is to pedestrians.
I’ve had a read of the council’s draft plan and another thing it’s pointing out is that lower speed limits would make it much easier for drivers to stop suddenly if something happened in front of them. Again, I’m not going to argue with that.
However, like a lot of these strategies and plans, other considerations seem to be missing.
The conspiracy theorists, of course, will say that this is part of the masterplan to force us out of our cars. And, on this occasion, they would be right. Because the council’s document has a little diagram showing how lower speed limits would change things. And one of those changes - according to the council anyway - is more people riding bikes and scooters, and walking.
So that’s all in there. But what isn’t in there, is what these reduced speed limits might mean for the efficiency of New Zealand’s second-largest city. And nowhere in this plan, does it mention that the population here is expected to increase and increase and increase.
In the next 20-odd years, the number of people living here is expected to increase by about 30 percent. They’re talking about the Greater Christchurch population being over 700-000.
But the council doesn’t seem to be factoring this growth into its thinking. And, surely, the longer it takes us to get around the place - with more and more people living here every year - surely, that’s just a recipe for us becoming another bottleneck city like Auckland.
What’s more, lowering speed limits doesn’t suddenly make people better drivers. People won’t stop running red lights if the speed limit is 30 kph. It won’t stop muppets keeping their indicators on when they drive straight through intersections.
Lowering speed limits won’t make people stop looking at their phone all the time when they’re driving. And lower speed limits certainly won’t stop people taking off from the cops and crashing.
The only thing these lower speed limits will do is make everybody more frustrated and more willing to take risks. Which would completely go against the intent behind this plan by the council.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
An absolute tragedy over the weekend, with an 18-year-old dying yesterday morning after the car she was in crashed into the side of a house in Rangiora.
They’d been at an illegal street racing event and when the police turned-up just before a-quarter-to-five, the driver took off and ended up crashing.
They started following but gave up after a while because of the way the car was being driven and because they got into a built-up area.
Not long after that, it seems, the driver lost control and crashed.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, boy racers are here to stay. The last time I said it, was about three weeks ago when the people at Orana Park were in the news saying that boy racers were causing mayhem for their animals.
Because MacLean's Island is one of the spots the boy racers have these burn-out events. And all the revving and screeching of tyres have had some of the animals so freaked out that they’ve panicked and they’ve been running around their enclosures and getting injured. There have been some serious cuts and bruises going on.
So, last time we talked about it, it was all about the animals. Today, we’re talking about it, because an 18-year-old woman has lost her life.
The car she was in had been at a burn-out session at Fernside. There, MacLean's Island, and West Melton are the three main areas where these things happen. That’s because, years ago, the city council brought in the anti-cruising rules. Which effectively shifted the problem from the city out to the semi-rural areas.
Although there are still parts of town where they congregate.
Either way, the problem’s still here. And I don’t see it changing much, either.
But if I had to come up with one thing that I thought might remotely make a difference, it would be raising the age people can get their licence.
Years ago it used to be15. Now it’s 16 and there is the staggered process: Learner, Restricted and Full. But what if it went up to 18? Or even 20?
That could possibly make some difference. But I reckon there’d be such an uproar that it would never happen. That’s because we seem to think here in New Zealand that driving a car is a human right. Not a privilege. Some people seem to think it’s a human right.
And if you raise the driving age, it ignores all the brilliant young people out there who don’t do burnouts. Who don’t scream off when the cops ask them to stop.
It also assumes that, even by the time someone turns 20, they’re going to be all sensible on it.
Well, they’re not. If you were really going to go hardcore and raise the driving age to try and prevent this sort of thing, you’d have to put limitations on people right up to about the age of about 25.
Because, apparently, that’s when people’s brains - especially men - become capable of making sensible decisions.
Unlike the person driving the car involved in the crash yesterday morning - an 18-year-old guy - who allegedly took-off from the police in a car that had a pink sticker on it. Which means that it shouldn’t have even been on the road.
A pink sticker goes on any vehicle that’s been ordered off the road because it’s considered too unsafe to be driven. And it can’t go on the road until it’s been re-checked and gets a warrant of fitness.
The tragic irony in all this is that it was only Saturday - two days ago - when the New Zealand Herald ran quite a lengthy story about the boy racer problem here in Canterbury.
And it said in the story that Canterbury is the only region that has a dedicated anti-boy racer police unit. Officially it’s called the “Anti-Social Road User Squad”. And it involves police staff who have some sort of background in cars.
They were described in the story as being passionate about what they do. And, apparently, cops all around the country get in touch to get advice from them on how to deal with boy racers.
But even then, having this special anti-boy racer police unit, didn’t prevent what happened yesterday morning in Rangiora. And now, the 18-year-old driver is facing a court appearance tomorrow and the family and friends of the woman killed are dealing with an enormous loss.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National’s tax plan debacle is looking more and more like an episode of Grand Designs.
A wide-eyed optimistic couple with a big dream. They reckon they’ve done the numbers and can definitely make it work. But, as time goes on, some people start raising their eyebrows and asking a few questions and the shiny happy people start getting all defensive on it.
But then, as we all know, most times we find out that people were right to be raising their eyebrows and the numbers never stack up.
Another situation you could compare National’s tax plan debacle to is when, again, a wide-eyed optimistic couple with a big dream, fall in love with a half-renovated villa and convince themselves that even though the people selling it have run out of puff, they can turn things around and get the renovation back on track.
And again, like the Grand Designs situation, when they start telling other people about their big vision and every Tom, Dick and Harry starts chiming in with their opinion, the wide-eyed couple start to feel under attack because people start telling them what they don’t want to hear. Or people start asking tricky questions.
People want to know how much they reckon it’s going to cost to finish the renovation. They get people pulling holes in their estimates or telling them that, instead of taking on a half-finished villa, they should be doing something less risky and looking for a sensible brick and tile with aluminium joinery.
And, again, like on Grand Designs, the wide-eyed couple get sick and tired of people poo-pooing their ideas and they get all defensive and they just don’t want to talk about it anymore. Even when they know, in their heart of hearts, that a big part of what they want to do is all wing-on-a-prayer, hoping for the best, it’ll all come out in the wash.
Because where there’s a will, there’s a way! Right?
Well, that approach might be fine for renovating a house. It’s a completely different story, though, when it comes to renovating an economy.
And so, yesterday, we had three economists from across the political divide coming out with their analysis of National’s tax plan. And they reckon National could be over-cooking the numbers to the tune of nearly $500 million per year.
They are former economist Sam Warburton, former Reserve Bank head of financial markets Michael Reddell and Corelogic head of research Nick Goodall.
And what they’ve done, is they’ve spent hours over the past couple of weeks doing some modelling work on National’s plan to tax foreigners buying property here. Which is one way National plans to fund its tax changes.
These three economists have looked at three different scenarios and reckon this part of National’s plan would be more likely to bring in between $212 million and $286 million per year. A lot less than the $700 million National is saying that it’s going to raise.
So these experts are saying the gap between National’s numbers and their numbers is between $450 million and $520 million a year. Or around $2 billion over the next four years.
But National's Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis aren't budging and say they've released all the detail we need to see and we just need to trust them to deliver.
Now I’ve doubted National’s numbers on the foreign house buyer thing right from the start. And the numbers that came out yesterday back me up on that.
I also think National is overcooking the numbers when it comes to the money it thinks it’s going to save on public sector spending.
That’s because when Christopher Luxon was here the other week, he couldn’t tell me when current contracts end for all the consultants and contractors he wants to get rid of. If he doesn’t know that, then he has no idea when he can achieve those savings.
And then we had Nicola Willis making the big claim this week that she reckons the public service cuts can be made by Christmas. Which means it won’t be the consultants that get the chop first. It’ll be public service staff who go.
The thing is, though - and I didn’t always think this would be the case - but I think they’re going to get away with this smoke and mirrors behaviour because there seem to be enough people out there who seem to think a change of government is more important than facts.
And it’s not even people thinking about their own wallets. It’s people so obsessed about getting rid of Labour. And the tragedy of all that, is that they even seem to be willing to turn a blind eye to National’s smoke and mirrors, if it means getting rid of this current government on October 14.
I’m just as tired of the current Labour government as the next person. But where we differ, is that I’m not going to fall for the wing-and-a-prayer promises from National, if it’s not going to front up with the facts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined in studio by Labour's Megan Woods and National's Matt Doocey for Politics Friday.
As the election campaign ramps into the final month, they discussed National's Tax Policy numbers, the economic state of New Zealand, and what will happen to Three Waters.
LISTEN NOW
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
ACT leader David Seymour wasn’t eating pies on TV last night like the other party leaders. But he was spitting tacks about dangerous criminals not being locked-up in prison.
He was out promoting his party’s law and order policy and, if I was to sum up the message he was trying to get across, it would be this: “More people should be in prison”.
Now I don’t necessarily agree that there should be more people behind bars. But we sure as hell need to get things in order and make sure the people who should be locked up are locked up.
So the policy ACT is pushing has a few elements to it. As well as spending $1 billion on 500 more prison beds, Seymour’s crew want to make sure that the justice system focuses more on the victims of crime, and less on the criminals themselves.
And they’ll get no argument from me on that front. A brilliant part of ACT’s policy is this idea of the Crown stepping-in if crims are slow or fail to make reparation payments to their victims.
Because, let’s face it, whenever you see a report in the media saying a judge has ordered someone to pay reparation, you do wonder to yourself how likely it is that that’s actually going to happen.
I do. And, obviously if ACT has come up with this idea as part of its law and order policy, then I must be on the money and there must be a truckload of victims not getting the reparation they deserve when they should be getting it or if at all.
So, yes, this would mean the taxpayer jumping-in and coming to the rescue when crims fail to do what they’re ordered to do by the courts. But why should the victims of crime suffer any more than they have already? It’s a great idea.
As for the ‘more people behind bars’ thing that ACT is pushing. I think we could be a bit smarter on this.
What I would do, is make prison automatic for anyone who behaves violently towards people or property.
Because if someone was to ask you whether you feel safe or not, I bet it would come down to your sense of physical safety.
Scammers, for example. They can be devastating for people who fall for their text messages or emails or automated phone calls saying “hey, it’s your bank here” or “hey, it’s your power company here”.
But what they do doesn’t threaten our physical safety.
Just like any fraudster, really. They are a threat to our financial security but not our physical security.
So, instead of just going holus-bolus and spending $1 billion on 500 more prison beds, wouldn’t it be better to have some very clear non-negotiables when it comes to who actually belongs behind bars?
And, for me, that would be anyone who is violent towards people and property. So your ram-raiders, people involved in family harm crimes, any form of sexual crime, bank robbers, service station robbers, carjackers, home invaders…all of them. I’m in no doubt that anyone involved in those sorts of crimes don’t belong in society.
Which may very well mean we still need more prison beds, as ACT is pushing for. But maybe we wouldn’t.
Because, what if we decided that anyone who commits a crime that doesn’t threaten our physical safety were the ones who got to wear the ankle bracelet and serve their time on the couch at home?
Who would they be? Well, I suppose if we were to give them a label, it would be white-collar criminals.
The people who come up with elaborate scams to rip-off their employers. Or the ones who rip off government departments for things like COVID support of welfare payments.
It seems nuts, doesn’t it, that if we’re running out of room at our prisons, these people are taking up space and other, more dangerous people, are out on home detention.
One example - the guy who did the shootings on the building site in Auckland recently. He was on home detention after violently assaulting his partner. Under my approach, he wouldn’t have been on Home D, he would’ve been in prison. Because what he did was act violently towards a person.
So that’s where I’d start. Making sure that the criminals who are a threat to our personal safety, are taken out of circulation. And only having home detention an option for the crims who aren’t a threat to our physical safety.
Maybe then, we might not need 500 more prison beds.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It was a beautiful sunny morning. But, even though it looked warm, it was still pretty chilly.
And when Chris Hipkins looked out the window at his Christchurch hotel this morning he would’ve thought the same. That it looked like a beautiful spring day. But, as soon as he walked outside, he would’ve realised that it wasn’t and there was still a chill in the air.
Except for him, it wouldn't have been just the fresh air sending a shiver up the spine. He’s also had the fright of his political life with that disastrous poll result that came out last night.
He’s putting on the happy face. But no one can deny - based on last night’s Newshub poll - that Labour is in freefall.
That the bread and butter is looking more like toast and butter.
Labour is down to 26.8%. National is up at 40.9%. And on the preferred Prime Minister front, Hipkins is now level-pegging with Christopher Luxon.
In the last few weeks, it was that preferred Prime Minister ranking that had given Hipkins a bit of an edge over Luxon. A bit of an edge. Not anymore, though.
The question in my mind about this latest poll result, is how much it reflects genuine anger with Labour’s leadership over the past few years versus people just being sick of the sight of Labour.
I’m not angry with them. But I’m certainly bored of them. Which is probably how it was always going to be considering how much they were in our face day-in, day-out during COVID.
And Labour itself looks bored too. Chris Hipkins and his ministers look tired, worn-out and over it. They look like a third-term government. Not a second-term government. And they don’t just look tired and over it. They come across as arrogant, as well.
Arrogance. That’s why Chris Hipkins has been let down time-and-time again this year by his ministers. Arrogance. That’s why, when he was on Newstalk ZB this morning, he didn’t know anything about his Northcote MP Shanan Halbert being in hot water over his election fliers.
When he was asked, Hipkins said he knew nothing about it. And when I heard him say that, I thought that’s what arrogance sounds like. That’s what someone who is being failed by his team time-and-time again sounds like.
That’s what someone who is over it sounds like.
And then there’s Labour’s election policies. At best, they’re half-hearted, cobbled-together. Or they’re completely cynical.
GST off fruit and veggies. We know, don’t we, that not even Labour’s finance guy thinks it’s a good idea. In fact, we know that Grant Robertson thinks it’s a complete dog of an idea.
And we’ve already worked out that, if this happened, it would only be a few months before we’d have no idea whether we were paying less because of no GST. So that’s a half-baked, half-hearted policy if ever there was one.
Then there’s the cynical policy that came out last week, promising 300 new frontline cops if they get back into government.
Three months ago, Labour thought 1530 more frontline cops and 270 more back office cops was all we needed. Just weeks out from the election, though, it thinks we need to top that up with another 300. So cynical.
So cynical. So arrogant. And so tired. And that’s why it’s now polling like a government heading for oblivion.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Chris Hipkins joined John MacDonald live in studio to discuss poll results, crime, and economic management. Plus, Labour’s strengths, weaknesses, and what Hipkins has left in the tank.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
For an outfit that doesn’t like red tape, the National Party seems to be having some sort of brain explosion.
Because it doesn't just want EV owners to pay road user charges - which I don’t think anyone would disagree with - it also wants to go the whole hog and get rid of fuel taxes completely and make everyone pay road user charges.
So, at the moment, if you drive a petrol vehicle, you pay your bit for building and maintaining roads through a fuel excise tax. Which is simple as, because - being a tax - you pay it every time you go and fill the tank.
But National wants to turn all that on its head. It wants to get rid of the fuel taxes and make everybody do what people with diesel vehicles do right now. Which is, pay road user charges ahead of time - based on kilometres.
And then, when they’ve travelled all the kilometres they’ve paid for, they have to go and pay for more kilometres.
Which is why diesel is, technically, cheaper at the pump. Because the fuel tax isn’t applied to diesel because not all diesel vehicles actually travel on the road.
For example, you might have a diesel-powered digger which never goes on the road. So it would be unfair to make the digger owner pay a tax to raise money for road building and maintenance when the digger is never actually used on a road.
The argument National’s making for everyone paying road user charges, is that it doesn’t think it’s fair that people with petrol vehicles pay varying amounts of tax for building and maintaining roads, regardless of how much they use them.
Which is an interesting argument, because you might assume that how much fuel you buy is dependent on how much driving you do.
But National reckons it would be fairer for everyone to pay based on distance - or how much they use our roads - instead of a flat tax rate per litre of fuel.
National acknowledges that a fuel tax is the simplest way of collecting revenue, but reckons it could have the new system up-and-running in its first term of government. It's also making noises about more tolls on roads and congestion charges.
Which I think is pretty ambitious, given that Waka Kotahi is already saying that it’s going to be a struggle coping with increased road user charges for EVs.
Documents released under the Official Information Act show that Waka Kotahi expects to be dealing with an increase in what it calls “non-compliance and debt” when EV owners have to start paying road user charges.
The documents say: “There will not be enough resource to cope with the increase in education, engagement and enforcement needed.”
So, if they reckon they’re going to struggle with the EVs, how on earth would they cope with every Tom, Dick and Harry being expected to pay road user charges?
Because the great thing about fuel taxes, is that even the crims pay them.
And what about those renegade boy racers who rack up thousands of dollars of speeding fines? Do you really think they’re going to go all legit and make sure they’re up-to-date with the road user charges? They can’t avoid the fuel tax. But do you really think they’re going to worry about road user charges?
And what about all those muppets who are quite happy to drive around in cars with no warrants of fitness? If they can’t be bothered about getting a warrant and are quite happy to run the risk of getting a fine for that, are they really going to bother with road user charges? Of course not.
Which is why I think National is dreaming on this one.
Yes, I get the theory that it might very well be fairer to charge people based on how much they actually use the roads. But, as far as I’m concerned, this is an area where theory is trumped by reality. And why we would want to do away with the very simple and straightforward system we have now?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Here’s what Chris Hipkins should have said when he made the big announcement yesterday that, if Labour gets to form the next government, it will deliver 300 extra police officers and they’ll have a look at legislation to crack-down on gang convoys.
What he should have said, is: “If you vote for us, we will finally give you what you assumed we were going to give you, until you realised at the last minute that we had let you assume the wrong thing without correcting you”.
Because, when you think back to June this year, that’s all yesterday’s announcement was.
Because back in June, that was when we discovered that the 1800 new police officers that the current police minister and the Labour police ministers before her had crowed-on about for yonks, was actually 1,530 frontline officers and 270 “authorised officers” as the police call them.
And you’ll remember how all the time that Labour was banging on about 1800 new cops, nothing was said about not all of them being frontline, on the beat.
So what they've done now, is take the 270 we thought we were getting - until three months ago - and rounded it up to a tidy 300.
It's a sudden change-of-heart that is next-level cringe. Because of the hypocrisy.
Here’s a quote from some of the things the Labour leader said yesterday: “We know that one of the things that we can do that really helps to tackle crime in our community is to make sure that we have more officers on the beat, and that those police have the tools that they need in order to be able to tackle crime.”
And he said that with a straight face.
He also managed to keep a straight face when he said that the 300 so-called extra cops would change the ratio of cop-per-person in New Zealand from one police officer for every 541 people to one police officer for every 470 people.
And the reason why I was so impressed that he kept a straight face, is because he said that the reduced ratio of cop-per-person would come about by adding the 300 they’re promising if re-elected to the 1800 more cops we have had under Labour.
Again, more fudging. Because we don’t have 1800 more on the beat at all. We have 1,530 frontline officers and 270 “authorised officers”. 270 back in the office.
Police Minister Ginny Anderson was the same yesterday. Equally as brilliant in the straight-face department.
That’s why they should have said yesterday that, if they get re-elected, Labour will deliver what it said it would deliver in the first place. But didn’t.
And that’s why I think this so-called new policy is nothing more than desperate politics.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
While both teams are expected to make it out of their pool with relative ease, the All Blacks could not have asked for a bigger challenge than to face the French first up.
Former All Black and Crusaders prop, Wyatt Crockett, was part of the victorious 2015 All Blacks World Cup team and played a remarkable 202 Super Rugby matches for the Crusaders. We were thrilled to have the opportunity to speak with him and try dive into the emotional rollercoaster of the tournament.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you’re not cringing over the latest decision by the Christchurch City Council, you should be.
Because yesterday, councillors sat around the table to decide whether they should spend $1.4 million on a 10-week trial of changes to a little piece of Gloucester Street.
These are changes to the stretch of Gloucester Street where the Isaac Theatre Royal is, to make the street “a more inviting space for hospitality, performers and theatre-goers”.
So they sat around the table at Council headquarters. Read a report written by council staff which effectively said “don’t do it”. And so what did these bozos do? They said ‘nah, let’s do it’.
Now to be fair. It was a close competition. Nine councillors voted “yes” and eight voted “no”. So nine of them were bozos.
But, either way, what it means is just over $1.2 million of taxpayer money and $140,000 of ratepayer money is going to be spent tarting-up that little stretch of Gloucester Street right in the centre of town - where the Turanga central library and the Isaac Theatre Royal are. And where the new Court Theatre is currently being built.
And they’re going to do the work, trial it for 10 weeks, and if they don’t think it’s working - they’ll change it all back again.
This has been on the cards since earlier in the year. Originally, the plan was to make the street one-way. But that part of the plan’s gone out the window.
They are sticking, however, with the plan to bring in a 10 kilometres per hour speed limit.
So the budget is $1.4 million. With 90 percent of the money coming from Waka Kotahi’s “Streets for People” programme. So taxpayers. And the rest is being paid for by the Christchurch City Council. So ratepayers.
I seem to recall that the $1.4 million is the total budget for making the changes and undoing them if they decide after 10 weeks that it’s not really worth it. But, either way, can you think of anything more wasteful?
And it’s not just the Christchurch City Council at fault here. Although, I reckon they should’ve just decided yesterday that it was a nutbar waste of money and they should’ve told the mayor to get on the blower to Waka Kotahi and say ‘hey, about that money. We think there are much more important things for you to spend it on, so we’re going to say thanks-but-no thanks’.
But did they do that? Of course they didn’t. And some of the reasons certain councillors gave for sticking with the plan and spending the money beggars belief.
One, in particular. Councillor Jake McLellan. Now it’s people like him who give the left a bad name. Because, even though he admitted now isn’t the best time to be doing a trial on that bit of Gloucester Street - especially because the Court Theatre is still being built there - he thought it was more important for the council to get its hands on the money coming from Waka Kotahi.
How about this for a quote? This is what Councilor Jake McLellan said yesterday. “There will probably not be a better funding opportunity. A subsidy of 90 percent seems a real shame to let slip through our hands.” That’s what you call spending money for the sake of spending money.
But, as I say, it’s not just the muppets at the council to blame. Because if the crowd at Waka Kotahi had their heads screwed on, they’d be on the phone to the council saying they’re pulling the plug on the funding.
Because how can it justify spending just over $1.2 million of taxpayer money on a 10-week beautification trial?
I think it is shameful that Waka Kotahi and the council think this is a good use of taxpayer and ratepayer money to fund what could turn out to be nothing more than an expensive trial and consultation exercise. At a time when the country is facing huge rebuild costs thanks to Cyclone Gabrielle. At a time when our roads are falling apart.
It is shameful that the Christchurch City Council hasn’t made a symbolic gesture and said to the Government ‘thanks but no thanks’ for the money, ‘we think there are much greater needs than blowing money on an experiment.”
And it is shameful that Waka Kotahi hasn’t stepped-in and pulled the funding from these clowns at the council.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger joined John McDonald in studio today as part of his regular catch up on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings.
John asked about his feelings about the Gloucester Street trial, meaning over one million dollars will be spent, only for the trial to possibly fail and the street to return to its previous state.
And why has the Mayor not written to the Health Minister about the state of our Hospital and After Hours care despite assuring residents he would?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National Party Leader Christopher Luxon is in Christchurch as part of the campaign and joined John MacDonald live in studio.
They discussed the social investment fund, how will that help the likes of the homeless on Colombo Street. Is National's Tax Policy as transparent as it should be? And what will he do about the health system should he be elected into Government?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Lloyd Cole is an internationally acclaimed singer-songwriter known for his distinctive voice, evocative lyrics, and a musical career that spans decades. With hits like "Rattlesnakes," "Lost Weekend," and "Perfect Skin," he has solidified his place in the hearts of music lovers worldwide.
Lloyd will be performing in Christchurch this December, and joined John MacDonald on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings to discuss his career, his 'serious' persona, and the upcoming tour.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Do you know what the real reason is for today’s big health strike? The real reason why thousands of senior doctors and dentists at hospitals around the country are walking off the job for two hours?
According to them, they’re striking because their pay hasn't kept up with inflation and so they’re going backwards; and they say if the pay doesn't improve, the hospital system will go downhill further because doctors and dentists won’t want to come here from overseas to work.
And, like you get whenever there’s industrial action, you’ve got their employer, Te Whatu Ora, saying that it’s put a very good offer on the table. It’s also managed to drop-in there along the line that some of these people are already earning good already.
But, as far as I’m concerned, the real reason is you and me. And I’m not saying here that they’re doing it for us. I’m saying that they’re doing it because of us.
Not because we deserve better. But because we have allowed things in the hospital system to slip.
You hear people saying all the time that they went to hospital, they got exactly what they needed on the treatment front, the nursing staff were fantastic, blah blah blah.
I went to see someone recently who had had heart surgery at Christchurch Hospital and he and his wife were raving about the place. Great treatment. Great doctors. Great nurses.
So, if you hear that often enough from people you know, you’re going to think it’s all sweet as, aren’t you?
Or maybe you’re going to subscribe to that classic kiwi approach of assuming there’s always someone worse-off than you and so, because of that, you’re not going to complain. Not going to kick up a fuss. Grin and bare it. Take one for the team.
But all that grinning and bearing it, is why we have this unprecedented strike action happening. Thousands of senior doctors and dentists walking off the job because there’s someone always worse off than us. Because of us just assuming that the hospital’s always going to be there. That the doctors and nurses are always going to be there.
Us just assuming that they’re getting the funding they should be getting. And, when we see or hear a story in the news about some poor sod who went to hospital and had a bad experience, we feel bad about it for a few minutes and just move on.
And what do we move on to? We move on and get all excited about things that politicians tell us to be outraged about. We get outraged about ram raids and gang members and ankle bracelets. All that stuff.
And we leave the outrage over the health system and the hospital system to the last people who should have that on their shoulders.
We leave it to the women with cancer to turn up at Parliament with their head scarves on to try and get better drug funding.
We leave it to the people who don’t get the hospital treatment when they should, to go public with their stories to try and change things.
And today, we’re leaving it to the thousands of senior doctors and dentists protesting outside hospitals all around the country.
They’re not doing it for them. They’re not doing it for us. They’re doing it because of us. Because we have settled for second-best for too long because “there’s always someone worse off than us”. Because we’ve grinned and bared it for years. We’ve taken one for the team for years. And look where that’s got us.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I seriously doubt that many of the promises being made by Labour and National will ever see the light of day.
The minor parties are promising things too. But it’s Labour and National I’m focused on because it’s going to be either one of those parties that leads the next Government.
The latest major party policy came out at the weekend with Labour’s promise to extend publicly-funded dental care to people under-30.
At the moment, there's no charge to go to dentist up to the age of 18. On Saturday, Chris Hipkins announced that, if Labour gets back in after next month’s election, that will be extended.
But it wouldn’t happen overnight. It would be two-to-three years away. And it would only be months out from the 2026 election when we’d have free dental for everyone under the age of 30.
But I’ll only believe it when I see it, for a couple of reasons.
First of all, where are all the extra dentists going to come from? I know Labour is saying that’s the reason why it wants to do all this on a drip-feed. Because the whole idea behind this policy is to get more people going to the dentist.
So, in theory, demand for dental services is going to increase. And I’m not convinced that we are going to have enough dentists and dental technicians and all that in two-to-three years.
The other reason I’ll only believe Labour’s dental policy when I see it, is the amount of water to go under the bridge between now and July 2026. Nearly three years away.
Who knows what re-prioritisation of spending might be needed by then?
Not to mention the fact that we are very good at forgetting things, aren’t we? Do you honestly believe that you’d be able to remember this particular policy three years from now? Come on - be honest. Of course, you wouldn’t. Just like so many of the other pre-election promises.
And what about one of Labour’s other big promises? GST off fruit and veges policy. Even if Labour gets re-elected and that one actually happens, I still won’t believe it because we are never going to know whether it’s making us better-off or not.
When we’re in the fruit and vege section at the supermarket, for example, it would be impossible to tell whether the price on the ticket is 15 percent less than what it would be if we were paying GST.
Prices fluctuate and the whole thing would be reliant on supermarkets and other fruit and vege retailers resisting the urge to charge more, for the sake of it.
So that’s a couple of examples of policies we’ve heard from Labour where either I don’t have confidence in them actually delivering, or delivering and it being impossible to know whether I’m getting any benefit out of it.
Then there’s National. Its most-recent promise was its tax plan which would us paying less tax by July next year.
But, since its announcement last week, more and more questions have been raised about some of the numbers behind the plan.
Especially this issue with $700 million that supposedly would come through the door and into the Government’s coffers from foreign house buyers, via a 15 percent tax for the privilege of buying a place here.
I was very sceptical of that part of the plan right from the start. Because it is 100 percent dependent on the choices of other people.
A Government has no control over whether a person has an interest in moving to New Zealand and buying a house. And, over the weekend, we heard more and more people questioning the assumptions that National has made on that front.
Either way, I reckon voters must be getting so punch-drunk with all the policies coming at us left, right and centre, that we are going to forget a lot of them. And whoever gets into Government will take full advantage of that.
Not to mention the fact that some policies will fall completely by the wayside because the governing party will realise that they way over-promised and they will (undoubtedly) under-deliver.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What’s that old line? If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.
And that’s how I’m feeling about the National Party’s new tax plan, now that I’ve had a day to think about it.
Even more so, after listening to Finance spokesperson Nicola Willis on Newstalk ZB this morning.
I’ll come back to that. But first, in terms of how much better-off National reckons we would be if it’s running the shop after next month’s election, this is it: a family with two kids on the average income - $250 better-off per fortnight; an average-income household with no kids - $100 better-off per fortnight; someone on the minimum wage - $20 better-off; and a retired couple - $26 better-off each fortnight
Sounds good. I’d like to believe it. But do I believe it? Well, let’s consider how National reckons it can pay for it. And this is where the likes of the Labour Party starts to get all “voodoo” on it. That’s a word Grant Robertson has been using to describe the policy.
And there’s one part of National’s tax plan where I think Grant Robertson is bang on with the “voodoo” thing. And it’s the extra money it reckons it can get from foreigners who, under Labour, aren’t allowed to move here and buy houses.
The ban was brought in by Labour in 2018 because it thought international buyers were sweeping-in and snapping-up homes, leaving locals out of the market.
So National wants to change that - to fund its tax cuts - and would open the doors to foreign buyers wanting to buy places worth more than $2 million. And it would sting them with a 15 percent tax.
It thinks that, on average, that would increase government revenue by $740 million a year.
And how does it know that? Well, it doesn’t. It’s done some estimates. And it got a consultancy called Castalia to run the numbers and they came back and said National’s plan was “possible and plausible".
And, on the back of that, Nicola Willis made the big statement this morning that, come hell or high water, the tax cuts are a guaranteed thing.
Even when her costings are dependent on things like enough foreigners wanting to move here, buy a house and being prepared to pay an extra tax for the privilege.
Nicola Willis said this morning that, even if that doesn't eventuate and the government's financial position is worse than expected, the tax cuts will still happen. She said she guaranteed it.
But I don’t believe it for a minute.
Because back when Christopher Luxon was running Air New Zealand, do you think he would’ve slashed the price of his airfares because he had his fingers crossed that fuel prices might go down?
Of course not. So how does he think he can deliver all this tax relief when he doesn’t know for sure how he’s going to pay for it?
More to the point, how-on-earth can his Finance spokesperson take it next level and guarantee that it’s going to happen?
It is head-in-the-clouds stuff.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Aussie rocker, Mark Gable, is one of the original founding members of Choirboys who will be part of the stellar line up at Selwyn Sounds next March.
A lively personality, Mark kindly took time to talk with John MacDonald and share his musical and personal journey. The highs and lows of stardom and his views now on their smash hit, Run To Paradise.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I know David Parker’s got a job to do. As Attorney-General, he’s got a job to do and part of that job is to run a fine-tooth comb through new laws to see if they stack up and won’t be more trouble than they’re worth.
What I mean by that, is making sure they don't have so many holes in them that anyone who wants to could get all legal on it and either get away with whatever the law is designed to stop, or haul the government off to the likes of the Supreme Court.
And that’s what David Parker, as Attorney General, is doing right now with this legislation Labour has been trying to rush through so it can say it’s cracked down on ram raiders. In particular, teenage ram-raiders who have been on the rampage up and down the country.
Just today in Christchurch, for example, there’s a report about a 13-year-old who nicked dozens of cars - some of them used to do ram raids - and when the cops got him, he was just sent home to his family. And guess what? He went out and did it all over again.
So the Government’s getting all hardcore on it and it’s got this new bill going through Parliament - “The Ram Raid Offending and Related Measures Amendment Bill”.
And, as it stands at the moment, what it would do is create a new criminal offence for ram raids (with a penalty of up to 10 years), which would also be applied to 12 and 13 year-olds through the Youth Court.
And if the ram-raid was filmed and put online, that would be an aggravating factor when it came to sentencing.
But David Parker has put a fly in the ointment, saying that he reckons this would cause more harm than good. Especially when it comes to the kids involved in these crimes.
So one of the concerns he has is that this tough approach doesn’t take into account the fact that teenagers’ brains are still developing and they are "unlikely to understand the impact of their actions or to comprehend criminal proceedings".
Yep, here we go. The old frontal cortex argument. It gets worse, though.
As well as saying that we would get a much better outcome sticking with the softly-softly approach we’ve got now, David Parker is concerned about breaching the rights of these out-of-control kids.
What about the rights of the people whose businesses are being targetted night-after-night by these kids? What about the rights of the people who work in these businesses? What about the rights of the people who wake up in the morning and find their car stolen?
The bit that I think really takes the cake for me, is what David Parker is saying about the new bill making filming a ramraid and posting it online an aggravating factor when it comes to sentencing.
He's concerned it could violate these kids' right to freedom of expression. He thinks it could inhibit free speech.
It would be easy to think, wouldn’t it, that after spitting the dummy because he didn’t get his way with the wealth tax stuff that David Parker is on a one-man mission to destroy the Labour government.
I get that he’s wearing his Attorney-General hat and all that. But, aside from lawyers who are paid to try and get these scumbags off, who in their right mind is going to think that getting punished for filming a ramraid and putting it on TikTok is a bad thing?
Who, in their right mind, is going to think that it inhibits free speech? That it violates the right to freedom of expression.
Since when has a ramraid been an art form? Next we’ll be saying a ramraid is a piece of street art. We’ll be describing a car sitting in the front window of a jeweller's shop or a vape shop as an art installation.
You’ll even be able to get Arts Foundation funding for it. Because if we’re going to have the Attorney-General saying that punishing people for filming ramraids and putting them online would inhibit free speech, that it would deny someone their right to freedom of expression, then let’s just go the whole hog and give these kids NCEA credits for it.
It beggars belief, doesn’t it?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Does Christopher Luxon know something we don't? Because that's the only reason I can think of, for him being so cagey.
Did you hear him talking to Mike Hosking this morning? I thought it was Monday when I woke up - but no, it’s Groundhog Day.
Another day and the National Party leader still has his head in the sand. Just like he did yesterday. Just like he did on Saturday. Just like he did on Friday. And I’ve got no idea why he can’t bring himself to say ‘yay or nay’ when it comes to NZ First.
There he was again this morning, banging on about NZ First not being in Parliament and, because of that, he’s not going to think about them until they are.
He seems to be ignoring some of the recent polls which have had NZ First polling high enough to get into Parliament. And was going on about the National Party’s internal polling painting a different picture. But who cares?
Public sentiment doesn’t rise and fall on the back of internal polling. Public sentiment is influenced by the polls that you and I see on the TV news. And those polls are pretty much saying that NZ First is back and on the path to Parliament. Four of the last seven polls have had them over the 5 percent threshold.
I don’t know who’s advising Luxon but, when I heard him on the radio this morning, I thought “Yep, you’re sounding just like the inexperienced politician your opponents like to say you are”.
In fact, I’d go further than that. I thought Luxon sounded this morning like someone almost in complete denial of the MMP system. And time and time again, he’s showing that he just doesn’t get it.
He doesn’t get it that people want to know whether a vote for National means a potential coalition government involving Winston Peters and NZ First.
Chris Hipkins gets it. That’s why he came out yesterday and said there’s no way in hell that he’d form a coalition government involving NZ First after October’s election.
David Seymour gets it too. He’s made it very clear that he has no interest in doing any deal with Winston Peters.
But Luxon was just amateur hour this morning. And he seems to think he’s going to get away with doing the same thing for the next six-and-a-bit weeks until the election.
Chris Hipkins, though. Complete opposite. Although, I did think Hipkins went a bit too far yesterday when he was talking about NZ First but then went on and started portraying the National Party and its supporters as a bunch of extreme conservatives.
I agreed with Luxon when he said yesterday that it was all sounding a bit desperate from the Labour leader or the Prime Minister - or whatever hat Hipkins was wearing yesterday.
But then Luxon went and blew it completely this morning with this ongoing ploy of keeping us all guessing as to whether NZ First would be part of any coalition government he might pull together after October 14.
He seems more than capable of somehow knowing what New Zealanders are thinking about everything else, doesn’t he? Because, like every politician, he tells us what we’re worried about, what’s keeping us awake at night, and how he’s going to fix it.
But the old ESP system runs out of batteries when it comes to what we might be thinking about NZ First. Because he seems to think we don’t care whether Winston Peters and his cronies end up in government again.
Christopher Luxon is dreaming if he thinks we don't need to know, or don't want to know, before election day whether or not he would form a government involving NZ First.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How would you feel about the Mama Hooch predators getting out of prison in just eight or nine years’ time?
It’s on the cards after the judge who sentenced Roberto Jaz to 17 years and Danny Jaz to 16-and-a-half years yesterday said they had to serve at least half of that time before they could be considered for parole.
From what I saw in the media reports, I thought Judge Paul Mabey was brilliant yesterday.
He ran the judge-alone trial that ran for three months earlier in the year and he was handing down the sentences yesterday to these two who sexually assaulted and/or drugged 23 women while running their father’s Mama Hooch bar in central Christchurch.
They were convicted of 69 charges between them including rape, sexual violation, indecent assault, stupefying, disabling, making intimate recordings of women without their knowledge or consent, and supplying illicit drugs.
From what I saw of the sentencing judge yesterday, he went from compassionate to cutting.
As you’d expect, he was very compassionate towards the incredibly brave women who stood in court to deliver their victim impact statements. The incredibly brave women who decided to do what so many other victims of sex crimes just can’t do - which is go through the gruelling process of bringing sexual predators to justice.
So Judge Mabey’s compassion for the Mama Hooch victims was very clear.
He was very clear also in his words to the Jaz brothers. And this is where I thought he was cutting. And when I heard what he said, it made me think that it’s possible he was the first person to ever tell these guys that they’re not actually God’s gift to anyone and everything.
The sense of entitlement displayed time and time again towards women who were doing nothing more than just going out on the town with friends or just earning money working in their bar tells me that, until yesterday, no one had ever really put them in their place.
No one had ever told them that they don’t have an automatic right to do what they want, when they want, with and to whoever they want.
Spoilt brats who took their self-entitlement absolutely next level. There’s no shortage of spoilt brats out there. But these two are next-level. Absolute monsters.
The judge said to them yesterday: “The level of your offending is unknown in this country. You helped yourself to young women with callous disregard for their rights and their dignity.”
Amazingly, positive character references were submitted to the court. But the judge wasn’t buying it, saying: “You are not men of good character. You’re sexual predators”.
Sexual predators who hardly even blinked when they were in court yesterday.
I think it’s pretty safe to say that the Jaz brothers have absolutely no remorse for what they did. No remorse for the lives they’ve changed forever.
I was going to say no remorse for the lives they’ve ruined. But I really hope that the women who have survived what they’ve gone through and who have brought these two to justice get to a point where they can say their lives haven’t been ruined.
Because they’re so young. They’ve got so much life ahead of them. Hopefully, what happened yesterday will go some way towards helping them recover.
So the judge I thought was brilliant. The sentences, I thought, were about as strong as he could hand out.
Nevertheless, the day will come when they can be considered for early release. And I reckon if there’s one thing the judge fell short on yesterday, it was failing to rule that the Jaz brothers should never be considered for parole. Never be considered for early release.
Because, you’ll know as much as I do, that even the prospect of criminals being considered for early release can be traumatising for their victims.
So why should these two - who offended on such an unprecedented scale, who treated women in such an appalling way, who would have to be two of the most predatory sexual offenders we’ve ever seen in this country, even have a remote possibility of getting out of prison before serving their full sentences?
I think that, if the system has failed the victims of these crimes in any way, it happened yesterday when the judge did not dish out these sentences and tell those two creeps that early release would never be an option for them.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald was joined by Tracey McLellan and Gerry Brownlee for Politics Friday. They discussed policies release by both parties this week, what is going on with our health system that we need to close our after hours services, and will this be an election campaign marred by ugliness?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Senior New Zealand Herald Journalist, Anna Leask, has followed the Mama Hooch case from the beginning and joined John MacDonald on Canterbury Mornings.
She describes the powerful victim statements in court yesterday from the victims of Danny and Roberto Jaz, the significance of the sentence and the complete lack of remorse shown by the brothers in court.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Since when have we been so deluded in this country to think that we are the best drivers in the world?
Because that’s what it looks like, with this idea of banning overseas visitors from driving on the Milford Road. Otherwise known as State Highway 94 - which runs from Te Anau to Milford.
What’s happening, is the Department of Conservation wants an assessment of Milford Sound transport options done as part of a masterplan for the area's future.
The masterplan’s been put together by the Milford Opportunities Project. Which is a collaboration between Ngāi Tahu, the Department of Conservation, Southland District Council, the Ministry of Transport, Waka Kotahi, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and Environment Southland. So it’s not a tinpot outfit.
You might remember some of the other ideas it’s come up with to manage visitor numbers at Milford. Such as getting rid of the airstrip at Milford, banning planes (helicopters only) and not letting cruise ships go into Milford Sound anymore.
Another one of its ideas is this proposal to ban foreign drivers.
Basically, they’re saying that people from overseas aren't experienced enough to use the Te Anau - Milford Road. So they’ve put up this idea of letting New Zealanders drive there and making foreigners use a park-and-ride service.
But if we’re going to do that, what about all the other tricky bits of road in New Zealand? For example, what about all the roads up to our ski fields? If someone shouldn’t be driving on the Milford Road then they probably shouldn’t be driving up on them, should they?
That’s why I think banning foreigners from driving on the Milford Road would be nuts.
But the Milford Opportunities Project is saying that it’s hearing from all sorts of people that foreign drivers are a problem there.
They say the Milford Road, according to Waka Kotahi, is the third most dodgy road in New Zealand in terms of personal risk with all sorts of hazards that people from overseas just aren’t aware of.
And they reckon they’re hearing from drivers, tourist operators and other people down that way who are concerned about the number of drivers who are unprepared for the conditions and who are putting themselves and others at risk.
But exactly the same thing could be said about us when we go overseas, couldn’t it?
Just because we’ve driven during rush hour in Christchurch, we think we’re ready to drive anywhere.
Screaming around the Arc de triomphe, in Paris? “No problem mate - you should see the traffic I have to deal with down by the Bridge of Remembrance back home in Cha-cha."
The Autobahn in Germany? Easy! “I drive Rolleston to Christchurch and back everyday! Everyday mate!” No worries.
But when the boot’s on the other foot, suddenly we have roads like nowhere else in the world over here and “you blimmin’ foreigners have got no idea”. No idea. “So just park that rental car over there and get in the queue for the bus with all the other amateur-hour drivers from Timbuktu.”
Another thing too, is how do these people who think foreign drivers are a problem actually know they're foreign drivers? Is it because they’re driving rental cars? Kiwis drive rental cars too.
Maybe down Milford way it’s still 1973 - not 2023 - and the old foreign-drivers-no-survivors gag still gets a few laughs.
An online poll about this, that I saw earlier by the way, had 70 percent of people thinking it would be a good idea to ban foreigners from driving on the Milford Road. The question I’d ask those people, is what do they base that on?
The only evidence I’ve seen for this even being considered, is personal opinion. And I wouldn't be in favour of it at all.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by Christchurch Mayor, Phil Mauger on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings.
Will council assets now be on the sale rack despite the pre-election promises? Where is he at with the line by line budget review? And boy racers have been back in the spotlight - what could council do to stop this issue, or is it a losing battle?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The people at Orana Park have had a gutsful of boy racers because animals there have been getting really spooked by the noise the boy racers are making when they’ve been meeting up outside the park to do skids and burn-outs.
You’ll know the type of noise they’re talking about. All the revving and screeching of tyres. And what’s been happening, is some animals have been so freaked out by it, that they’ve panicked and they’ve been running around their enclosures and getting injured.
The Orana Park people are also concerned about the animals being so stressed by the noise that it’s not just physical injuries they’re worried about. They’re also worried that some of the animals might have some form of long-term psychological damage.
And where that would really impact on things is the breeding programme they run at Orana Park. They’re saying today that all the stress from the boys racers could have an impact on some of the endangered native birds they breed out there.
They breed them and release them into the wild. But they say this kind of stress can affect breeding behaviour and can even have an impact on egg quality.
So the animals are stressed. And the staff at Orana Park are stressed. There’s concern too that doing burn-outs in areas where there’s a lot of vegetation is a fire risk.
The Police seem to be on to it. They’ve identified 16 vehicles that are being used to do burn-outs outside the wildlife park. Of these, 10 have been impounded and they’re on the hunt for the other six.
But it raises the question, doesn’t it, as to whether we’re fighting a losing battle here and whether we should just give up on the idea that we can bring them under control.
I reckon that, from what we’ve learnt over the years, anyone who thinks they can get rid of boy racers is in la-la land.
Because there have been boy racers in some way shape or form forever. Haven’t there?
When I was growing up, they were called “hoons”. Before that, they were called “bodgies”. Although, I think bodgies had motorbikes - as well as cars. But you get what I mean.
Boy racer. Girl Racer. Hoon. Bodgie. All the same thing. Generally, young people, who love their cars and love using them to make a spectacle.
But so do a lot of other people. Not just boy racers. I saw a guy on a motorbike go so fast down Colombo Street the other week that he got speed wobbles! So boy and girl racers aren’t the only ones who can be real bozos on the roads.
Which is why I think this whole idea of cracking down on boy racers is a pipedream.
We’ve tried over the years. In Christchurch, they brought in the “no cruising” zones. Which are still there.
A concrete pad was built at Ruapuna Speedway too, wasn’t it? The idea being that they could all go out there and fill their boots doing skids and burn-outs. But no one was interested.
Because meeting-up to let rip in the car isn’t about being part of society. It’s about not following the rules. It’s about taking over a piece of road and making it your own.
So that was never going to work. Just like the “no cruising” zones only pushed the problem somewhere else.
So that’s why I think it’s time to wave the white flag. Time to tell the boy racers that we think they’re a bunch of muppets with some of the stuff they get up to. But the fight to get rid of them is over.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Let’s start with a quote.
“You can take it from me that under my watch as mayor, I will not be selling any of these assets.”
Guess who said that before last year’s council elections? None other than Phil Mauger who, of course, went on to become mayor.
So that’s what he was saying less than a year ago about what he called “the family assets”.
But guess what he’s saying now about things like the airport and port company? Something quite different.
This is what he said to Newstalk ZB. “We’ve either got to sell something, or do less.”
So, less than a year ago, assets would not be sold under his watch. Now, the Christchurch City Council has to "sell something, or do less.”
Now, I might be wrong here. But I suspect some people will hear that and think “flip flop”.
Because what Phil Mauger is saying now about asset sales is what he really should have said before people voted for him.
If he really thinks that holding on to assets like the airport and the port company comes down to whether the council can cut its costs or not, then he should have said that.
Not all the bluster about “not on my watch”. Because, as we can now see, it was just bluster.
Apparently, things have changed so much in less than a year that we now have the guy who promised there’d be no asset sales under his watch saying to our reporters yesterday that if the council can’t cut its costs, then it’s going to have to sell some of its assets.
When Phil talks about assets, he’s not just talking about council-owned companies - of which there are six. There’s Christchurch International Airport, Lyttelton Port Company, Orion Energy, Citycare, Enable Broadband and Eco-Central Recycling.
It doesn’t own all of them outright. It’s got a 75 percent stake in the airport and 89 percent of Orion. But the rest, it owns the lot.
Phil’s also talking about land. Such as the land where the temporary stadium is. Once the new stadium is up and running, the council will be in a position to sell that land.
But when our reporters asked him yesterday whether he could still rule out selling assets like the port company, he said he couldn’t.
I read a very good article over the weekend which quoted Phil’s main competitor in last year’s election, David Meates, who says it’s vital that the city council holds on to its strategic assets.
As he says in the article, people are tired of politicians saying one thing to get elected, and then doing the complete opposite. He says people don't trust politicians who have eroded confidence in public institutions.
And, as we know, trust is the number one issue people have with the Christchurch City Council. And rebuilding public trust in the council was one of the mayor's big goal.
I’m all-for partial sell-offs of assets like the port company and the airport, but not if the money just goes into the council coffers.
So, let’s say they were looking at selling-off some of its stake in the port company, I’d only want that to happen if the money from that was invested in something else. Like the Port of Auckland, for example.
The last thing the council should be doing is selling assets just to sort out the balance sheet. Selling assets to artificially keep rates down. That would be so short-sighted.
But there’s a risk of that happening as long as the mayor talks about asset sales being a potential solution to the council’s debt problems.
It would be a cop-out. And if councillors did go down that track, then they would stand accused of selling us short - big time.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I remember when I was a kid at school and thinking that some of the stuff we were being made to do was such a waste of time.
You know what I’m talking about. “Why on earth are you making us do this? This is not going to be any use to me when I get out of this place - so why are we bothering with it?”
Which, a lot of the time, was probably youthful arrogance as much as anything. Although, the old trigonometry doesn’t get used much these days. Not a lot of polygon action, either.
But, there were times, when I thought I knew it all and was very confident that I knew exactly what I should be studying at school - and what I shouldn’t.
And, as it turns out, I had no idea really. Which is why I think Labour has come up with a real winner with this idea of making financial literacy compulsory in all schools, from Year 1 to Year 13.
Which, when it comes down to it, is about teaching kids the kinds of things most of us didn’t get taught when we were at school.
Although, if you’re at the younger end of things, you might have got a little bit of it. And, if you’ve got kids at school yourself, they might be getting a little bit of financial stuff here and there.
But what Labour wants to do, is to make it compulsory. And I think it’s a brilliant idea.
Although, if I’m totally honest - if you were like I was when I was at school - we probably would’ve thought financial literacy was boring and a waste of time back in the day too.
Because, when you’re 13, 14, 15, you generally don’t give two hoots about what happens if you don’t pay your bills on time, do you? Boring! Boring! You can’t even imagine buying a house.
Back in my day, we were all going to be rich rock stars when we left school. Today, everyone’s going to be a social media influencer and they’re going to be rolling in it.
I didn’t become a rock star. Just like most of the kids today aren’t going to be the next Kim Kardashian.
So these compulsory financial literacy lessons are going to be very useful. Some might even go as far as saying they’ll be a lot more useful than some of the other stuff kids are being taught in school at the moment.
If you were watching the TV news last night, you would’ve seen them do the usual vox pop in the streets, asking people what they thought about Labour’s financial literacy policy. And they sent the camera out to Cashel Mall, in Christchurch, to get the word on the street.
Everyone they spoke to - except one school-age kid - thought it was a great idea. The school kid they spoke to thought it was a bad idea because she’d done a little bit of financial stuff at school already and she thought it was boring.
Which it is. But bad financial decisions are even more boring, aren’t they? The “she’ll be right” attitude about saving for retirement gets pretty boring too when you retire, or get close to retirement, and find you’ve got nothing to go on. Not having enough money, week-to-week - pretty boring.
Not that compulsory lessons in how to handle money is going to be the golden ticket to setting everyone up for a comfortable life.
But it’s a darn sight better than the haphazard approach we have now. And it’s a truckload better than, back in my day - maybe back in your day too - when none of this stuff was talked about at school. If only it had.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I reckon Labour has completely lost the plot this week.
It started on Monday with its daft idea of taking GST off fruit and vegetables. And then, yesterday, it announced that it wants to sting us for more tax on fuel to help pay for all the new roads it wants to build.
A plan which I think National is quite rightfully calling a copycat plan - given that, what Labour is talking about, is pretty much what National is already promising if it forms the next government.
National says there’s a truckload of money around the world that it would tap into to pay for these new roads. Labour, though, says ‘if you want it, you’ve gotta pay for it’.
So $1.4 billion would come from extra fuel taxes; and $2.9 billion would come from other taxes we pay. Then there’s other money from down the back of the chair.
But Labour's hypocrisy is astounding. This is a political party that is out there right now saying it’s “in it for us”; that it’s got a "laser-like focus" on helping us deal with the cost of living. That’s what Chris Hipkins said a while back.
So it starts the week saying it’s going to help us out by making the supermarket shop cheaper for us all by taking the GST off fruit and vegetables.
Which has, very quickly, turned into a complete farce because - ever since the announcement - we’ve had our most senior government politicians in the news talking about canned fruit, salads and chopped-up watermelon.
If Clive James was still around, he’d have a field day with all of this wouldn’t he? Remember that time on one of his TV shows when he took the mickey out of New Zealand’s Crimewatch show because all the stories seemed to be about really minor stuff? An egg being thrown at a Hillman Hunter or a Vauxhall Viva - that sort of thing.
Imagine what he’d be saying now? Seeing our Finance Minister answering questions about whether-or-not we should be paying GST on the tomatoe in our burgers? Or whether a salad with mayonnaise qualifies for no GST versus a salad with no mayonnaise.
So I think we can safely say that the GST thing’s been a real cluster for Labour this week.
But then, it takes the cluster next level with this announcement that it wants us to pay more tax on our petrol and diesel.
Taking the GST off fruit and veges and then adding more tax on fuel is utter nutbar behaviour.
I don’t know how many people have said to me this week that, if Labour was really serious about helping us deal with the cost of living, it would be making fuel cheaper because whether or not we drive a vehicle, the price of fuel has an impact on us.
The more expensive fuel, the more expensive anything and everything that has to be delivered somewhere gets.
The last time I looked, there wasn’t a giant veggie garden out the back of Pak n Save or row and row of fruit trees. They have to be transported. So you make fuel more expensive, what’s going to do to the price of fruit and veggies?
I just can’t believe Labour on this one. Yes, we need more money to build and maintain roads. And, yes, one option is for us to pay more tax to make it happen.
But just say that and we’ll decide whether we like it or not. But don’t come out one day and say ‘ooh, we know life’s really hard at the moment so we’re going to do everything we can to make things cheaper for you” and then, a few days later, tell us that you want us to pay more tax on fuel.
It’s almost like Labour has decided that yeah, it was really cool winning that huge majority last election, so let’s see how far we can go in the opposite direction this election.
Because that’s what it’s going to do with this plan to rob Peter to pay Paul. The stupidity of it all blows me away.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I know you won’t disagree with me that Lauren Dickason’s story is a complete and utter tragedy.
Found guilty of murdering her three daughters - two-year-old twins Maya and Karla; and their six-year-old sister Liane - at their home in Timaru in September 2021. Nearly two years ago. Just weeks after the family had moved to New Zealand from South Africa.
As it’s been reported, of all the evidence and expert opinions and comments by Lauren Dickason herself, it was what she said during a police interview the day after the killings that the majority of jury members appear to have interpreted as the words of a murderer.
She said to the police: “The first twin was being really, really, horrible to me lately. She's been biting me and hitting me and scratching me and throwing tantrums 24 hours a day and I just don't know how to manage that. That's why I did her first."
The words of a murderer. That’s how 11 of the 12 jury members interpreted that comment. And I agree with them.
I agree with them because, anyone who is a parent, will know exactly what Dickason was talking about there. We’ve all had phases where it’s seemed our kids - especially when they’re really young - where pretty much everything they do brasses us off.
And, when you’re in the thick of it, it seems like it’s been going on forever, doesn’t it? And you can genuinely feel like you’re at your wits end.
The emotions and feelings that come with all that - the exhaustion, the frustration, the loneliness, the anger - they are real. There’s no denying that. But Lauren Dickason wasn’t the first person in the world to feel that way and she won’t be the last.
But being at your wits end, doesn’t mean you’re insane. Just like the jury’s view that Lauren Dickason wasn’t insane.
She wasn’t insane. She was angry. She was angry with her kids. She was angry that she’d gone along with the move to New Zealand. She was angry at how life was different and so much more complicated with three kids.
And, from what we heard during the trial - and from her parents in the statement they put out after the verdicts yesterday - a lot of that had to do with the fact that Lauren Dickason was suffering seriously from post-partum or post-natal depression.
And here’s the bit that really gets me.
If I, just by hearing and reading the media reports from the trial - and the information that has been publicly available, let alone the details that were suppressed - if I can see how much emotional strife she was in, how is it that the people in her life who actually received those angry text messages about the kids that were read out in court - the people who actually knew her - how on earth did they not see what was going on? And why on earth didn’t they do anything?
Yes, I agree with the jury that she is a murderer. But I tell you what, I think Lauren Dickason is a victim in all of this too.
She’s the victim of a society that thinks it cares but, when it comes down to it, it doesn’t. A society where people turn a blind eye, even when they get a text from someone talking about strangling one of their kids.
Even when they get messages saying “I’m afraid one day I will smack her too hard”. Saying “I’m just trying not to murder the twins”. Saying “I wish I could give them back and start over, I would decide differently.”
It beggars belief, doesn’t it, that no one did anything? And I don’t think it makes one bit of difference that she was in South Africa when most of this was going on. Because I think people would be just as slow on the uptake here.
Actually, it’s not slow on the uptake at all - it’s quick to turn a blind eye. We’re all guilty of it. Even if we think something might not quite be right, we’re very quick to tell ourselves not to overthink things and, well, we’re all busy people. Busy busy busy. It will all come out in the wash.
It’s all just WhatsApp group chats, wine o’clock and laughing about trying not to murder the kids.
Except Lauren Dickason wasn’t laughing at all. And it is a tragedy for her and her three daughters that no one cottoned-on to that.
If people had cottoned on and done something about it, those little girls might not be dead and Dickason herself might not be sitting in Hillmorton Hospital - like she is right now - a child murderer, waiting to be sentenced.
Yes, there is blood all over her hands. There was never any doubt about that. But there is also blood on the hands of our modern society - a society that can talk until the cows come home about caring about people’s mental health and all that but, when it comes down to it, we just turn a blind eye at the first opportunity.
A society that has the ambulance permanently parked at the bottom of the cliff. Because the irony here is that it wasn’t until Lauren Dickason had killed her three kids, that she got the kind of mental health support she had desperately needed for a very long time.
As someone I spoke to today said to me - if they called psych services right now saying they were worried about a friend who was talking about harming their kids, the person on the end of the line would probably tell them they can only do something if the person goes through with it.
Turning the blind eye. Individuals. Institutions. Politicians. All of us. Turning a blind eye at the first opportunity.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I would say that, for most of this year, I’ve thought it nutbar that we have still had to isolate for seven days if we get Covid.
That’s all changed though. Because, as of midnight last night, there’s no more isolation and masks are out the window in most places too.
Although, healthcare facilities are still on the list of places where we’ll kind of be expected to wear one. I say “kind of” because that’s been my experience recently.
I’ve visited a couple of people in hospital and the mask requirements have been a bit haphazard. Then you go to a pharmacy and you feel bad if you’re not wearing a mask - but then you realise that hardly anyone else is, so you feel ok about it.
And so it was yesterday afternoon when the Prime Minister and the Health Minister jumped on the podium and announced that, at midnight, we’d be like the rest of the world and the Covid restrictions would become history.
Which had a touch of the old lockdown announcements about it. Often they were out of the blue and we found out that something would be happening at midnight.
Things were run like a terrorist organisation and we only found out at the last minute what we had to do and when we had to do it.
But, as of today, we don’t have to do anything. We just have to use a bit of the old common sense. If we’re sick, stay home. Which is how it should have been long before now.
Because how nuts was it that, up until midnight last night, you might have had Covid and felt perfectly fine but had to lock yourself away at home for seven days. But if it wasn’t Covid you could go wherever you want. Even if you felt and looked like death warmed up.
Even if you had something that could spread just as easily and be just as much of a threat to someone else as Covid. But, because you didn’t have the dreaded two lines on the Rapid Antigen Test, you didn’t have to do the seven days home detention.
So I think it’s brilliant that the Government has done what it should’ve done ages ago, and ditched these restrictions.
Don’t get me wrong. They had their place. Especially when we were still getting our heads around the different variants and while we were getting the vaccination rates up. So you won’t hear me saying the approach was wrong all along.
In hindsight, I think most people would agree that the whole elimination thing was a pipedream. Remember that? “We are going to stamp this thing out come hell or high water”. But, at the time, we were more than happy to bask in the elimination glory, weren’t we? Once it lasted.
And yes, in hindsight, we were kidding ourselves. But the approach was right for the time. And once the Government itself realised that elimination was a pipedream, it felt like it was leaving us to our own devices more than it had.
I distinctly remember the day when I realised that the Government was holding up the surrender sign. It felt very different. But, even then, the home isolation rule stuck around like a bad smell. Not anymore, though.
And today, different people will be feeling different things about the Government’s decision to do away with the Covid requirements.
Some will think it’s been overdue. Some will think the timing is about right. While others will be thinking that it’s too soon. And they’ll be the people who are still terrified of Covid. It might be because they had a really bad experience with it; or they might be dealing with long Covid; or they might have a health condition which means Covid will always be a more significant threat to them than it is to other people.
There will also be people who aren’t necessarily at-risk themselves, but who find it weird that - even though Spring is on the horizon - we are still technically in winter and hospitals are still under significant strain from the usual winter stuff.
We’ve got emergency departments shutting down. After-hours clinics closing the doors overnight. So, yes, it could seem like weird timing to be pulling the plug on restrictions that came about not just to limit the spread of Covid but also to prevent hospitals being overwhelmed with patients.
And I can see why some people might think that. But, as far as I’m concerned, I think the changes that came into force overnight were way overdue. And I think the Government has - eventually - got around to doing the right thing.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you believe Grant Robertson's sales pitch for taking GST off fruit and vegetables, you’ll believe anything.
Because we know he has always been opposed to the idea. Today, though, he's saying he's “come around to the idea". Which is hardly a ringing endorsement, is it?
What he really means is he’s come around to the idea because Chris Hipkins says it's his way or the highway.
There might, I suppose, be some people who will want to believe that Grant Robertson has had some sort of moment of realisation. These will be the five or six people who think it’s a great idea.
But we all know Grant Robertson hasn’t changed his mind or had a change of heart. We all know that he’s been told by the boss what’s happening and he’s going along with it because the boss said so. And that his job as the party’s Finance spokesperson is to sell it.
The danger, though, for Grant Robertson personally is any credibility he might have built up during his time as Finance Minister may have just gone down the gurgler.
And for what? For nothing. Because this GST idea is not going to turn the tide on Labour’s fortunes.
The saving grace for Grant Robertson is that no one is going to believe him when he bangs on about it over the next few weeks and all the economists and tax people will know he still thinks it’s a stupid idea.
And it’s a stupid idea that Labour should’ve ditched weeks ago. After National came out and said it had been tipped-off that Labour was planning a no-GST-on-fruit-and-veggies policy, Labour should’ve dropped the idea then because, straight away, all the people who know about these things wrote it off as dumb policy.
And they’re still writing it off as dumb policy. Which I think it is too.
Because, for me, what it comes down to is the opportunity cost of a policy like this. What you and I (collectively) will be missing out on for the sake of saving a few bucks a week. It’s an opportunity cost that couldn’t be starker.
It comes down to two numbers. The $5 that Labour reckons is the average amount of money most people would save by not paying GST on their fruit and veg. Versus the $2 billion that the government wouldn’t get in tax revenue.
That’s what it comes down to for me. I save 5-bucks. The government loses 2-billion bucks. You save 5-bucks. And we all lose 2-billion bucks.
2-billion less to spend on hospitals. 2-billion less to spend unclogging our courts system. 2-billion less to spend on roads. 2-billion less for schools. You name it. It’s just nuts.
We’re all feeling the pinch from what’s happened with the cost of living over the last few years and, for some people, even five dollars can make a difference. I know that. I get that.
But I just can’t see past the opportunity cost of stupid policy like this. Especially stupid policy announced two months from an election.
It is desperate. It lacks real thought. And it treats us voters like idiots.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
On Wednesday, a caller to the show - Murray - brought Winston Peters into the conversation.
And we ended up agreeing on a $5 wager as to whether or not Winston Peters would be back in Parliament after the election.
I said $5 he won’t. Murray said $5 he will.
Now I don’t know if Murray has a hotline to the outfits that do the political polls - because, if he does, I’ll claim insider trading - but, since making the bet, another political poll has come out giving NZ First more than five percent support.
This latest one is the Taxpayers Union one and it has NZ First party vote support at 5.8 percent. That’s a jump of 2.5 percent. And I think we can safely say that it’s not a rogue poll because this is the third poll in a row that puts NZ First over the five percent threshold.
So, if this was election day, I’d be handing over my $5 to Murray. And, if these polls are anything to go by, Murray can probably start spending that $5 because it’s looking more and more like a pretty safe bet. It’s looking more and more that Winston Peters and NZ First will be back in Parliament.
We probably shouldn’t be all that surprised -on several fronts.
For starters, Winston Peters and NZ First are a bit like the Crusaders, aren’t they? Not always convincing at the start but, at the business end of things, they take things up a notch and get across the line.
And, as long as there are people like Murray, that’s what NZ First will continue to do.
The other reason we shouldn’t be surprised is the fact that so many people just have no idea who they’re going to vote for this year.
In fact, it’s deeper than that. People don’t know who they want to vote for. And there’s a difference. Because, if you believe in democracy and all that, you’ll eventually give some party your vote.
But it doesn’t necessarily mean you want to vote for them. But you’ve got to vote for some party, so you pick the best from a bad bunch.
Which is how so many people are feeling at the moment. And I reckon that’s why we’re seeing NZ First popping up again over the five percent mark in these political polls.
You’ve got people thinking they don’t want Labour again. Some are thinking they’d like to vote National but they don’t really get Christopher Luxon - although, to be fair, he is now neck-and-neck with Chris Hipkins in personal popularity according to this poll that came out yesterday.
Then you’ve got people who can’t bring themselves to vote Green or ACT. So what do they do? Opportunities Party? Nah. They’re not interested in the other teeny-tiny parties, either. Brian Tamaki, your new Christian party, the freedom fighters. No thank you.
So where do these people go? They get on the bus to familiarity. That’s where they go. Better the devil you know. Even if they remember how Winston Peters held the country to ransom in 1996.
It was our first MMP election - the 12th of October 1996. And after the election night result came through, it was weeks before he settled on going into coalition with Jim Bolger’s National Party.
So these pro-Winny people seem to be willing to forget about all that. Or maybe it’s so long ago, that they get all nostalgic about it.
But he was still at it in 2017 when not even Labour knew he was going to go into coalition with them until he announced it on television. Talk about a circus. And it looks like the ringleader of that circus is bringing his show to town all over again.
Don’t get me wrong. I actually like Winston Peters. I like him for his sense of humour. I like him for his sense of style. And I really like the fact that he knows the ins-and-outs of Parliament. He knows how it works. He knows the rules. He’s old school on that front - and I like that.
But, man alive, he’s had his day - hasn’t he? Well, not necessarily it seems. Not according yesterday's poll. And the comeback most people probably thought would never happen is looking more and more likely.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I was asked yesterday whether I'll ever be happy with any policy announcement by any political party.
And, wouldn’t you know it, just 24 hours later it’s actually happened. And it’s the ACT Party of all parties that’s managed to do it.
Because it’s released details of its Justice Policy which I’m finding pretty hard to argue against.
I’ll be honest with you. Even though I like the sound of it, it’s not the type of approach that I would always have argued for. That’s because I get all the research and the evidence that says just locking people up doesn’t do society many favours in the long run.
But I’m just going to have to go on gut instinct and say that, of all the parties so far, I think ACT is reading the room well because we have all had a gutsful of crime, haven’t we? Or, more to the point, we’ve had a gutsful of criminals not facing the full consequences for their actions.
The gist of what ACT is saying, is that we need to have less criminals on Home Detention and more of them in prison. And even just on recent evidence, who could argue with that?
A prime example is the guy in Auckland who was on Home D but allowed to work; had some sort of beef with the outfit he was working for; got himself a gun; turned up at the building site where he’d been working; and started shooting at people.
Very clearly, he should not have been on Home D. But, when he was sentenced for the assault on his former partner, the judge started doing the old discount thing and when it got down to below two years, the home detention option became available. And he got it.
Which never should have happened. So anything that might prevent stuff like that happening again gets the big tick from me.
Now the way ACT would make it happen is by changing the Sentencing Act to force judges to think more about public safety and the rights of victims when it comes to sending someone to prison or letting them go home and hang out with an ankle bracelet on.
So you wouldn’t have this nutbar situation where a crim turns up in court for sentencing; there’s a starting point but then the judge starts giving discounts for all sorts of things like guilty pleas, the person’s background, childhood, cultural alienation etc etc And then, once they get below two years, home D becomes an option.
Under ACT’s policy, the judge would have to consider whether Home D is actually the safest option for the community. So even when they got below two years after all the discounts, the judge would have to think about how risky it would be not locking the person up.
They’d also need to consider the victim in all of this - and how a non-custodial sentence might sit with them.
A prime example, again, is the Auckland shooter. After he went AWOL three weeks ago today, the family of the woman he assaulted and ended up being on Home Detention for, came out and said he should never have been on Home D.
So we can assume from that, can’t we, that when the judge didn’t send him to prison, the victim had been left feeling hard done by. And that’s what the ACT Party is pledging to do something about.
And what is there to argue against that?
Why shouldn’t our judges be made to think about the consequences of them dishing out Home D sentences?
Why shouldn’t they have to think about whether or not it’s safe not having a crim behind bars. Especially when you consider the news today that home detention breaches are up by a third. That could have something to do with more people being on Home D these days. But it’s still an increase.
That’s the kind of change ACT wants and I like it. Another thing it wants to do is to get rid of the cultural reports that people use to justify sentence discounts. This is the industry that the likes of Harry Tam has got himself involved in.
ACT leader David Seymour says no crime can be justified because someone is alienated from their culture.
So some big changes proposed by ACT. And I like them.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Most of the time when you see a young person on their phone, do you jump to the conclusion that they’re just wasting time?
Or maybe you assume they’re planning their next ram raid or whatever.
Well if that’s you, then you will love National’s plan to ban mobile phones in all schools. No ifs or buts. No phones at lunchtime. No phones during recess. No phones at school. That’s what’s going to happen if National is in government after the election in October.
Which I think is one of those ideas that sounds great but what a nightmare to make happen.
It sounds great - to someone like me anyway - because I’m as guilty as the next person of thinking that anytime a kid’s on their phone, they’re not doing anything useful.
And that’s what National is tapping into with this policy. It wants to appeal to the likes of me - and maybe you too.
Because, if you’ve got kids at home - teenagers especially - you’ll know how infuriating it can be when you see them smiling at something on their phone when you know they should be getting on with that assignment or studying for their next exam. Or maybe even doing something useful around the place.
I reckon if they ever did research to find out what parents say to their kids most these days, it would probably be “put that bloody phone down”.
So imagine what it must be like for teachers with 30 kids in the room and trying to get them to focus on what they should be focused on. Trickier for the teachers too because they’d be hauled off to the Teaching Council if they told a student to “put the bloody phone down”.
National says the reason it wants to ban phones in schools is because it thinks it would help sort out the situation with fewer kids leaving school with NCEA Level 2 and above now, than 10 years ago.
It’s saying today that, if the kids weren’t so distracted on their phones, more of them would be doing better at school. But I don’t know if you could get a more simplistic view of the world if you tried.
Because what about the kids who aren’t doing well at school because they go home every day to a completely dysfunctional living arrangement? What about the kids who aren’t doing well at school because the system has let them down time and time again and no one’s clicked that they might be dyslexic or something. Or it was picked up so late that they’re going to be playing catch-up forever.
What about those kids? Banning phones at school isn’t going to make any difference to them.
Or the ones who had to go out and find a job during the pandemic because they’re parents lost their jobs during the lockdowns - and, because of that, they’ve just dropped out of the system.
I know for some people that’s hard to believe. But that is reality for some kids and their families.
And how rich would it be, do you think, for us to tell the kids they can’t have their phones with them at school, when they see us staring into the things all the time ourselves? When they see us on our phones when we’re doing things like driving? Talk about hypocritical.
Another thing too is whether parents would be happy for the kids not to be contactable during the school day. Because, as a society, we’ve fallen for the line that being able to contact the kids all the time, anytime is a good thing.
National says if phones were banned and parents needed to contact their kids during school hours, they could just call the school office. Can you imagine that?
It would also be putting it on schools to determine how to enforce the no-phone rule. One of the ways it’s suggesting is getting the kids to hand their phones in at the start of the day. But what would the likes of Burnside High School or Cashmere High School do with more than 2,000 phones?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If I said to you, there was one thing all the political parties need to stop doing straight away, what do you think it would be?
One thing that pretty much every party is doing. The ones on the left. The ones on the right. The ones in the middle. They’re all doing it.
What do you think it would be?
It would be these ridiculous promises that, if they’re part of the next government, we’ll be paying less taxes.
They’re all doing it. We’ve got the Maori Party talking about no GST on fruit and veggies. Apparently, Labour is considering the same thing - it just hasn’t confirmed it yet. A stupid idea.
Pretty much every party is talking about tax-free thresholds of different levels. The Opportunities Party. New Zealand First. National. They’re all saying 'vote for us and you’ll pay less tax’.
In fact, I went past an ACT Party billboard yesterday and it was telling me that they will “cut taxes, not services”. Which is ridiculous, when you think about it.
Because, if we’re honest about it, we need more tax, not less.
Government minister Damien O’Connor said as much the other night at a red meat conference. He was involved in a debate and told the crowd that the Government just doesn’t get enough tax to deal with all the issues facing New Zealand.
He said he thinks more taxes are going to be needed to fix infrastructure. And what he’s talking about there is things like getting our roads up to scratch - not to mention the huge amount of money that’s needed for the cyclone recovery.
And how does the Government get the money for that? And I’m not just talking about the current government. I’m talking about the next government, and then the one after that and then the one after that. All of them. They get the money needed for all of these things from taxes.
Throw into the mix, as well, the news today that the nurses are going to get paid more. This comes on the back of the announcement last week that teachers are going to get paid more too.
Neither of which the Government is going to get any argument from me on. Because who is going to begrudge teachers and nurses getting paid properly for the amazing work they do?
If you’ve been to a hospital anytime recently, you will have seen how it’s the nurses who really keep the place ticking. Yes, the doctors and specialists and surgeons are amazing. But the nurses are worth their weight in gold too.
Teachers as well. Yes, there are some average teachers out there. But, generally, who would want to be a teacher these days? Not me. Which is why I’m more than happy for the people who take that job on to be paid what they should for the work they do.
So we’ve got all of this - the nurses and teachers pay increases, cyclone recovery, big infrastructure projects, new roads, new tunnels etc all happening at the same time as we have pretty much every political party telling us that we’re paying too much tax.
Which, of course, anyone will agree with. Because who likes paying tax? No one likes it. The thing is, though, is it realistic or even responsible for any political party to promise less tax? I don’t think it is. I think it’s nuts.
This is at the same time too, as the Police telling staff that they need to cut costs. And how, over the next few years, they’re going to be focusing on “efficiency and productivity”.
Which is, generally, going to mean a hiring freeze for non-frontline jobs. But, as we know, what that will mean is the frontline staff doing more non-frontline work.
So when I consider all of that, the only conclusion I can come to is that any politician who reckons we should be paying less tax is in La La Land.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Are you the sort of person who goes to the dentist like clockwork, even if you think there’s nothing wrong?
Or, are you like most people, and only go when you’re in agony or when you break a tooth trying to eat a Mintie or something like that?
I’m not even one of those types. So maybe there are three types.
The ones who go to the dentist even if they think there’s nothing wrong. The ones who only go when they know for sure something’s wrong. And the ones who know there’s something wrong but still don’t do anything about it. Even if they can afford it.
Some people are scared of the dentist. Some people are terrified. But I’m not. I just don’t go.
The Green Party says many people aren’t going to the dentist because of the cost and it wants to see a free national dental service. Paid for by a wealth tax.
It wouldn’t include cosmetic stuff. Just the basic things like check-ups and fillings.
But it’s going to be pushing it uphill with its potential coalition partner, Labour. Because Labour has said time and time again that it’s not interested in a wealth tax.
James Shaw won't be be deterred, though. He thinks that, if the Greens get enough votes, they could get this across the line. But he would say that, wouldn’t he?
But there is something I think we could do to improve the state of teeth in New Zealand. And it wouldn’t cost anything like a free dental service. And it would have an impact on everyone. And that’s fluoridation of all water supplies.
Which is happening on a bit of an ad-hoc basis, at the moment. The Government wants it everywhere. We don’t have fluoride in the water in Christchurch yet. But it will be a good thing when it is.
Because if we are serious about oral health, putting fluoride in our drinking water is a much better option than pouring truckloads of money into a national dental service which, I don’t believe, would achieve what the Green party thinks it would.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you’re sick of people being let off the hook because of their past, how do you feel about people getting off the hook because of their future?
This is nothing new, of course. We’ve all heard stories about law students, for example, doing something silly on a night out, getting arrested, going to court, and not being convicted because what they did wasn’t bad enough to damage their career prospects.
And most of the time - even if you disagree with that approach - most of the time you just shrug your shoulders and move on.
I can’t do that today, though. Because I think a judge in Wellington has got it wrong, big time, with a case that he heard yesterday.
Essentially, what’s happened is a New Zealand athlete has got off sex charges involving a 15-year-old girl because a conviction would be a “crushing blow” to his future prospects. That’s what the judge said. A conviction would be a “crushing blow”.
He pleaded guilty to having sexual connection with a teenage girl, and intentionally exposing her to indecent images and sexual communication.
The athlete met the girl online on Snapchat in 2021. Their online chat got more sexual and then this guy sent nude pictures of himself to the girl.
Further down the track, they met up, went back to his guy’s flat - where the report I’ve seen says they had “sexual contact”. They also had sex in his car later, as well.
He was 20. She was 15. But, because a conviction would harm his sporting career, he’s got-off scot-free. Being granted a discharge without conviction. He’s also got permanent name suppression.
The girl’s mother is outraged. She says she had faith in the justice system but that’s gone out the window. She’s saying today that she doesn’t feel she can tell young people to go to the police if bad things happen to them, anymore.
She says: “It tells young women that men can do whatever they like.”
And she won’t get any argument from me on that. Who could argue with that?
Maybe Judge Bruce Davidson could. Because he’s the one who thinks that this guy’s sporting career is more important than the victim in this case.
The victim, who said in her statement to the court, that the guy is a predator.
She said: “It is impossible to put into words the impact of this predator’s actions. I was 15 and he was an adult. I should be a carefree, flourishing young lady. But, instead, I am a shell of a person.” That’s just a bit of what the victim in this case said to the court.
Her mother says her daughter has been suicidal at times, as well.
But that’s nothing, apparently, compared to what a conviction would mean for this guy’s “Olympic dream”. That’s what his lawyer said in court yesterday. A conviction for his client would “put the Olympic dream aside”.
And the judge was sucked in by that. The Crown opposed it and wanted the guy convicted. But the judge fell for it. Saying a conviction would be a crushing blow and out-of-proportion to the offending.
And this is exactly the situation that the likes of David Seymour are talking about. Where all the focus is on the offender and minimising consequences for them. And making the victim play second-fiddle - be left feeling second-rate.
So what if this guy never makes it to the Olympics? So what if a conviction meant he was stigmatised for life - that was one of the lines his lawyer used in court yesterday. If he was convicted the stigma of it all would be with him for the rest of his life.
And if he was named he would be cast out of social and sporting circles and he would be crucified in the media. Again, so what?
He was the creep who preyed on this girl. He knew what he was doing. But, oh no, let’s protect his Olympic dreams and let’s make sure he doesn’t get a hard time and, God forbid, let’s not make him face the consequences of his actions.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You’ll remember all the noise about the Rolleston Avenue/Park Terrace cycleway when some Christchurch city councillors and the mayor claimed they’d been blindsided and didn’t know it was going to happen without them having the chance to give it the green light.
And the mayor went ballistic saying that council staff were running amok and needed to be reined in. And Aaron Keown and James Gough chimed in, making the same claims that they know nothing. When it turns out they did.
Which is why the head of the Transport Department gave them a good ticking off for criticising her staff in public - which councillors are not allowed to do.
And the reason the cycleway went in in the first place was because council staff thought that cyclists were going to be put in danger because of the re-development work going on at Canterbury Museum and, as we know, they took out a lane of traffic and turned it into a cycleway.
A temporary measure. For five years. Which has probably had a few people question their understanding of what temporary actually means.
Anyway, the council decided to do some consultation with the public and it gave the job of going through all the submissions and coming up with a recommendation to the local community board. Which said it thought it should stay, for five years.
And so yesterday the councillors considered the recommendation and voted to go with it.
Which will have some of the people in the Rolleston Avenue/Park Terrace area absolutely fuming. Because they were fuming at the council meeting yesterday. And, as often happens with things like this, I reckon these people have lost the plot.
I still think what the council staff have done on is nutbar. Because there is so much footpath and grass verge in that area, that they didn’t need to take out a traffic lane to create this temporary cycleway. But it is what it is. But let's get some perspective.
Do you know one guy living there told me it’s not been good for his mental health. You might have heard that yourself recently. You might also have heard me ask him how people dealing with bigger issues in their lives might feel listening to him say that.
Then, at yesterday’s city council meeting, the self-entitlement went completely next-level. One person who turned up was - in my honest opinion - just downright nasty.
Storm McVay was asked multiple times not to make personal attacks on people. She was going on about how one councillor only got onto council by a whisker.
It got so bad that five councillors walked out of the meeting. And good on them too. As it’s being reported today, they said it was absolutely toxic.
She was asked to be respectful and stop criticising staff. But she said it was her personal opinion and she was entitled to express it.
Well here’s my honest opinion - which I’m allowed to express as well - Storm McVay and the other Park Terrace whingers should be cringing.
Because, while they’re banging on about a blimmin’ cycleway, people on the other side of town in Bromley are being told that it’s going to take even longer to sort out that stench from that stinking compost plant.
There were supposed to be options on the table for councillors to consider yesterday. But that’s now been delayed until December.
These are the people, of course, who haven’t just had the stench of the compost plan to deal with. They’ve had the double whammy with the smell from the burnt-out wastewater plant too.
And after waiting, waiting, waiting, they’ve been hit with another four-month delay before the council is even going to get around to considering what to do next. They must be despairing.
But, on the other side of town, people are clutching the pearls in outrage because instead of having two lanes of traffic, they’ve got one. Get a grip people. You just don’t know you’re alive.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
We are obsessed with qualifications.
If you want evidence, take all the noise we’re hearing today about the news that the number of students leaving school with NCEA Level 2 or above dropped again last year to the lowest level in a decade.
People are jumping up and down because the OECD reckons that if someone’s going to be employable, they need at least Level 2 NCEA.
Which fuels even further this obsession with getting good qualifications. Which, I’ll admit, I’ve been guilty of too. Especially when the kids were going through school and NCEA was the be-all and end-all.
In fact, before they reached those years even. Going through the school reports, going to the meet-the teacher nights, or the “three-way learning conferences” or whatever they call them.
And it will still be the case. Parents agonising. Wanting the best for their kids.
And then, when they do get to years 11, 12 and 13 - the old Forms Five, Six and Seven - the agonising and pressure goes next level.
And then they get to Year 13 and you realise that, actually, Year 12 is the year that really matters and things can go into cruise mode in the last year of high school.
That’s because things like university scholarship applications are all based on results from Year 12. The Level 2 results. And, in Year, the kids can actually focus on making the most of their last year at school.
Not necessarily in terms of studying. But getting amongst it all - all the extra-curricular stuff.
Which isn’t that much different from my day when Form Six was when you got University Entrance (UE) and Seventh Form seemed like a bit of an add-on. Even then.
In fact, I left school just a few months into Seventh Form because I got a job as a cadet reporter at the local newspaper. Which is exactly what I wanted to do.
These days, though, I’d have to go and study somewhere and get some sort of qualification before getting to write the fruit and produce reports at the ODT in Dunedin. The shipping news was my other big responsibility back in those days.
I didn’t need a qualification back then. But I would now. Which is nuts. And it’s because we have been sold this idea that qualifications are everything. That exam results or assignment results are everything. And they are the only way you can assess whether someone’s a deadbeat or not.
And I think that is so wrong. And, for me, a great attitude is way more important than great qualifications.
When I say a great attitude, I’m not just talking about someone being a nice person or not. I’m talking about someone who wants to get amongst things, learn new things, try new things, take risks.
Someone who isn’t toxic. Because, let’s admit it, you can get some pretty highly-qualified people who just create havoc wherever they go. There are also very highly-qualified people who do a hell of a lot of study - possibly over quite a period of time - but who don’t go very far. Even with those qualifications.
And even if someone does leave school with just NCEA Level 1, it doesn’t mean a lifetime sentence of deadbeat jobs or worse.
Because, even without NCEA, you can get to the age of 20 and apply for special admission to a university.
And that’s why you won't get me jumping up and down about these latest NCEA statistics. Because, as far as I’m concerned, I don't think qualifications are the be-all and end-all.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you’re driving on State Highway One south of Christchurch anytime soon, be aware that it's as good as it's going to get.
I remember someone telling me once that they were driving that piece of road with a person visiting from overseas who asked my friend why they weren’t taking the main highway. And my friend had to say that they were actually on the main highway.
I also remember last election and then-National Party leader Todd Muller announcing that, if he led the next Government, a new highway between Christchurch and Ashburton would be a goer.
We know how things went for Todd Muller shortly after that. National didn’t get into Government. And the idea of a new highway went nowhere.
So here we are three years later, in another election year and National seems to have lost its enthusiasm for a new four-lane highway connecting Christchurch and Ashburton.
It’s released its new transport policy and it seems to have plenty of new roads planned for up north. The only thing it’s talking about in Canterbury is a by-pass for Woodend, which its local MP Matt Doocey has been championing for years. It’s making noises too about building a new bridge across the Ashburton River.
Which no-one could argue isn’t desperately needed. We saw again the other weekend, didn’t we, how much of a weak link that bridge is. With it being closed overnight after that big storm caused a whole lot of debris to gather near the bridge and so they closed it as a precaution.
I was travelling back from Dunedin and got through just in time. And I don’t know whether it was just the amount of rain or the fact that we have such a second-rate road on that stretch of State Highway One - but I thought the road itself needed to be closed too after going through all the surface flooding.
Either way, I think the way that road has been neglected - or the way we have been neglected by all political parties when it comes to that road - is appalling.
Because, if National thought it needed sorting three years ago, the need will only be greater now with 36 more months of cars and trucks and buses pounding it every day.
But it hasn’t made the cut. Not with National, anyway. And I don’t think we should be holding our breath for Labour to come up with anything better.
Because it’s had nearly six years to do something. And it hasn’t. So are we just imagining how bad it actually is? And are we in la-la land thinking that a new highway is way overdue?
I don’t think I am imagining how bad it is. And I don’t think I am in la-la-land thinking something has to be done about it.
Part of the problem is the way some drivers use that bit of road. You know the ones I’m talking about. Despite the number of passing lanes, you still get the ones who can’t possibly wait and swing out into the opposite lane whenever they want to. It’s never a need. It’s always a want.
The fact that there are so many passing lanes says a lot about the suitability of that road for the number of vehicles that are used on it. I reckon anyway.
And then, if something happens, the hold-ups can be quite staggering. I remember one day last year we were heading south and traffic was at a complete standstill. For kilometres. I actually had never seen State Highway One at a standstill like that for so long.
Eventually, we got moving and saw that it was because a crash had involved a power pole and the crews were there sorting it out. So the crash, itself, had been cleared away. But getting the power pole sorted out meant traffic going nowhere. Because you’ve only got two lanes to play with - so not much wiggle room.
Another thing too, is that goat track between Christchurch and Ashburton - in fact the whole length of State Highway One to Dunedin - is a vital trade link.
The Port of Otago and the Port of Timaru - alot of stuff goes through those ports and needs transporting around the South Island and beyond. So it just doesn’t make sense to me that with all this focus on lifting productivity and all that, why better roading south of Christchurch isn’t a priority.
And this isn’t a beat-up on National, by the way. This is a beat-up on all political parties who seem to think that a few passing lanes here and there is all we need.
Because it’s not.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There’s something going on at the Christchurch City Council at the moment that raises a very interesting question about how we expect or want people elected to our local councils to behave.
So, even though strictly speaking it’s a Christchurch City Council thing, this is actually relevant wherever you live.
The story begins with Christchurch councillor Aaron Keown, who is in the dog box for saying bad things about other councillors and council staff on Facebook. Or maybe “implying” bad things is a better way of putting it.
Nevertheless, his fellow councillor Sara Templeton took exception to what Aaron Keown said on Facebook and laid a complaint, alleging that he had breached the council’s Code of Conduct.
The council hired an Auckland lawyer to consider the complaint as an independent investigator. And he’s come back saying that Aaron Keown has seriously breached the code of conduct.
Here’s a quote from the lawyer’s judgement: “The post is discourteous and not focused on the issues, but rather on personalities. The post would tend to place the council and councillors in a bad light with the public.”
So Councillor Keown has been found guilty and, this week, his fellow councillors are going to decide what to do about it. They may force him to apologise. There’s even a suggestion that councillors could force him to resign.
I don’t know, actually, how likely that would be. I think an apology is way more likely but who knows?
What he said on Facebook was in relation to the panel considering plans to change things on the streets around the site of Christchurch's new stadium, Te Kaha.
The council plans to do work in that area way before the stadium’s finished. Some of the work is underground infrastructure stuff. Some of it isn’t.
Above ground, the council’s going to bring the speed limit down to 10 kilometres per hour (yes, that’s for cars and buses and trucks), widen footpaths etc.
So it had a hearings panel to go through the plans and come up with a recommendation as to whether the council should do the work, what changes might be made.
And Councillor Aaron Keown went on Facebook and said, when he saw who was going to be on the panel, he decided he didn’t want to be part of it or involved in it because he knew what its recommendation would be.
He said: “The panel is stacked to get the outcome. I will get in trouble for this post but cannot stand by watching another charade.”
He was right. He did get in trouble for it. Because one of his fellow councillors lodged a complaint alleging that he’d gone against the council’s code of conduct, which says councillors can’t publicly criticise council staff or other councillors.
Aaron Keown doesn’t think he’s done anything wrong. He believes he should be able to speak publicly if he doesn't agree with something.
But is this how we want the people elected to our local councils to behave?
Do we want our local councillors to do the “united front” thing that central governments try to do? Although, the current government is starting to fail on that one.
Or do we want them to say what they really think?
I think the united front approach wouldn’t work for councils. Primarily, because local council meetings are open to the public and, in some places, they’re even livestreamed online. So we know what councillors think about certain things already and we’d see through a united front approach pretty quickly, wouldn’t we?
But if we’ve really had a gutsful of politicians behaving like kids as much as we say we have, then we have to tell people like Councillor Aaron Keown to pull their heads in.
Because, when you put yourself up for election and you win and you find yourself sitting around a council table, you also agree to behave in a way that is expected of you.
And, in the case of councils and councillors, there is a code of conduct. And, if you don’t abide by that code of conduct, then you have to face and accept the consequences.
Which is why I think Aaron Keown deserves everything that’s coming at him.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How likely is it, do you think, that when the Australian Prime Minister jumped on the plane yesterday after his visit to Wellington and headed back to Canberra, Chris Hipkins wished he was on the plane too?
You know, like kids, they’ll have a playdate with one of their mates, but they don’t want the party to end and then they want to turn it into a sleepover.
I reckon that’s how Hipkins will have been feeling yesterday when he saw Anthony Albanese’s plane heading down the runway. Or maybe it was US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s plane Hipkins wanted to be on. Because he was in Wellington yesterday too.
Either way, any opportunity to get out of the country must be very appealing to the Prime Minister at the moment . He’s had a hell week and it got worse yesterday with National’s Finance spokesperson Nicola Willis claiming she’d seen Labour’s tax policy for the election.
And, according to Willis anyway, the main feature is a plan to take the GST off fruit and vegetables.
Something Labour’s finance spokesperson - and current Finance Minister - has poo-pooed at every opportunity. The guy who is looking more and more despondent with the direction his party is taking under Chris Hipkins.
The guy who will be expected to suddenly change his tune - publicly anyway - and expect us to believe that he’s changed his mind and now thinks it’s a great idea.
I've said many times, what good is a mind if you can’t change it? But not even Grant Robertson can pull this one off. So don’t be surprised if he calls it quits before election day.
Because, remember, he’s not standing in an electorate anymore - he’s on the party list. So it makes no difference whether he’s in or out. If he was standing in Wellington Central again, he’d have to commit to sticking around. But he’s not. So he can go whenever he wants.
And, if National is on the money and scrapping GST on fruit and veggies is part of Labour’s election policy, then I reckon we’ll see Grant Robertson walk - sooner rather than later.
And it’s not as if he’s alone in thinking that it’s a dumb idea. I think it’s a dumb idea. And I’ll get to that.
But GST expert Allan Bullot thinks it’s a dumb idea too, telling Newstalk ZB that the governments should keep their hands off GST.
"You end up with a slippery slope and before you know it GST, which is currently a very regular, very stable, very forecastable collection of revenue for the government is suddenly not collecting what you need and you turn around and the cupboard is bare."
Who could argue with that?
Apparently, the Labour Party thinks it can argue with that and, if National is on the money, Labour will be coming out at some point and saying “vote for us, and you won’t pay GST on fruit and veggies”.
But when will Labour learn that these one-size-fits-all policies just don’t work?
You don’t have to be a GST expert to know that fruit and veggies aren’t the only things making the supermarket shop more expensive.
What about things like milk, meat, bread, cheese, pet food, crackers, muesli bars, bacon, fish, yoghurt, cleaning products and sanitary items? Not to mention the price of the fuel we need to get to the supermarket in the first place.
None of these things would be any cheaper. So why do some politicians think it’s a good idea? Mainly because it sounds good. That’s what the tax expert said today too.
He said if you offer people a free lunch, they’ll take it. They won’t think about it, they’ll just say ‘thank you very much’.
And, if Labour does come out with a policy to scrap GST on fruit and veggies, that’s the reason why. Because it knows that some people won’t think about it too deeply - and, if it can convince enough people not to think about it too deeply, then it might have a chance.
That’s what it will be thinking and that’s what it will be hoping for.
But I think it would be just another desperate attempt by a political party that is looking more desperate by the day.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
New Zealand would have to be the undisputed health and safety champion of the world.
Which is why I’ve always found it weird that we’re quite happy for any Tom, Dick or Harry with a smartphone to jump on one of those rental e-scooters and go for it.
Lime Scooters. Flamingo scooters. You know the ones I’m talking about.
Right now, you can find one of those things, get your phone out, scan the code on the scooter, and you’re away laughing.
No previous experience required. No helmet required. There’s not even a speed limit enforced. And you can ride anywhere - on the road, on footpaths. Anywhere and everywhere.
The reason you can do that is that is because you don’t have to have a licence to use one of these things. They also don’t have to be registered to anyone. Which is why they don’t have number plates.
But that could be all about to change because Waka Kotahi needs to decide in the next month or so whether to keep things operating like this or not.
At the moment, these e-scooters aren’t subject to certain road rules. That’s because, in 2018, there was a declaration made or given to enable companies like Lime and Flamingo and all the others to set-up shop here in New Zealand.
If someone needed a licence, for example, it would defeat the purpose of these things - which is to provide a means of transport pretty much for anyone who can keep their balance.
If you start requiring people to have licences and things - well, forget it.
But, five years down the track, Waka Kotahi now needs to decide if it’s going to renew that exemption declaration or not. And, if it doesn’t, then we can effectively kiss goodbye to anywhere, anytime rental e-scooters in New Zealand.
When these things first arrived on the scene, I thought they were great because they gave the feel of being a modern, 21st-century outfit didn’t they? Well, that’s how I felt about them at the time.
There was certainly something cool about them. But I think the novelty has worn-off. That could be because more of us seem to be open to using public transport like buses. Or maybe it’s because Uber is much more mainstream now than it was even just five years ago.
The other thing too, is that most of us have probably felt a bit at-risk from some of the idiots who use these Lime Scooters and Flamingo Scooters.
Most likely, night-time is the most risky time. But I could walk out of our building at lunchtime today and there’d be someone screaming down the street on the footpath. Not giving two hoots about me or anyone else out on the street.
Or it might not even be just one person. You see two people on the same scooter, don’t you? And they’re actually the ones I’m most weary of because it’s not like you’ve got two sets of eyes looking out for you.
No. They’re focussed on having a laugh. Until it goes all pear-shaped.
Which has well-and-truly happened since these things came to New Zealand. It’s been reported that thousands of people are injured every year using these things. Tragically, there have been deaths, as well.
Here are some numbers for you. Between October 2018 and October last year, there was $30 million worth of ACC claims for e-scooter injuries. These included rental scooters and privately-owned scooters. The number of claims was just over 10,500.
And, in the first year since e-scooters were exempt from some of the road rules that apply to other vehicles, surgeons in Auckland operated on more e-scooter riders than motorbike riders.
And the e-scooter riders they were treating were turning up with the types of traumatic injuries you’d normally see in people involved in car crashes. Chances are things have improved a bit on that front. But who knows.
Either way, Waka Kotahi has a decision to make. And needs to make it pretty soon. Because, come the end of September, if the road rules exemption continues then so will the Lime Scooters. But, if it decides not to extend the exemption, then the scooters will be gone.
And I wouldn’t be upset about that. Because, as I said before, the novelty has gone for me and I think they’ve had their day.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Is Chris Hipkins in the Beehive? Or is he in la-la land?
Because, after everything that’s happened with his government since he took over at the start of the year, he seems to think Labour can still win this year’s election.
Even after the most-recent calamity, with now-former minister Kiri Allan being over the legal alcohol limit, crashing a car and failing to accompany a police officer on Sunday night.
She’s the fourth government minister to go in less than four months. There’s also been Stuart Nash, Michael Wood and Meka Whaitiri.
David Parker has obviously spat the dummy too - giving up the Revenue portfolio after all his work coming up with a wealth tax and a capital gains tax ended up on Chippy’s bonfire pretty much as soon as it came off the printer.
Hipkins said as much this morning when Mike Hosking asked him whether David Parker had broken Cabinet rules by speaking publicly about his disappointment his new taxes weren’t going anywhere.
Hipkins said not every Cabinet minister personally agrees with every decision and sometimes, when that happens, they decide to move onto other things. Which Parker has done. Apparently, so he can focus his attention on the Transport portfolio.
Which is code for one brassed-off Cabinet minister. I reckon we can include Grant Robertson in the list of brassed-off Cabinet ministers too. Again, because of the tax ideas getting the heave-ho from the boss.
But, despite all the rumblings behind the scenes, Chris Hipkins is putting on the happy face - putting on the brave face - and saying that he still thinks Labour is in a good position to win the election.
Which of course he’s going to do. Because he’s the leader and it’s his job to fire everyone up and make sure they give it their all. It's not as if he’s ever going to say publicly that he thinks their time in government is coming to an end.
He was asked this morning if he ever imagined, when he took over the job of Labour leader and Prime Minister at the start of the year, whether things would have gone the way they have.
Straight away, he was banging on about pretty much everything except the cock-ups within his government.
The only thing he didn’t do was blame previous governments. That probably wasn’t far from his lips, though.
But to go on about cyclones and economic recessions, maybe shows that he really is in la-la land.
Maybe he really does think he’s got a good shot at winning the election. Maybe he really does think the only reason his party might be down the gurgler is because of cyclones and storms and economies going pear-shaped.
But that won’t be the case. He’ll know that his government is looking tired and stale. That’s it’s looking like a government at the end of its third term, not its second term. And a lot of that will probably be because of the pandemic.
Because, let’s face it, everyone is knackered after the Covid storm of the last few years. And the Government is no different.
But what can’t be blamed on Covid is another symptom of governments that, generally, doesn’t show through until the third term - and that’s arrogance. All governments - whatever colour they are - become arrogant. Because they think they’ve been around long enough, that they are the only ones with the experience to run a country.
And that sense of self-importance is probably worse after something like a global pandemic. I reckon we saw it in John Key’s government too. You know, “we dealt with New Zealand’s biggest earthquakes, we know what to do when things hit the fan” blah blah blah.
And that is exactly what we’ve been seeing from Labour for quite some time now. It is tired, it is stale and it is arrogant. And if Chris Hipkins really thinks they can win the election, then he is well and truly in la-la land.
Because I reckon the Football Ferns have more chance of winning the women's world cup, than Labour has of winning the election in October.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Do you remember back when Prime Minister Chris Hipkins was over in China, and he said he was having such a great time that he didn’t really want to go home?
I reckon he’s wishing he was still in Beijing, with the news that Kiri Allan has resigned from Cabinet after being charged with reckless driving and resisting arrest in Wellington last night.
She was also over the legal alcohol limit. But she wasn’t over the limit enough to be charged, so she got an infringement notice.
It all started around 9 o’clock last night when the car she was driving on Evans Bay Parade in Wellington hit a parked car. Police responded, she resisted being arrested, but was taken into custody. And was released around 1am.
She’s heading home to the East Coast and she has said in a statement that she is considering her future in politics.
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, quite rightly, says Kiri Allan’s actions last night were inexcusable. He says he’s told her that it’s untenable for a Justice Minister to be charged with criminal offending.
He could go further on that particular aspect, but hasn’t. But, as if being a Justice Minister and being charged with criminal offences wasn’t bad enough. We’re also talking about a Justice Minister resisting arrest. Which takes it up a notch again, doesn’t it? It’s almost another “don’t you know who I am" moment.
So Chris Hipkins is obviously brassed off with her but he has also made mention of her mental health issues, saying that she was in a state of “extreme emotional distress” when this all happened last night.
Chris Hipkins has also said today that, after her recent mental health break, he thought she was okay to start back at work.
He says he believed she was okay and that he had been assured by Kiri Allan herself that she was okay and ready to be back at Parliament.
Chris Hipkins says: “Last night’s incident is evidence there are not always quick fixes when it comes to mental health, and the best thing for Kiri right now is to focus on her whanau and her wellbeing away from Parliament.
“I don’t provide this detail to diminish her actions - they were indefensible - but to provide context for the distressed circumstances she found herself in when the incident occurred.”
Kiri Allan has also said in a statement that, over recent weeks she's faced a number of personal difficulties.
"I took time off to address those and believed I was okay to juggle those challenges with the pressure of being a Minister. My actions yesterday show I wasn’t okay and I’ve let myself and my colleagues down.”
Already, the vultures are circling. Not the politicians themselves. Because the people who have worked with Kiri Allan - her government colleagues as well as opposition MPs - will have some compassion because they know better than any of us what it’s like to be an MP and to work at Parliament.
ACT leader David Seymour, for example, spoke very kindly about Kiri Allan on Newstalk ZB this morning, saying that politicians are people too and she has obviously had a lot to deal with personally.
Because it’s not just her mental health. Let’s not forget she had that battle with cancer not that long ago, as well.
So I thought David Seymour was pretty gracious. But he also made a very good point about Chris Hipkins and whether he treated Kiri Allan fairly, by letting her return to work when she did following her mental health break.
Seymour thinks Hipkins was hamstrung by a lack of ministerial talent. And I agree.
I reckon that if Chris Hipkins felt confident he had other people to do her work, he wouldn't have allowed Kiri Allan to return to work so soon.
I’m not saying that what happened last night wouldn’t have happened if she’d been off work longer than she was. But I do think Kiri Allan, in some respects, has been let down by Chris Hipkins.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
“You don’t know what I’m capable of.”
That - or words to that effect - is what Matu Reid said to his partner back in 2021 after he’d pushed her off a chair, thrown an object at her head, kicked her in the stomach - sending her flying backwards - stood over her, and grabbed her throat for about 10 seconds. During which time she couldn’t breathe.
Well, we now know exactly what he’s capable of. Or was capable of. Because yesterday morning, he turned up at the building site in central Auckland where he’d been working and went on the rampage with a shotgun.
Two people at the site lost their lives and others - including a police officer - are in hospital with injuries. Reid himself died, as well. You might have heard the Police Commissioner saying this morning that the police officer has quite a road ahead in terms of recovery.
You might have also heard the Police Commissioner saying that he hasn't read the sentencing notes from when this guy got home detention for the assault on his partner.
Which I couldn’t believe. I don't know who’s advising the Commissioner but he should find someone else. Because, as soon as I heard yesterday that the person responsible for this was on home detention, I knew there’d be a truckload of questions about it.
So Matu Reid was on home detention, wearing an ankle bracelet, and allowed to leave home to go to work. And it was the building site where he’d been working before the shootings yesterday.
It seems something may have happened in relation to his work there that caused him to do what he did yesterday. But we’ll find out more about that as all the investigations contionue.
But what we do know, is that this guy should never have been on home detention and should never have been allowed to come and go to work. Well, that’s what I think anyway.
Because this was a very serious assault on his partner we’re talking about, back in 2021.
He pushed her off a chair, threw something at her head, kicked and strangled her. She couldn’t breathe for 10 seconds. And that was while he was already under supervision for another assault a year before.
And even before attacking her, he threatened to “take out” her and her family.
So he ends up in court and Judge Stephen Bonnar KC starts discounting the sentence left, right and centre.
The starting point was three years in jail. Twenty-five percent came off for a guilty plea. Another nine months was taken-off for background factors - his upbringing, and the fact he had to run away from home at a young age. His sense of remorse was another thing considered by the judge, as well. Another five months came off because of the time he’d already spent in custody.
So that got him down to 13 months. And once you get below 24 months. the judge has the option of home detention.
Which is nuts, isn’t it? Because, even once all the factors like terrible upbringing and all that are taken into account and someone is still considered to be a candidate for serving prison time, if it gets down to less than two years, then the judge has some discretion.
And, in the case of this guy, the judge gave him home detention because “I do not want to send a young man like you, with a limited history, to prison. I think that could be counterproductive and actually set you down the wrong path.”
And so he walked out of court with a five-month home detention sentence.
This was a guy who offended while he was already under supervision for a violent crime the year before; strangled someone; threatened to "take out” his victim and her family; and told his victim she didn’t know what he was capable of.
Now we all know what he was capable of.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Another day and another rushed law and order policy announcement from Labour.
Yesterday’s one was the third this week, and pretty much focused on ram raids and what to do with 12 and 13-year-old kids who get involved in them.
As the week’s gone on, I’ve thought Labour’s policy announcements have been pretty lame and yesterday’s was no exception.
Labour thinks treating 12 and 13-year-olds as criminals is going to stop them driving cars through shop windows and helping themselves to whatever they find inside. I think it's dreaming.
First of all, these kids are going to be allowed to do one ram raid before they face the type of consequences Labour is talking about. So what’s that? Two strikes and you’re out?
Secondly, it’s all very well these kids going to the Youth Court and getting bail or limping around the place with an ankle bracelet on, but how does that change the environment they’re living in? It makes no difference at all.
And as for this dream politicians seem to have, that one-size-fits-all law and order policies are a deterrent. Do you really think that’s going to be the case when it comes to 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds?
Of course it isn’t. Especially when they know they can do it once and get away with it before things get really heavy and they’re off to the Youth Court.
About a month ago, I said I didn’t support what the Dairy and Business Owners Group was calling for, when they were saying that it was hopeless targeting young offenders and that it’s their parents who should carry the can.
As we know, their members - the people who own and run dairies and other retail outlets - had a complete gutsful of ratbags getting away with ram raiding and nicking stuff from their shops.
They were focussed on kids aged around 14, and were saying that they wanted the parents of these kids made legally responsible for what their kids are getting up to.
I said at the time that I didn’t support that because I thought it would do nothing to teach these 14-year-olds about consequences for their actions. They’d just keep playing up because they’d know that it’d be Mum or Dad carrying the can.
But I reckon 12 and 13-year-olds are different. I reckon 12 and 13-year-olds are probably more likely to be saved from a life of crime than someone just that little bit older.
I am a realist and I know that some kids - tragically - are on a path that it’s very difficult to get them off.
Nevertheless, instead of treating these kids as criminals, as Labour says it wants to, I reckon they should be taking a leaf out of the dairy owners' book and, instead of sending these kids to court, they should be sending their parents to court.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch mayor Phil Mauger needs to realise it’s not 1974 anymore.
That was the year that Christchurch hosted the Commonwealth Games.
But, no sooner had the premier of Victoria announced yesterday that his state government was pulling the plug on hosting the 2026 games because a cost blow-out, Phil Mauger was banging on about Christchurch putting its hand up.
This is not a new thing for Phil. During the election campaign last year, he said multiple times that one of his big dreams for Christchurch was hosting the Commonwealth Games again.
It’s a dream Phil has had from his days growing up across the road from the old QEII complex and going over there every day to watch the stadium and other facilities being built for the games.
But that was then. Hosting the games these days is a very different proposition to what it was back in ‘74.
And from what rowing legend Eric Murray was saying on TV last night, it’s not necessarily the cost of the stadiums and things that send the budgets through the roof. It's all the other things such as athletes’ accommodation and training villages that can chew through the money.
Because you think about where the athletes stayed in Christchurch during the ‘74 games. It was the student accommodation at the University of Canterbury. Which I’m sure was fine back then - but can you imagine today’s athletes being happy with that?
Of course they wouldn’t. Because, over the past 50 years, everyone’s become accustomed to - and expects - everything to be brand new.
Back in 1974, Christchurch was the smallest city ever to host the Commonwealth Games. And it cost a truckload of money back then.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard Phil Mauger acknowledge this, but the ‘74 games were a financial disaster for Christchurch.
Yes, they were deemed a success in terms of the event itself. And I know people who were around then talk about the vibe in Christchurch being brilliant and how exciting it all was.
But the financial side of it - as far as Christchurch was concerned - was a disaster.
The powers-that-be in Christchurch had asked the Games Federation for permission to get sponsors on board. But the games people weren’t up for that, because they thought it would take away from the amateur nature of the games. A bit too professional.
So what happened, was poor old Christchurch had to suck up the costs and after everyone packed up and went back home, the city was left with a debt of well over what would be about $120 million in today’s money.
And Christchurch carried debt from hosting the Games all the way through until 1990, when the government of the day finally stepped-in and cleared it with some lotteries funding.
Which, of course, would have been timed to happen when Auckland was hosting the Commonwealth Games and to make sure Christchurch didn’t spoil the party by banging on about still being in debt 16 years down the track from the ‘74 games.
The argument Phil Mauger makes is that, in Christchurch anyway, money wouldn’t have to be poured into new facilities because they’re being built already.
The new Metro Sports facility would be an obvious location for swimming and diving. And then there’s the new stadium, of course.
But I’m not sure how much of a jewel that would be in Christchurch’s Commonwealth Games crown because, going through the list of sports at the last games in Birmingham, there’s only one that could be hosted at the new stadium. Which is Rugby 7s.
That’s because the new stadium isn’t going to have a running track. So, when it comes down to it, Christchurch is a bit of a limited offering.
Which is why, as far as I’m concerned, any talk of Christchurch hosting the Commonwealth Games in some capacity, is a lost cause. And Phil needs to accept that and move on.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Michael Cullen would be turning in his grave if he knew about the National Party’s plan to let people dip into their KiwiSaver to pay for the bond on a flat.
Under a National-led government, anyone under-30 moving into a rental property will be able to do just that.
Apparently, the idea came from the Young Nationals and, according to National’s housing spokesperson Chris Bishop, they did quite a bit of consultation on it before deciding to run with it.
Which surprises me, given National touts itself as the party that knows all about money and what we should be doing with it, and spreads the gospel of compound interest.
Compound interest being that magic thing that allows us to make more the longer we keep our money in the bank or in an investment like KiwiSaver. And especially things like KiwiSaver, because not only do we put some of our own money in there - a lot of us get top ups from our employers and things like that, as well.
Which is why KiwiSaver is an absolute no-brainer. Especially for those lucky enough to have age on their side and who get a major head start on the road to retirement savings.
Unlike people like me - and maybe you too - who feel like we’re playing constant catch-up. Because there was no KiwiSaver when we started working and, while we might’ve had the option of getting involved in a superannuation scheme of some sort, a lot of us just didn’t because retirement was something that only “old people” had to think about.
So I look at my kids now and think they are very lucky that KiwiSaver exists and that, even while they were at school and while they’re at university doing part-time work, they’ve already had money going into their KiwiSaver accounts.
Which is why I think this idea of letting people use their KiwiSaver money to pay for the bond on a rental property is just stupid. Because the longer it stays there, the better-off a person is.
Yes, I can see why it made sense to loosen things a bit so that people could use their savings to help get a deposit together on a first home. Because, generally, buying property is a good investment. It’s not always - but, if gains are made, then you keep them.
And it’s not just the homeowner who benefits. If someone buys a place and does it up or adds-on a room, all the tradies and suppliers benefit too.
But the bond on a flat is just dead money. It goes into the Tenancy Services bank account and doesn’t come out until the tenant moves out.
And not necessarily all of it, either. Because, if you’ve been a tenant or if you’ve been a landlord, you will know that - if there’s damage that needs to be repaired - that’s paid for out of the bond.
So let’s say there is damage and the person doesn’t get all of their bond money back - not only have they missed out on the compound interest in their KiwiSaver account; they’ve also lost some of the money that was there in the first place because it’s gone on repairs to the carpet or the walls or whatever.
It’s been a while since I paid the bond on a rental property. It’d be more than 20 years, easily. And I know back then that it felt like a truckload of money to come up with. I checked earlier this morning and I see that a landlord these days can set a bond up to the equivalent of four weeks’ rent. So a lot of money.
But, as we did back then and as people do now, you find the money. It might be a loan from a family member or assistance from the government if you don’t have the means, and yes, it can be a real hurdle.
But I cannot accept that the best solution is to let people dip into their KiwiSaver. It’s a stupid idea. It’s shortsighted. And it flies completely in the face of what KiwiSaver was all about when it began 16 years ago, in July 2007.
Since then some changes have been made. There’s the ability for first-time home buyers to use their KiwiSaver money on a house deposit, that I’ve already mentioned.
There’s also the lesser-used option for KiwiSaver money to be used in cases of significant financial hardship. But, I’m afraid, I don’t consider a person who has to front-up with the bond on a rental property being in significant financial hardship. And I think it would be a very bad thing for tenants under-30 to be able to use their KiwiSaver money to get into a flat.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews has pulled the pin on hosting the 2026 Games, saying the near-tripling of the 2.6 billion-dollar-estimate is unaffordable.
He says instead the money will go on building new sport facilities and putting a billion dollars into social housing.
Former Olympic athlete Dick Tayler is best known for his success at the 1974 Commonwealth Games, and he joined John MacDonald to give his take on the situation.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
On first blush, National’s new pothole policy could be seen as a good thing.
Essentially, what it wants to do if it forms the next government, is set-up a special Pothole Repair Fund and cut the pothole response rate from 48 hours to 24 hours. Which I never knew existed - but it does, apparently.
It would be a $500 million fund and National says it would pay for it by stopping the speed limit changes, cutting back on speed bump installations, and dumping the Road to Zero campaign.
So you look at that and you think ‘oh yeah, good practical stuff’.
Because, I think we can all agree that, while the Road to Zero thing is well-intentioned, it has just become something else for people to ignore. Because, overall, the road toll hasn’t gone down, has it? Not that the ads have helped much.
Although, I did see that one person tragically died on the roads over the long weekend - but that was down from five last Matariki weekend.
As for all the speed limit changes - it can be hard to know what speed you should be going in different areas, can’t it?
The other thing National would cut back-on to help pay for the pothole repairs, is what’s being spent on speed bumps.
So less speed bumps, less speed limit changes and no more Road to Zero in exchange for faster pothole repairs.
The reason I say it could be seen as a good thing, is because I think it’s just another one of those band aids that politicians are very good at.
For example, there is no talk from National about what products are actually going to be used to fix all these potholes. Or how they’re going to be repaired.
Because it’s all very well fixing them. But if we’re just going to continue fixing them the way we are at the moment, then why bother?
How many times have you seen a pothole repaired and then needing re-repairing within a short amount of time?
Generally, the reason why that happens is that all these potholes are fixed using cold asphalt - or coldmix, as it’s known in the roading business. The problem with coldmix is that it’s not very good at bonding with the road and tends to fail again when water gets into the road surface.
If you really want to do a proper job - something that lasts longer than the quick and dirty “coldmix” repair - then you have to remove the whole road surface and replace it with hot asphalt. Which makes sense when you think about it.
But, from what I’ve seen and heard, National doesn’t seem to have thought much about that.
It’s all very well for it to say it’s going to fix potholes faster and fix more of them. But if it's just going to keep doing the repairs in the same haphazard way they’re done at the moment, then it’s ‘thanks but no thanks’ from me.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When Christchurch gets something between its teeth, it really makes a meal of it.
One example would be the stoush that happened when the University of Canterbury thought it might build a new music school building at the Arts Centre. That was pre-earthquake but, man alive, that really got peoples’ knickers in a twist.
The latest example is the stoush over the so-called “temporary” cycleway on Rolleston Ave and Park Terrace. The stretch of road that goes from the Antigua Boat Sheds, past the museum, past Christ’s College and the George Hotel, up to Salisbury Street.
Which is an absolutely nutbar arrangement which all started when the city council transport people got a bit concerned about cyclists and pedestrians being put at risk by the development work going on at Canterbury Museum.
And so they thought that closing a lane of traffic, turning it into a cycleway, and making that stretch of road one-lane, instead of two, was the answer.
And with the museum re-development being quite a long-term project, it meant that this so-called “temporary” cycleway would be in place for five years - which had the mayor and some councillors thumping the table claiming they knew nothing about it.
Phil Mauger accused his council staff of “running amok” and said they needed to be “reined in”. They were his actual words - “they’re running amok and they need to be reined in”.
He also described his transport staff as "the anti-car brigade". Again, another direct quote.
Councillor Aaron Keown and Councillor James Gough weren’t happy either. All of them claiming that they didn’t know a thing about it - or thought they were going to be asked again whether they wanted it or not, before it actually happened.
There’s been some confusion or dispute on that front because other councillors have been quick to point out that the report that went to councillors made it clear that it was going to happen and that it was going to be there for five years - as a temporary measure.
There’s also been a lot of noise at council headquarters about the mayor and James Gough and Aaron Keown breaching their code of conduct, which says councillors must not publicly criticise council staff.
And I know for a fact that the mayor and those councillors got a good ticking off from the head of the transport unit for shooting their mouths off in public and accusing her staff of being sneaky, as they did.
I think it’s fair to say that their tails have been well-and-truly between their legs ever since, because they know they were probably heading towards some sort of personal grievance being laid against them if they didn’t pull their heads in.
Either way, the council put it out for consultation and gave the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board the job of listening to all the pros and cons and coming up with a recommendation for the council to make a final decision on.
So yesterday it sat through seven hours of submissions and presentations and, even though I think the set-up on Park Terrace is ridiculous, it sounds to me like some of the people opposed to the cycleway said some pretty crazy, over-the-top things.
One guy wouldn't sit down when he spoke, and there’s a photo of him in the paper this morning really letting rip.
And a well-known local property developer told community board members that Christchurch has been “taken over by cyclists”. Which is absolute nonsense, isn’t it?
Nevertheless, I think the Community Board has got it wrong and I can’t see how it thinks the pop-up cycleway is the best way to make things safer for everyone while the museum redevelopment work is done.
As others have pointed out, there is so much wide footpath in that area that it would be easy for cyclists and pedestrians to share. There’s also the grass verge that could have very easily been turned into a separate cycle lane if that’s what they wanted to have.
But, oh no, they had to go and take away a traffic lane and turn into a cycle lane. And, after weighing up the pros and cons and hearing the views of those for and those against yesterday, the local community board reckons it’s a great idea and is going to be recommending to the council that it stay as it is.
With one exception, though: and that’s taking away the bus stop that, at the moment, is in the middle of the road - and putting it closer to the footpath. That little change, by the way, is going to cost the council an extra $150,000.
So far, it’s spent $550,000 on the project - so once the bus stop changes are made, it will have cost us $700,000 all up.
$700,000 on a nutbar idea that, as far as I’m concerned, is way over-the-top and unnecessary when you consider the other ways it could’ve achieved the exact same thing.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You don’t hear the political commentators and political scientists put it this way, but Labour is toast.
That’s according to new analysis by the NZ Herald, which has found there is now almost no chance of Labour and the Greens getting over the line by polling day and a National-Act coalition is most likely to be in government after the election in October.
Unless, something in particular happens. Something very specific. And I’ll tell you what I think that is shortly.
First though - what the Herald has done with its poll of polls, is take data from multiple public opinion polls and previous election results to get a feel for what might happen on election night.
It includes the findings of the latest Talbot Mills corporate poll which has seen support for Labour fall five points to 31 per cent - its lowest rating in that particular poll since at least 2019.
National is up one point to 36 per cent and it’s the first time since the 2017 election that Talbot Mills has had the centre-right five points ahead of the centre-left.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins says the result is “disappointing” and he's taking it seriously. He says the party needs to return to what he calls its "laser-like focus".
Here’s what he said about the poll result to reporters travelling with him in Europe. “It is an indication that New Zealanders don’t feel like we’ve been focused on the issues that they want us to be focused on, and I think that’s a message that the whole of the Labour Party will hear.”
Well, he’ll be hoping so, anyway. Although, there’s no guarantee is there? Considering the way some of Chris Hipkins’ ministers have seemed hellbent on de-railing things over the last couple of months.
So that’s the Talbot Mills poll. But back to the Herald’s poll of polls which reckons that, once all the numbers from all of the polls and once all coalition possibilities are considered, a National-Act coalition is the most likely outcome on polling day, giving it a probability rating of 57 percent.
And what does it say about the probability of Labour and the Greens forming the next coalition government? According to the Herald’s analysis, it’s just a 23 percent probability.
How more stark could you get?
It's saying - based on all of the analysis of polls and earlier election results - that if an election was held this weekend, there’d be a 57 percent probability of National and ACT being in a position to form a government; and just a 23 percent probability of Labour and the Greens having the support to form a coalition government.
Which is why the only conclusion you can take from those numbers, is that Labour is toast and Chris Hipkins better be making the most of the European trip he’s on at the moment.
Because, based on this extensive analysis by the Herald, the next time Hipkins is over there - he’ll be paying for everything himself and not getting to hang out with the type of people he’s hanging out with at the moment.
Unless, one particular thing happens. If it does, then I think Labour might just get another shot at government. But this, I reckon, is its only potential saving grace.
And, unfortunately for Labour, it’s not something it can control. It’s not a new flagship policy, it’s not money being thrown around left, right and centre. The only way I can see Labour defying the analysis and defying predictions from the NZ Herald’s latest poll of polls, is if voters take just five minutes to consider what a disaster a National/Act coalition would be.
That’s the only way I see Labour making a comeback from this. Because if you’re prepared to do it, and really think about the likelihood of Christopher Luxon and David Seymour being anything other than a coalition of chaos, then you may not be so quick to write Labour off.
Seymour himself has said publicly that he’s not hung up on being in government and would be quite happy to sit on the cross-benches. Because he’s not going to support National on something if he thinks it’s a dumb idea.
But if he’s in coalition with them - imagine the bunfights. And there will be bunfights because, so far anyway, when asked about its view on some of ACT’s recent policy announcements, the National Party has been all vanilla and non-committal and told us that it’ll wait until it’s in a position to form a government with ACT before it decides what it thinks about its policies.
Which is like saying to someone that you’ll only tell them whether you love them or not once you’re married.
Which is why I’m in no doubt that a National/Act combo is a coalition of chaos-in-waiting. And if enough people wake-up and realise that, then Labour definitely has a chance of a third term in government. But that’s the only thing that I reckon could save it, at this stage.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Government should be cringing.
Not wincing, not shifting uncomfortably in its chair, not trying to avoid eye contact with us. It should be cringing.
Because after all the talk about apologising for the dawn raids on suspected overstayers - which began in Auckland in the 1970s - and all the sorrow and all the tears, they just kept on going.
The strongest words the Acting Prime Minister could say this morning was that she was “disappointed” that Immigration New Zealand did nothing to change its ways, and that the raids just kept on happening.
She seems to think it was good enough that the Government asked for a review to happen when it eventually discovered that the raids were still going on. Which was well after the apology.
And she seems to think that the Government has done everything it could’ve done and it’s all Immigration New Zealand’s fault.
But, I’m sorry, Acting Prime Minister, that doesn’t wash with me. And it will not wash with the people and their families who went through those awful dawn raids which can only be described as state-sanctioned home invasions.
Racially motivated, state-sanctioned home invasions because, while about a third of overstayers back in the 70s and 80s were Pacific people, they made up 86 percent of prosecutions.
While people from the United States and Britain, who were also about a third of all overstayers, only made up about five percent of prosecutions.
So they were racially motivated, state-sanctioned home invasions when they started in the 70s. That’s what they were when they continued into the 80s and 90s. And it’s what they continued to be under the watch of this government.
State-sanctioned home invasions under the government that went through all the pallava of apologising that they happened in the first place - but then just kept on allowing them to happen.
Or, as the Acting Prime Minister said on the radio earlier, the government that went through the pallava of apologising for them, but no one at Immigration New Zealand thought that perhaps they might want to actually stop doing them.
Either way, the Government should be cringing.
Not brushing it off as a disappointment and, “hey we’ve done a review - aren’t we brilliant?”.
And it’s not just the Acting Prime Minister trotting out the weasel words.
Immigration Minister Andrew Little says he is sorry and very regretful that action wasn’t taken to change guidelines and update guidance given to Immigration New Zealand.
"It is something that I think, with the benefit of hindsight, we’d say should have happened,” he says.
What does that mean? With the “benefit” of hindsight? More like the embarrassment” of hindsight, don’t you think?
The language used in the review, by the way, which came out yesterday is a bit more animated than the Acting Prime Minister and the Immigration Minister.
Mike Heron KC says in his report that the Government’s apology “created a reasonable expectation within the Pasifika community that dawn intrusions into houses would cease (or at least would be a very last resort)”.
But, “there does not appear to have been an attempt to implement the principles of the government’s apology or alter out-of-hours visits in light of it”.
But here’s the sting in the tail. Mike Heron concludes in his report that the Government’s dawn raid apology was “hollow”.
Not an oversight. Not unattended life admin. Hollow. Which is probably as bad as it gets when you think back to former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and the current Deputy Prime Minister - and others - turning up and trotting out the apology and promising a new dawn.
The question now, though, is: What’s worse? The dawn raids themselves or the fact they continued after the government’s apology?
From my perspective, for me personally, continuing the raids after the apology two years ago was worse than the raids themselves.
But then, I never went through the ordeal and trauma of having Immigration and Police turning up on the doorstep in the dark.
3 o’clock, 4 o’clock, 5 o’clock in the morning. Storming into the place. Demanding answers.
But if you are unlike me - and if you or your family have been targetted by the Government and its immigration department - what’s worse, as far as you’re concerned? The dawn raids themselves or the fact they continued after the Government’s apology?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Here’s one thing I can pretty much guarantee: the ACT Party’s idea of dealing with 17-year-old criminal offenders in the adult courts, instead of the Youth Court, won’t reduce crime.
It just won’t. Because I actually don’t believe that tougher penalties or harsher approaches make any difference as to whether someone commits a crime or not.
Because if penalties were enough to keep people on the right side of the law, then we’d have no crime.
Now before you jump to the conclusion that I’m about to bag ACT for this policy it announced yesterday - calm the farm for a minute. I’ll get to that.
But, at the risk of being a bit simplistic on it, I reckon there are two things that determine whether someone commits a crime or breaks the law, or not. Some people just lose it in a moment of madness or jealousy or self-interest, whatever; and some people just have no respect for other people or their property, they’re angry and they’re out to get whatever they can. Some are just evil.
And that can be the result of a crappy upbringing, drug addiction - you name it. Life works against some people and that is why some people end up criminals.
But never do these people think about the consequences enough to stop them doing what they do. To stop them breaking the law.
Just like people who lose it in a moment of madness, jealousy or self-interest.
I’ll give you an example that you might relate to. You imagine you’re dropping someone off at the airport and you’ve left things a bit late and the way things are going they’ll miss their flight.
So, where you can, you break the speed limit a bit. You go through that orange light when you might normally stop - you might even sneak in a left turn on a red light. Because the only thing you’re focused on in that moment is making sure the person you’re driving to the airport doesn’t miss their flight.
The only time you think about any consequences for your actions, is when you see the red and blue lights flashing in the rear-view mirror.
Or you might be like I was once and so hellbent on getting to the top carpark at the skifield that I was quite happy to go over a hundred kilometres per hour.
And the only time I really thought about the consequences was when I saw the cop car up ahead and, sure enough, on went the flashing lights.
So the ACT Party’s idea of dealing with 17-year-old offenders in the adult courts isn’t going to stop crime happening.
But, from what I’ve seen and heard, David Seymour isn’t claiming that. But what he is saying, is that it shifts the focus of crime committed by 17-year-olds from the offenders to the victims.
Because, back in 2016, ACT supported the then-National-led government in changing the age people became subject to the adult courts from 17 to 18. The thinking then was that dealing with these kids in the Youth Court would give them a better chance of changing their ways and so we would see less youth crime.
Because the Youth Court would be a better place to put things in place to break any cycle of offending.
But David Seymour says that hasn’t happened.
The People Against Prisons organisation is anti ACT's idea, of course. This is the outfit that wants “care not cages” for criminal offenders. Which I reckon sounds all fine and dandy until you personally are affected by crime.
Sure, there are some amazing people who show amazing compassion when they are affected by serious crime, but they are in the minority.
Most of us find compassion towards criminals very hard. And, for me, that isn’t limited to age. Which is why I’m not going to sit here this morning and criticise or bag the ACT Party for what it’s proposing.
Because, whether we like to admit it or not, we have 17-year-olds in our society who are just bad. Some of them even evil. And I’m in no doubt that these kids need to be treated in a way that matches or reflects the gravity of their crimes.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you go to your medicine cabinet or the box in the pantry where you keep all your medicines and plasters and things, do you honestly think you won’t find anything in there that’s passed its use-by date?
Be honest.
And ok, if there’s nothing in your medicine cabinet or medical kit that isn’t out of date, chances are that’s because you’re one of those people who doesn’t keep anything that’s past the use-by date.
You’re like that with milk, you’re like that with meat - anything with a use-by date. And so it makes sense for you to be the same with medicines.
What I’m getting at, is I reckon you and I are both guilty - whether we’re a hoarder or someone who is fastidious about use-by dates - whichever type we are, we are all guilty of wasting stuff.
Which means, when it comes to things like medicines, every single one of us is guilty of chucking stuff out and not using it.
So why are we such hypocrites when it comes to the Government? Why are we such hypocrites and accusing the Government of being “oh-so-wasteful” when we do exactly the same thing ourselves?
Well, I’m not a hypocrite. Because I actually think the Government has nothing to defend when it comes to these rapid antigen COVID tests that are going to go to waste because they’ll be expired by the time the end of this month rolls around.
At the moment, the Government has about 60 million tests in stock. And, by the end of this month, 30 percent of them will have expired. That’s $530 million worth of tests that won’t be used. The Health Authority will be pulling them out of circulation. Down the drain.
Nearly a third of them have already expired - so, what’s that, about $160 million worth useless already.
Not surprisingly, the ACT Party is going nuts about it - saying it is a complete disregard of taxpayer money.
It says that instead of going all control freak on it, the Government should have shared the load with the businesses and organisations that wanted to bring their own tests into the country but weren’t allowed to.
But, on this occasion, I’m with Health Minister Ayesha Verall who still thinks the Government did the right thing getting all these tests in, even if it looks like a truckload of them are going to go down the drain.
$530 million worth.
Because being safe-than-sorry was the best approach when no one knew how long the pandemic was going to go on for.
If you could’ve told me a year ago exactly how long the pandemic was going to go on for, then I’d be putting you up for a New Years’ honour. And if you could’ve told me exactly how many rapid antigen tests would be needed, then I’d be putting you up for a Kings’ Birthday honour as well.
But the Government had no idea how much testing was going to have to be done. You didn’t either. Nor did the ACT Party and every other Tom, Dick and Harry knocking it from the sidelines.
At best, it had the modelling to go on - which I know a lot of people poo-pooed at the time because it seemed to be way out-of-kilter with what actually happened.
But that was the best intel the Government had to go on and so it bought the number of tests it thought would be required if what was forecast to happen, did happen.
So I don’t think it’s a scandal at all. And I think we should be thankful that the Government took the approach it did.
Because I know the ACT Party would be going just as nuts if things had gone really pear-shaped and we were running out of test kits, instead of throwing them away.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you have to call the Police today, how confident are you that you’re going to get the response you’d expect?
And by that, I mean the Police turning up when you’d expect them to.
You hear people say all the time, don’t you, that if they’ve had to call 111 it can feel like a lifetime before the emergency services have arrived.
Which is natural, because if there’s something really serious happening and you need help, the best response time is instant. Anything longer feels like forever.
We’re finding out today that forever has got longer than it used to be with the Police confirming that they've extended their response time targets because they were failing to live up to the old ones.
Which is a funny old way to deal with under-performance, isn’t it? Not meeting your targets? Oh, we’ll just make them less ambitious so you can achieve them.
Now I’m not having a go here at the officers on the frontline - but that’s what the Police and the Government have done.
Because police are so stretched, they’ve had to drag-out their response time targets for emergencies and burglaries.
Until now, they’ve aimed to get to emergencies in urban areas within 20-to-25 minutes - now the target is 45 minutes.
In rural areas, it’s now one hour - up from 45.
And hearing that really has dented my faith. Knowing that those targets have been extended makes me less confident that, if I need the Police, that I’m going to get the response not only that I expect - but also that I need.
Part of the problem is the amount of time police spend on mental health call-outs, which are up by 60 percent.
You may recall the London Metropolitan Police announcing recently that it was pulling out of mental health call-outs because it was having such an impact on their ability to provide the bread-and-butter police services.
And I think the New Zealand Police really needs to look at doing something similar, as well.
Just this morning, there were four police cars parked up near our offices with the officers dealing with a mental health call-out. That's probably at least eight police officers involved.
Now, again, I’m not having a go at the officers. And I’m certainly not saying that the poor soul that they were there to help wasn’t deserving.
But that is a real-life example of how the likes of mental health call-outs really are having an impact on police resources.
You think about it - this mental health call-out I’m talking about was happening at around 4:30 this morning. The time when the ram raiders love to strike because they know, and we know, that that’s kind of around the time when police shifts are swapping over and there are less cars out on patrol.
If you heard the Deputy Police Commissioner talking on Newstalk ZB this morning, you would have heard him say that he thinks the health workforce plan that the Government’s come out with this week will help.
He seems to be of the thinking that if the plan delivers what the Government thinks it will, then Police will be relied on less to deal with things that aren’t strictly policing matters - such as mental health call-outs.
But irrespective of all that - especially given that the health workforce thing is going to take years - this change to response time targets undoubtedly impacts my confidence in the Police. Not my co confidence in the people on the frontline doing the best they can do with the limited resources they have.
It impacts my confidence that, if I need the Police, that I’m going to get the response I need.
I understand that something that has happened already - such as a burglary - doesn’t need an emergency response.
But is 45-to-60 minutes really the sort of response time you’d be happy with?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How much faith do you have in the Government’s big announcement that it’s finally going to do something about the critical shortage of doctors, nurses and other health professionals?
My quick answer is “not much”. Especially when you consider that it may not be around after October 14.
Current forecasts say we will need nearly 13,000 extra nurses and more than 5,000 more doctors within a decade.
Based on current population growth, an extra 1600 workers are going to be needed every year between now and 2032.
Which means, if nothing changes, we could be short of 25,000 healthcare professionals
So 101 days out from the election, the Government is coming to the rescue and telling us that it’s got it all in hand and has a plan to get things under control with its Health Workforce Plan.
It includes things like expanding the earn-as-you-learn programme, increasing rural training and trying to get nurses back into the health sector. Which all makes sense.
Not sure why it’s taken until now for that lightbulb to go off. Which is pretty much what National’s health spokesperson Dr. Shane Reti was saying yesterday.
The Government’s plan includes 135 new outfits to train people to be paramedics, radiation therapists and pharmacy prescribers.
But how ironic is it that, just hours after the Health Minister was telling us to keep calm and carry on, in Christchurch one of the 24-hour surgeries had to close its doors because it was overwhelmed with patients?
Last night it was so overwhelmed with the number of people turning up for treatment, that it put something up on its Facebook page saying it was closing because of high demand.
And it was telling people that if things were urgent they should call Healthline or go to the Emergency Department at Christchurch Hospital.
This is in New Zealand’s second-largest city on a Tuesday night. Not a Friday night or a Saturday night. Not a Saturday afternoon when there are people out playing sport and banging into eachother and twisting ankles. It was 9 o’clock on a Tuesday night.
Pegasus Health says, because of the number of patients that were there last night, it believed it was “clinically unsafe” to let more people in until they had cleared the backlog.
They say they worked with other providers and the Emergency Department at Christchurch Hospital to ensure people could still get immediate care.
But here’s the clincher: what happened at the Bealey Ave after-hours last night was a first. Pegasus Health has told our newsroom that it’s never had to close the doors there before.
But it says it was the only option to make sure patients were getting “safe quality care”.
Now, I imagine the Health Minister would say something along the lines of this being a very clear example why the Government is doing what it’s doing and why its Health Workforce Plan is the answer.
But, 101 days out from the election, this Health Workforce Plan looks to me like an act of desperation. And that’s why I have very little faith in it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Poor old Christopher Luxon.
He got out of Wellington yesterday - out of the beltway as he said to reporters when he arrived - to do a walkabout in Tawa, north of the city.
And reading between the lines in some of the coverage it was a bit choreographed. Remember last election campaign when Judith Collins had those loving admirers planted along Ponsonby Road in Auckland.
I think the National Party's moved on from being that blatant, but the NZ Herald is reporting today that the walkabout saw Luxon chatting with “a choreographed mix of National’s urban bread and butter put together by the campaign team”.
So these were small business owners, real estate agents and dairy owners. Plus, from what I saw on the news last night, a few randoms out on the street.
But it was what one business owner, in particular, said to Luxon that made it onto the news. She was the owner of a cafe and, my take from what I saw and what I’ve read, is that she was certainly on Luxon’s side but took it upon herself to give him some advice.
In fact, that’s exactly what she said when he dropped into her café.
She said to Luxon that, while the people he was seeing during the walkabout seemed to be impressed by him, she was worried he wasn't doing enough to get other people to like him just as much. And not just like him - but vote for him and National.
Here’s what she told him yesterday. "What I hear is we want a change, but we don’t know who you are.
“People don’t know you. I really want you to put yourself out there more.”
Being told people don't know him in front of all the cameras and microphones yesterday was the last thing he would’ve wanted - in such a public way.
And I really feel for Luxon on that front. As he said to reporters after he’d been given that free piece of advice at the café, he’s all over the place at the moment (geographically).
He said: “I was up in Northland last week. This week I’m down deep in Dunedin, and all over the country.
“I’m out every day. I come to Wellington and then I leave as quickly as I can, and get out across New Zealand.”
And he does do that. He is all over the country. As he should be, if he thinks he’s going to lead National to victory in October.
But I do wonder if the purpose of all these visits he makes around the place - or some of the stuff he gets up to when he goes places - is working against him.
And I’m thinking of a report I read at the weekend about his visit last week to Northland.
It talked about how his team was busy filming him. Obviously for publicity stuff during the lead-in to October’s election.
As the report said, there was actually a sign up at the venue of a public meeting telling people that it was being filmed and letting them know that footage from the meeting may be used in ads on all National Party PR channels.
And I remember when he was down here recently too, and he’d been out filming at Lyttelton. He was telling me about it when he dropped in here for a chat.
And I’m starting to wonder whether all this stuff he’s doing up and down the country - while it probably feels to him like he’s working really hard and doing his best to get in peoples’ faces - I’m wondering if he worried less about all the video work and all the choreography, whether people would start to feel that they have a better idea of what he’s about.
Because, as someone who has met him twice now, I know he’s a very nice guy. I know he’s a politician too and what you see is the version of himself that he wants you to see. But I think he’s at risk of becoming all style over substance.
And I think that’s more of a problem for him than whether or not people know him.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When I was a kid, growing up in Dunedin, I used to hear adults talking about The Blue Flies.
I don’t know if it was just a Dunedin thing. But I eventually found out that these Blue Flies people were talking about were parking wardens.
They were called Blue Flies because they dressed in blue uniforms and they were as welcome as a fly.
And however many million years it is since I was a kid, nothing’s changed. I don’t think they’re called Blue Flies anymore - and the uniforms certainly aren’t as styley as they were back in the 60s and 70s - but you go anywhere, and parking wardens are pretty much despised, aren’t they?
Ever since we’ve moved to our new building in the centre of town, avoiding the parking wardens has become a bit of an in-house sport. And it seems to me that there’s a particular warden who patrols Armagh Street who has earned himself a bit of a reputation for being no-nonsense.
The emails fly around the office when “the parking guy” has been spotted by one of our crew. And there’s an immediate rush to move cars parked where they shouldn't be.
It’s a bit like one of those nature documentaries where it seems to be Groundhog Day and the same pack of animals dodge a bullet from one of their predators on a daily basis.
Whew, safe. But the danger will return tomorrow and we’ll do the whole merry dance all over again. That’s what it’s like when “the parking guy” turns up.
He’s the predator you don’t want to fall prey to. And you might’ve got away with it today, but you never know what’s going to happen tomorrow.
And if he does get you, does it really matter? Because is the fine itself worth all the panic and excitement?
Ask the Government, and it would say “no”. Because it’s being reported today that it’s looking at doing a review of parking fines because no one’s had a look at them for nearly 25 years.
The way things stand, local councils determine the parking rules - but it’s only the Government that can determine what fine people have to pay if they outstay their welcome in a parking space.
And papers released to the media under the Official Information Act show that the Government has been working in the background on having a bit of a re-think on how much we get pinged when we break the parking rules.
I break them all the time. Chances are you do too. And I break the rules because the prospect of a $12 ticket is nothing. I know it’s not a one-size-fits-all $12 fine all the time. But that's the starting point and the longer you're parked illegally, the higher the fine gets.
But where the Government’s thinking is at, is that the fines need to be higher because they’re not enough to deter people from breaking the rules being set by local councils.
From what I’ve seen, the Government thinks the $12 starting point is way too low - which means if that goes up, all the other fines will go up too. And I’d support that.
If they did go up, of course I’d change my ways. Which would mean less people like me hogging car parks for longer than I should and, maybe, you would find that park you seem to drive round-and-round for ages trying to find.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The way things are going, I’ll be paying nearly $15 to fill the tank up.
That’s the tank in the scooter, by the way. And, if I ride it every work day, it’ll be about a week-and-a-half before I need to fill it up again.
Different story, of course, with our cars. Especially after midnight tonight when the Government’s fuel tax discount comes to an end.
And so, tomorrow, we’ll be paying 29 cents more per litre - 25 cents for the fuel tax and about 4 cents more in GST.
Economist Brad Olsen thinks the fuel tax discount is "dumb economic policy".
His big criticism is that it hasn’t been targeted and it’s just another one of these one-size-fits-all approaches that the Government likes. He also says it’s cost the country about $2 billion in lost revenue for the Government.
But, despite all that, I disagree. If you want to find something that pretty much everyone is impacted by, it has to be the cost of fuel.
The price of fuel goes up - the more expensive it is to transport products around the place. Food, manufactured items - you name it.
If it has to be put on the back of a truck to get from the maker to the buyer, then that gets passed on, doesn’t it?
Do you really think Mainfreight, for example, is going to suck it up and pay extra for fuel without trying to cover that extra cost? Of course not!
Road user charges are also going up at midnight. There’s another cost that will be passed-on to consumers. You and me.
So, whether you own a vehicle or not, life is about to get more expensive. Which, to me, shows exactly why the fuel discount wasn’t a dumb idea.
As for the Government’s timing - I don’t think you could pick a worse time to be scrapping the discount.
Because, be honest, are you really feeling any better-off financially than you did when this discount first came in, in March last year? I bet you aren’t.
In fact, I’d put money on you feeling less well-off than you did in March last year. So higher fuel prices from midnight tonight are really going to hurt.
Especially for low income families who, as Brad Olsen himself says, spend a greater proportion of their income on fuel than everyone else.
Which is something budgeting services boss Lara Dolan is concerned about. She works with families who spend between 10 and 15 percent of their weekly income on fuel and transport.
She says any additional increase is going to make their lives even worse.
So I don’t think it was a dumb policy. And, in fact, I think the Government should be sticking with it. Because the middle of winter when the cost-of-living is going through the roof is nowhere near the right time to be adding more expense to our lives.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by Duncan Webb and Gerry Brownlee on Canterbury Mornings for Politics Friday.
What on earth is going on with Kiri Allan's office? Was the fuel subsidy such a great idea now we have spent so much money on it? And what good will come from the Prime Minister's trip to China?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
So we’ve found out who it really was who managed to get that bunch of teenagers off the roof of the Burnham youth justice facility at the weekend.
It was Colonel Sanders. Ace negotiator Colonel Sanders.
I know he just looks like a friendly old chap on the signs outside the KFC restaurants. But turns out the Colonel’s the guy to call-in if you’re trying to defuse a tense situation.
Which all started at the youth justice place at Burnham last Saturday morning when these five teenagers took a set of keys off a guard - whose wrist was broken in the process, by the way - and escaped onto the roof and refused to come down.
And it wasn’t until Sunday - nearly 24 hours later - when all of them were off the roof. While they were up there, they’d been hurling stuff at the people on the ground. So it would’ve been pretty aggro at times, I imagine.
And turns out, what got them down was a promise they’d get a feed of KFC.
I’ve actually been to that facility at Burnham and I know what it’s like. Even when I was there, things were pretty peaceful but I got the sense that things could go pear-shaped pretty quickly.
Yelling and banging. All of that stuff. So I’m not going to make any claims that dealing with the kids out there is a walk in the park. It’s not.
But not even I - you know, Mr Bleeding Heart Liberal according to some people - not even I can just sit back and say I’m perfectly comfortable with these five kids being promised takeaways from KFC to get them off the roof.
Just imagine it: “Right, just to check I’ve got everything - you want five buckets of wicked wings, five double downs, five quarter packs and a side of popcorn chicken. Anything else guys? OK - 3 cokes and two Fantas. On the way!”
Now, as far as I’m concerned, Oranga Tamariki should not have treated these young offenders as if they were trying to get a bunch of little kids to go home after a playdate.
You know: “If you come now, you’ll get a treat”.
What example does that set for other young people living there? It says ‘if you hang out long enough, you’ll get something no one else gets to enjoy’.
Yes, they were taken into police custody afterwards. But do you really think those kids care about the cops getting involved? Of course not. That’ll be water off a duck’s back - they’ll just know that they got a feed of KFC.
So what should they have done? Well, I reckon they should have just let them stay on the roof until they got bored and tired and cold.
Because, if we keep pandering like this, if we think we’ve lost control now - what’s it going to be like in the future?
This approach is just another example of people getting away with bad behaviour.
Next, we’ll have people making citizen's arrests and the cops telling them to buy the offenders a burger and fries from McDonalds if they promise not to do it again.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The line-up for Selwyn Sounds 2024 has been announced today, and as part of the line up Andrew Fagan from The Mockers joined John MacDonald.
He’s going to be at Selwyn Sounds along with the Human League, Go West, Nik Kershaw and The Choirboys. John and Andrew spoke about music and his other great love - sailing.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch Mayor, Phil Mauger, joined John MacDonald on Canterbury Mornings.
They discussed the annual plan and the rates increase of six percent, will this mean more of an increase next year? He's increase his Footpath Fix It Patrol funding, who will that operate? And as he nears his sister city trip to Seattle, what are the real benefits of these relationships?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
For a long time now, I’ve thought that we have way too many universities in New Zealand.
And the current situation with the Government coming out with this $128 million dollar funding package only reinforces my view.
The money is going to mean universities getting more subsidies for degree and post-graduate enrolments over the next two years.
It’s another one of these one-size-fits-all band aids that the Government’s becoming very good at. When I say it’s become very good at this sort of thing, it’s not a compliment by the way. It’s just the easy option.
Like the cost-of-living payment debacle last year. Not everyone who got that needed it. But it was just easier to do it that way.
And the Government’s done the same with its tertiary rescue package.
Which is crazy. Because not every university is in the same dire situation that Otago and Victoria are in right now, planning major job cuts.
In fact, the University of Canterbury has finally reached the point after years of pain following the earthquakes where students are lining up at the door. UC is the place to be, apparently.
And going through some of its recent annual reports, there have been more surpluses than deficits in the last two-or-three years. Not that a simple surplus versus deficit argument tells the whole story. But you get the gist of what I’m saying. Not every university is struggling the same way that Otago and Victoria are.
I thought it was interesting that the Finance Minister was saying this morning that he wants universities to have a think about how they’re spending their money. But, at the same time, he’s throwing them $128 million. If only you and I could enjoy the same level of wishy washiness if we were needing help from the Government.
But, either way, by dishing out this rescue package the Government is continuing to ignore the elephant in the room.
Instead of giving universities more, with some sort of gentle expectation that they have a think about how their running things, the Government should be open and honest and just tell the universities that not all of them are needed.
Five million people and eight universities.
Two of them in Christchurch, two of them in Auckland. All eight universities are competing against each other. And some of them even operate in multiple cities.
Not that the current government is completely to blame. These problems date back to the late 80s and early 90s when both Labour and then National set-up the competitive model, which makes government funding dependent on how many students a university has.
It’s become known as the “bums on seats” model - the more students you get, the more funding you get. Which is why the University of Canterbury was in such strife after the earthquakes.
A truckload of students left, and others didn't want to come, so it got less funding from the government. And, at one point, it was chewing through its cash reserves at a rate of $100,000 every working day. $2 million a month.
Back then, the government of the day said it wouldn’t provide operational funding to pay for staff and all the other operating expenses, but it would consider funding for new facilities.
Which meant the university went through a two-year process of putting business cases together and, at the end of all that, got about $250 million to build a new science centre and upgrade the facilities at the Engineering college.
Which was great. But it didn’t fix the other problem we have - the much bigger problem we have - and that’s the fact that we have way too many universities in New Zealand.
What the Government came out with yesterday was just a one-size-fits-all band aid. A a temporary, two-year fix. And I know that, in two years' time, the problem won’t have resolved itself. Yes, we might have a few more international students coming here by then. But we’ll still have more universities than we need.
Or, more to the point, we’ll still have more universities than we can afford.
I’m not alone in my thinking. I saw a researcher the other week admitting that we could do with, at least, one less university.
But I think we also need to tell these universities to stick to their patch. Otago, for example, operates in Dunedin, Christchurch and Wellington. Massey is in Palmerston North, Auckland and Wellington.
All of them desperate for bums-on-seats. All of them competing against eachother. All of them desperately justifying their existence.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
We need to get a grip. Big time.
I’m talking about all the huffing and puffing that’s going on about the Prime Minister going to China with two planes. Just in case one of them breaks down. America has Air Force 1. We have NZ 2.
All the old-guard have been up-in-arms about it. The first thing they’ve been banging on about is Chris Hipkins taking two planes when the Government’s been telling us we’re in a climate crisis and how we need to reduce emissions.
Although, let’s be honest, people who aren’t big on the whole climate change thing always get very excited when they think they’ve got a whiff of eco-hypocrisy.
And I will happily acknowledge that it does look a bit rich for Chris Hipkins to be pinging people who want to drive gas guzzling utes, and then turn around and take two planes to China because the 757 has had it.
You can always rely on the ACT Party to sum things up in a pithy way. And Seymour’s crew hasn’t disappointed with this plane thing - pointing out that what the PM has done is the equivalent of someone driving a Ford Ranger the length of New Zealand more than 600 times.
The next thing the old-guard has been banging on about is how embarrassing it is having a Prime Minister flying around the world with two planes because we can’t rely on one of them not breaking down.
And this is where I think we really need to get a grip.
News Alert: whether we like to think it or not, we are a tinpot country. But, somehow, we have kidded ourselves that we’re otherwise and we've kidded ourselves that our politicians should be flying around as if they’re British royalty. They are not.
Unlike all the other people with red faces over this, I’m not in the least bit embarrassed by it all.
Yes, taking two planes is not eco-friendly. But the PM being stranded somewhere with just one plane would probably be more embarrassing. If you want to get embarrassed.
The thing is, do you really think anyone else cares about this as much as some people here in New Zealand do?
Of course not. They know New Zealand’s a tiny country in the South Pacific. No one will be batting an eyelid.
They won’t be batting an eyelid about Chippy’s two planes and they wouldn’t bat an eyelid if one of them or both of them broke down. It’s happened before. Jacinda Ardern was stranded in Australia one time when the plane broke down.
And was her global glory diminished by that? Did Stephen Colbert over in the US give her the cold shoulder and not want her on his TV chat show anymore because her plane broke down?
Was Prince William put off having her involved in his environmental campaign because she flew around in an old clanger that broke down when she was Prime Minister? Of course not!
Were we kicked out of the Commonwealth? Did global leaders around the world turn their backs on us because of our crappy planes?
See what I mean? That’s why we have to get over ourselves with this plane business.
Yes, the 757 has had its day. Yes, it doesn’t make sense to continue taking two planes because we can’t rely on one getting the PM and his entourage there and back again.
But it also doesn’t make sense to continue with this pipedream that the Prime Minister of New Zealand needs our decrepit Air Force to get them places, and can’t possibly use commercial flights.
It’s a pipedream from the 1950s. And we need to wake up from the pipedream and accept that, compared to the rest of the world, we’re a tinpot country that needs to live within its means.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Imagine being the victim of a crime and you’re sitting in court for the sentencing of the person who offended against you.
You listen to both sides of the argument putting their case for a stronger sentence or a lighter sentence. You might even read out a victim impact statement. Or it might be read out on your behalf.
And then, after all that, the judge clears their throat and starts to read out their judgement.
It’s never a “thank you for being here, I sentence you to…” etc etc.
Generally, the judge goes through the details of the case and then, eventually, gets around to the bit you’re there for - the sentencing.
Which begins with what you might call a “starting point”. So, let’s say it’s five years. But then the judge works their way through all the factors they’ve taken into account to settle on a final sentence.
It might be what the offender went through as a child. The fact they pleaded guilty often works in their favour. All sorts of things. And this is, generally, all wrapped up in what’s known as a Cultural Report.
Other things covered in these reports about offenders’ lives can include other things such as whether a parent or loved one has passed away; abuse they themselves might have experienced; their use of drugs; disconnection from family; and their physical and mental health.
So starting point five years, time off for this, time off for that, and the judge tells the offender that —after taking all those things into account— they’ve settled on a sentence of two years. Which would be a 60 percent discount.
Not unheard of. In fact, there have been much worse examples —in my opinion, anyway— of judges going way too far with their discounted sentences.
Victims advocate Ruth Money told Newstalk ZB this morning of a sentencing she was at last year, where there was a 73 percent discount.
That sort of thing wouldn’t happen, though, under a policy announced by the National Party yesterday.
It says that, if it’s in government after the election in October, it will limit sentence discounts to 40 percent. And I like it.
I agree we should have restrictions on how much judges can discount sentences. Because how devastating must it be for victims not to see their perpetrators face the full consequences for their offending?
Yes —as the Government is saying— it would have something of an impact on the independence of the judiciary. But I think the judiciary has taken its independence too far.
If there's anything I don't like about National’s policy, it's the lack of costings.
When the policy came out yesterday it was Labour’s opportunity to turn the tables on National and do the old “show me the money” thing that John Key did back in the day.
So I think the policy was a bit weak on that front. To be fair, though, show me anyone who reckons they can forecast future crime rates and I’ll show them the door.
But, overall, I like National’s idea of limiting sentence discounts to 40 percent. In fact, in some cases, a 40 percent sentence discount would still be too much for me.
Overall, though, I like it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Remember the Gliding On TV show about New Zealand’s tired old Public Service?
It was a sit-com written by Roger Hall - adapted from a play he’d written called Glide Time and, if you remember it, you’ll know how it was about four staff working at a government supply office in the early 80s. I use the term “working” quite loosely.
The show ran between 1981 and 1985 which meant it came to an end right at the beginning of the Rogernomics years. Imagine how the plot would have thickened if it had kept going? Given all the restructuring David Lange’s government did in the public service in that first term between 1984 and 1987.
I mention Gliding On because I’m wondering how much things have actually changed in the public sector because a new report out today is saying it needs to up its game.
It’s come from the New Zealand Initiative think-tank, which has been putting out all sorts of stuff recently. Dr Bryce Wilkinson is the person who’s done the research and who’s written this report out today. The title of it pretty much says it all: “Public Service Bloat - The Evidence”.
It says that, despite the number of people employed in the public sector increasing by 28 percent in the past five years, we’re not seeing the outcomes we should be seeing in areas like crime prevention, health, education, housing and welfare.
Bryce Wilkinson says most of the extra money that’s gone into the public sector seems to have gone into paying more managers and more PR people. And we’re not getting the bang-for-buck we should be getting.
He’s come to this conclusion after setting out to try and answer a pretty simple question: Is New Zealand’s public service bloated?
His report says the large, ill-justified increase in New Zealand’s public service is disturbing; there is an utterly inadequate interest in New Zealander’s wellbeing when spending taxpayers’ money; this situation will foster fraud and corruption; New Zealand’s past high rankings for low corruption are at risk; lack of in-house competence is suggested by an increased reliance on outside contractors; spending on managers and comms teams has outstripped spending on analysts, and most other occupational categories; and those wishing to get quality information from government agencies often find that they hinder more than help.
So remember the question he set out to answer was: “Is New Zealand’s public service bloated?”
Well, if you take those seven points from the report, what do you reckon they add up to? Bloated or not bloated? Has to be bloated, doesn’t it? In fact, I’d say bloated and reckless.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by Megan Woods and Gerry Brownlee in studio for Politics Friday.
How has the Labour Party reacted internally to the resignation of Michael Wood? Is the Prime Minister as annoyed as he portrayed? In the light of the review into Banking in New Zealand, does KiwiBank still have a place, and what do they think of offshore energy sourcing in New Zealand?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If I owned a dairy, I might think very differently. But I don’t and, maybe, that’s why I can’t say that I agree with what the Dairy and Business Owners Group is calling for.
They’ve had a gutsful of what they’re describing as “14-year-old ratbags” getting away with nicking stuff and ram raiding their shops. There’s all the violence involved too.
And so they’re saying that, if the kids are getting away with it because they’re not old enough to be charged, then attention needs to turn to the parents of these kids and they should be made legally responsible for what these ratbags are getting up to.
Now I agree with the dairy owners that something has to change. Because they don’t need to tell us how much they’re at their wits end. Who wouldn’t be after not only the extremely violent cases of retail crime we’ve seen, where dairy workers and owners have lost their lives, but also the tedious relentless attacks. Whether it be ram raids, armed hold-ups or just general shoplifting.
But even knowing how desperate these people are for something to change, I don't think it would be a good idea if we started charging parents for crimes committed by their kids.
If we did start making parents liable, it would do nothing to teach these kids about consequences. They’d just keep on doing what they’re doing because they’d know that Mum and Dad would carry the can. Mum and Dad would carry the blame.
And just like not all of these kids will be rotten to the core, not all of the parents who would be targetted by this approach would necessarily be bad and to blame for what goes on, either.
Sure, there are plenty of hopeless parents out there who have no qualms about their kids breaking the law. They were probably the same when they were young. And, for some parents, it will just be what they’ve known for as long as they can remember.
But not every parent of a misbehaving kid is a drongo. Some parents are at their wits end trying to understand why their kids are doing what they’re doing, because it’s not what they’ve been used to in their lives.
I remember talking to one guy whose wife was terrified that Oranga Tamariki was about to come and take one of their kids away because they were really young and getting into all sorts of strife, and being brought home by the police time-and-time again.
This guy just didn’t know what to do. He had no answers and he couldn’t understand why his kid was behaving the way they were. How could you justify charging someone like that for something their child gets up to? He was providing a loving home environment. He was trying
his absolute best to get his child back on the straight and narrow. What was he guilty of? Absolutely nothing.
Yet the Dairy Owners Group would say that, because his kid is too young to be charged, he should be the one facing consequences.
What’s more, if these kids can’t be controlled now, how would charging their parents make any difference? It wouldn’t.
If someone has such low respect for authority and such disrespect for their community, that they’re fine with their kids out running amok committing crimes, then that attitude’s hardly going to change if they have a few charges thrown at them, is it?
And if a parent is doing everything they can to get their kid under control - and by doing that is showing that they do have respect for authority and respect for their community - then why should they face charges? They shouldn’t.
See omny.fm/listener for privacy information.
You know how the number of sheep in New Zealand is down? That’s according to stats which came out a month or so ago which, of course, prompted a fresh round of sheep jokes - especially across the Tasman.
Well, they are - and even though we might still have a fair number of sheep, I reckon there’s another breed that we’re being outnumbered by - and that’s local councillors.
Maybe not as many as once had when we had all those borough councils around the place. But even without them, we just have so many councils.
All of them with their mayors running around in the mayoral chains, all of them with top-earning chief executives, all of them struggling to pay the bills, and all of them pretty much charging as much as they possibly can get away with in rates to cover all the costs.
Which is why I am delighted by this new government report which has come out saying the time has well-and-truly come for us to have a re-think about how many councils and councillors we have running things.
I’ve long been an advocate for having less councils in the immediate Christchurch area.
This hasn’t been me saying I think the city council is absolutely brilliant and the other Greater Christchurch councils aren’t. In fact, going by what people tell me, it’s probably the complete opposite.
Christchurch council has shown itself to be a bit of a basket case on a number of occasions - and I know people in the likes of Selwyn and Waimakariri have looked sideways a bit and come to the conclusion that the last thing they’d want would to be lumped in with the crowd on Hereford Street.
And that has actually tested my resolve when it comes to my support for amalgamation to create a Greater Christchurch super city structure.
But I’ve always come back to the fact that the greater Christchurch area has more mayors and councillors than the whole of Auckland. Nutbar.
And that’s not even counting the ECAN regional council.
Amalgamation of councils isn’t the only thing recommended in this report by the Panel for the Review into the Future of Local Government. Which, as an aside, is a refreshingly boring title for something like this.
Often these sorts of things have names with a little bit more pizazz but, at the same time, are totally meaningless. They could’ve called this thing something like Democracy 2050 - A Pathway for All of Us. Thankfully, they didn’t.
And it’s not just amalgamation of councils that’s covered in it. The panel’s report also recommends four-year terms for councils (I like that idea too). It thinks the voting age for local body elections should be 16 (that gets the tick from me). It also says there should be more of what it calls “Treaty-based appointments” to local councils.
That’s the sort of thing we’ve seen with Environment Canterbury, where it’s introduced unelected iwi representatives with full voting rights. That’d really get the anti co-governance crew all excited.
Bit I think, if we could pull it off, it would be if the current councils in the Canterbury region were amalgamated into one. But you’d keep some of the service structures in place in the different areas - things like building consents, all the day-to-day council stuff.
But you’d have one mayor and one set of councillors. That would get my vote.
See omny.fm/listener for privacy information.
I think the people of Hornby are pushing it uphill with this campaign of theirs to get their local police station operating 24-hours-a-day again.
They’re obviously more optimistic than me, though, because they’ve got a petition going and they're going to be presenting it to police metro commander Lane Todd when he fronts up to a public meeting tonight.
There’s no denying the fact that crime in Hornby - like pretty much everywhere - is up.
The stats for Hornby, in particular, tell the story. Year-on-year, thefts and burglaries have increased by 80 percent.
And it seems that two ram raids at the Hub mall have been the breaking point for people in the area. Which is why they’ve got the petition going and why they’re having this meeting tonight.
Very shortly I’ll talk with Marc Duff who is chairman of the Greater Hornby Residents’ Association.
He’s saying today that the people in Hornby don’t feel they’ve got the level of policing they should - given the ram raids, but also because of things like anti-social behaviour on the roads and theft. As I say, thefts and burglaries in Hornby are up 80 percent.
So the police will go to tonight’s meeting. And Lane Todd, in particular, will listen and say a few words. And, if you’ve never met Lane, he is actually one of those old-school cops and a very good guy.
I first met him in the mid-90s when I was working in North Otago and he was one of the local cops there. So he’s a good bloke and now he’s in charge of the police in the Christchurch city area.
So he’ll be there tonight and maybe a few people will have some strong opinions but Lane will keep his cool and, at the end of the night, the organisers will thank him for coming and there might even be a bit of a clap at the end. You know, the old, ‘let’s show a bit of appreciation for Lane coming along tonight’.
And everyone will go home - but nothing will change. The police station won’t be re-opened and I don't think that will be such a bad thing.
Because I don’t think the Hornby police station should be open 24-hours-a-day. That’s because I don’t think it would stop people committing crimes.
Now before you say, ‘oh that’s alright for him, he doesn’t live in Hornby. This doesn’t affect him.’
Well, you can say that if you want - and you wouldn't be wrong in some respects. But there’s a police station not too far from where we live - and this one is open 24 hours-a-day.
And guess what? I don’t think it makes one bit of difference. I go past there on the way to work in the morning and the lights are on. I drive past again on the way home in the afternoon and I might see the odd person leaving - obviously at the end of their shift.
And then sometimes I’ll see a patrol car heading out the gate and screaming off down the road with the lights going. But, other than that, I’d hardly know anyone was there.
Which is why I think the Police doing what the people of Hornby want them to do, and having the local station staffed day and night, I don’t think it would make any difference.
What would make a difference, though, is Police being more visible on the streets.
Not sitting in an office - be it in Hornby or Sydenham or the centre of town. No, what would make the kind of difference the people of Hornby and everyone else wants, is more of our cops cruising around in their patrol cars and - dare I say it - out on the beat.
Because even if they're sitting in a police station in your part of town, you still can’t see them. Like I say - there’s a police station not far from us, but it’s only when I see them out on the streets that it makes any difference in terms of reassurance or feeling like they’ve got an eye on what’s going on.
And the exact same thing could be achieved whether they were based in my part of town or not.
And that is why I think the people of Hornby should be telling Lane Todd tonight that they want to see his people out on the streets in Hornby. In the patrol cars and on the beat.
How much more achievable do you think that would be? Instead of demanding that he have officers at the police station 24-hours-a-day. Something I don’t think is ever going to happen.
See omny.fm/listener for privacy information.
I’m going to be totally honest and upfront with you about this policy in Auckland where surgeons have been told they need to give Maori and Pacific patients higher priority for treatment.
I’m always honest but, on this one, I’m going to tell you how I feel about it - but also admit that I’d probably think differently if it was me or someone close to me affected by a policy like this.
On paper, I think it’s a great thing. Because, as we know, there’s a huge gap when it comes to the health of Maori and Pacific people, compared to everybody else.
There’s that stat that came through last year when we were talking about COVID that really stuck with me. Which is the health of a 45-year-old Maori person potentially being the same as a 65-year-old non-Maori person.
And, when you dig into that, you find that that’s put down to the fact that —despite what we might think— non-Maori people get a better deal from the health system.
Which, I know, is down to a whole lot of factors. It’s not necessarily saying that the door has been closed to Maori and Pacific people when it comes to health. Because there are other factors such as higher smoking rates in the Maori population. Those sorts of things.
And, if you really want to go back, there’s the view isn’t there that Maori have been on the backfoot pretty much since the days of colonisation. And that the health system is way out of touch with Maori culture.
Which is why the new Maori Health Authority was established. It wasn’t set-up to provide a separate health system. It was set-up to ensure the health system we have better serves the Maori population. By tuning into the culture and trying to make Maori feel less excluded.
But, whatever the reasons for it —and there are many— but the fact remains that Maori and Pacific people —generally— are in poorer health than the rest of us.
And that’s what this policy —that’s started in Auckland but is also going to be applied elsewhere— is all about.
Better access to surgical treatment for Maori and Pacific people. And, on paper, it sounds brilliant.
But here’s where I have to be honest with you.
Even though I can see the merits of this approach. And I can actually understand why they’re doing it, because, if you look at the stats, something’s not working.
But that’s the problem, isn’t it? We can all look at the stats and listen to the justification for this approach but –unless you are Maori of Pasifika– there’s going to come a point where you (as a non-Maori person, or a non-Pacific person)...there’s going to come a point where this policy may impact you personally.
And that’s where my support for it comes unstuck.
Because I can tell you now, that if I needed surgery or someone close to me needed surgery and I was told it wasn’t happening or wouldn’t be happening for a while because of my ethnicity –then I tell you what, and I’ll be honest– I would be really brassed off.
Just like if I was Maori or Pasifika and felt that the system over the years had well-and-truly let me down - I’d be brassed off too. Because it has. There’s no denying that. Maori and Pacific people have had a raw deal.
But, however willing I am to acknowledge that - I have to be honest. I have to look at it as the person I am. I am not Maori. I am not a Pacific person.
And I’m not going to lie. If I was unwell enough to need surgery, then I wouldn’t want anything else other than my medical condition to determine how soon I got treatment.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This could be seen as a slippery slope. Or just a pragmatic idea worth thinking about.
I’m talking about the New Zealand Initiative think tank, which doesn't think it makes sense for New Zealand to keep banning people from being paid to donate blood plasma. It says we should be paying them.
I think what they’re saying is very pragmatic and, in fact, I’d extend it. I think we should start paying people who make any sort of donation to the blood service.
So that’d be people who donate plasma and people who donate blood. But, at the moment, that’s banned here in New Zealand.
In case you don’t know, they are two very different processes - the plasma donation and the blood donation. I didn’t know much about it either until this morning when I spoke with a colleague of ours who donates plasma.
The blood donations you can do every six months. The plasma donations you can do every two weeks for medicines for people who have rare diseases or who have conditions such as immunodeficiencies, autoimmune disorders, neurodegenerative diseases and haemophilia.
But if enough plasma isn’t donated here, the only option is to buy it in from overseas.
And this is the aspect of it all that convinces me that it’s a no-brainer to start paying plasma donors here. In fact, paying all blood donors.
Because if we can’t source enough plasma locally - relying on the goodwill of people to turn up every fortnight and donate - then we have to get on the blower to plasma suppliers overseas.
At the moment, most of the plasma we need is sourced locally. But, as the New Zealand Initiative is pointing out, it’s a pretty tenuous reliance. And this is where I get to the point of thinking that they’re onto something here.
Because, when we bring in plasma from overseas, it generally comes from countries where they do pay people to donate. The United States is the main one. People there get paid for donating and so they have plenty to share.
Which, technically, doesn’t make them donors, does it? They’re suppliers. But you get what I mean. In places like the United States, people go in, provide some of their plasma and they’re paid a fee.
And the New Zealand Initiative is saying it’s nutbar - my words, not theirs - but what they’re saying is why would we not pay plasma donors here, then find we don’t have enough, and then end up bringing the stuff in from overseas that’s come from people who have been paid.
It happens in other countries too. And, according to the New Zealand Institute, in places where they have started paying people for plasma, donation rates have gone up.
Here’s an example: Alberta in Canada.
In 2020, they did away with their ban on compensating people for plasma and, in just three years, it is about to be the only province in Canada that isn’t reliant on bringing plasma in from elsewhere.
That’s simply because, with money on the table, more people are rolling up their sleeves.
I know we like to think of ourselves here in New Zealand as a nation of servers - you know, we do the right thing for king and country - but it’s not the case is it?
We take some sort of pride in running things on an oily rag - but half the time that is relying on other people to pitch in and help.
And what the New Zealand Initiative is saying, is that we shouldn't be taking such a “she’ll be right” attitude when it comes to something as vital as blood plasma which - when it comes down to it - keeps people alive on a daily basis.
We’re just like anywhere else. And I’d put money on donor rates here going up if people got paid for it.
And I’d not just be comfortable with plasma donors (or plasma “suppliers”) being paid. I think anyone who gives blood to the blood service should be paid too.
We pay for water, which is essential for life. So why aren’t we paying for blood which is just as essential. Actually, it’s more essential, isn’t it?
Now, as usual, I want to find out where you stand on this. And I know it’s possible that you might not be in favour of paying people for their blood and their plasma because of what I mentioned right at the start. That it could be seen as a bit of a slippery slope.
Because if we’re going to start paying these people - why aren’t we paying people for other bodily donations they make for the benefit of others?
For example, if we started paying blood and plasma donors - would organ donors be putting their hand out wanting something in exchange?
Would people who plan to donate their bodies to scientific research want to talk turkey? I reckon my body’s worth this - you can have it if you’re happy to pay for it?
I don’t think that would happen at all. Because, from what I can see, there’s no evidence of that happening in either places where blood and plasma are exchanged for money.
So I’m all for what’s being proposed today. And I wouldn't stop at plasma. I’d want people who donate plasma and blood paid something for their contribution.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Matt Doocey and Duncan Webb joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week on Canterbury Mornings.
They discussed blood donations - do we need to pay people to make one? New Zealand is in a technical recession - what does this mean for us? And why is the state of our mental health system so bad?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Did you see all those Mongrel Mob guys taking over the streets of Ōpōtiki on the TV news last night?
Talk about riding roughshod. Hanging out on the decks of utes, the motorbikes and all that. Oh yes, and the Police standing on the sidelines filming them with their phones.
I didn’t know I carried a policing device around with me everyday - but I do. Because that’s what I saw the cops on the news in Ōpōtiki using to keep tabs on things as the mobsters headed to and from laying their beloved leader to rest.
I’ve always poo pooed politicians who think they’ve got a solution to the gang problem - but, I tell you what, I’ve had a gutsful of these guys running around as if they own the place. And getting away with it.
In Ōpōtiki yesterday, the Mongrel Mob took over the streets. A state highway was closed for the funeral procession too for a couple of hours.
There was a time once when that sort of thing would have been breaking news but, these days, we seem to have become used to it.
And it’s not just a familiar scene on the news. It’s not just something that happens up north anymore. Here in Canterbury, we've seen gang members congregating at public spaces like hospitals and intimidating other members of the public.
I’ve seen them with my own eyes at Christchurch Hospital. Hanging around the front door area as if they’re the American Secret Service and Joe Biden’s inside having his tonsils out.
There’ve been news reports about these gang guys walking around Intensive Care as if they own the place. People have called me up about it on the show, too.
We don’t see as many of the gang funeral procession-type things here that we saw in Ōpōtiki yesterday - although I do remember seeing at least one in Christchurch. I can’t remember when it was but there were guys hanging out of a big vehicle - just like we saw yesterday up north yesterday.
And they held up traffic going through intersections. All of that.
There was a time when I used to bang on about needing to recognise gangs as being a part of our community.
That, you know, it’s not just patched members who’re part of the whole scene. There are partners and there are kids.
And, in some respects, I do still believe that we ostracise gangs at our peril. But do you honestly think that you could get a state highway closed for a couple of hours for a family event? Of course not!
Do you honestly think that you’d get away riding around town on the roof of a car? Of course not!
And if you did - do you think the Police would just stand there and film you on their phones? Of course they wouldn’t!
Do you honestly think that you and your mates would get away with holding a whole town to ransom and forcing it to shut things down for a week? Really?
So why are gang members getting away with it?
Whatever the reason, it’s time to stand up to this nonsense and put these people in their place.
I get that they are intimidating. I’ve felt intimidated myself when I’ve come across them at places like Christchurch Hospital. I get that we don’t really want to kick up a fuss because who knows how they might retaliate in some way.
But is it really too much to ask, for gang members to be treated exactly the same way as you and me? For the authorities to stop turning a blind eye and treat us all the same.
Because if we’re going to be all inclusive on it and acknowledge gangs as people in society, then surely that means them facing the same consequences for their actions as we do.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When you think of a police officer, do you think of someone out on the beat or cruising the streets in a patrol car?
Or do you think of someone who doesn’t have the power to arrest anyone and is pushing pens back in the office?
Because we’ve found out today that 270 of our 1800 new police officers - which the Government has been making a lot of noise about - won’t actually have the power to arrest anyone and will be working in an office.
They’re what’s called authorised officers and, pretty much, they have no more authority than you or me.
Do you think we’ve been conned by the Government? Bet your bottom dollar we have. And here’s the evidence, your honour.
How many times have we heard the Prime Minister and the Police Minister say that the Government has delivered on its promise of an additional 1800 police officers on the front line?
Thinking of that, knowing what we now know, it’s like when a court trial finishes and someone is found guilty and then they release the video footage from the original police interviews.
You watch them and you know they’re guilty, and you see them trotting out all sorts of stuff to the cops and you think to yourself ‘how the hell did he keep a straight face doing that?’.
That’s what it’s like thinking back to the Prime Minister and the Police Minister banging on about 1800 more officers "on the beat” and “on the frontline”.
We have been conned. There’s no other way to describe it.
And Megan Woods did nothing to convince me otherwise when she was on Newstalk ZB this morning.
Talk about weasel words. And trying to pull the old “you didn’t do any better when you were in government” line. Which wears pretty thin after nearly six years, doesn’t it?
But, where she started sounding really desperate, was when she said that this was all laid out in the Cabinet paper and it was all well-documented that not all of the 1800 would be out on the beat or not all of them would have the powers to arrest people.
Which I think just made matters worse because, if that’s the case, then the Prime Minister and lord-knows how many successive Police Ministers have been going off half-cocked with all their talk about 1800 new frontline cops.
But, irrespective of what might or might not have been written down in a Cabinet paper, we have been conned.
We’re not getting 1800 new frontline police officers, at all. We’re getting 1,530. We’ve been told 1800. But, in actual fact, it’s 1530.
In my book, when you’re promised one thing, but you get something else, it’s a rip-off.
Consumer NZ would say it was a rip-off if we were talking here about a household product or service.
But we’re not. We’re talking about something that the Police Minister has hung her hat on - who has been saying how safer we will be able to feel with 1800 extra officers on the front line.
Sorry Minister. People doubted you before. Today, they just won’t believe you. I don’t believe you.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Retirement Village Residents Association have spoken out about the extreme costs some residents have been facing when it comes to maintenance and repairs to their properties.
Is it fair that one couple paid $100 for the installation of a $5.80 toilet washer? John MacDonald spoke to President, Brian Peat about their concerns.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I reckon I’m like most people. Quick to think something’s a good idea but, if it means me forking out some of my own money, then the old enthusiasm can wane a bit.
And that’s exactly how I’m feeling about the Green Party’s tax policy. I’ll tell you why shortly.
But first, you will have heard and seen that there’s already been the usual whingeing about their idea of a wealth tax. The wealth tax critics always crack me up because they trot out the same old lines about wealth taxes being a bad thing because they stop people aspiring to better themselves.
Which is such a load of nonsense because, you ask anyone who’s made a real success of something - for example, they might’ve invented an amazing new product or they might be an amazing artist or musician - and nine-times-out-of 10 they’ll tell you that making money was never in their mind when they started out.
Do you really think Ed Sheeran, for example, picked up a guitar because he wanted to be a millionaire? Of course not! Do you really think Sir Ian Taylor, who started Animation Research in Dunedin years ago and is doing all sorts of incredible stuff with live sports broadcasting, do you think his number one motivation was making a truckload of money? Of course it wasn’t. So anyone who says wealth taxes stop people from striving or having aspirations doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
But the aspect of the Green party’s tax policy that's got my attention is this idea of a Minimum Income Guarantee.
The basic idea is that everyone would be guaranteed to get paid at least $385 per week. Individuals would be paid at least $385 per week. Couples would be paid at least $770 per week. And single parents would get at least $735 per week.
The Greens think this is the way of ending poverty in New Zealand.
As I said earlier, this is one of those things that I want to like. Because who is going to argue against the obvious benefits of making sure every adult in the country has something coming in the door each week?
But it’s also one of those ideas where I find my enthusiasm waning a bit because it means I have to have some skin in the game. By paying more tax.
The Greens are making the bold claim that their plan would see 95 percent of us paying less tax. It’s a line some media outlets have been trotting out but, when I look more closely at what they’re proposing, I wouldn't bet the house on it.
Because the only reduction I can see - other than the zero tax on revenue under $10,000 per annum - is where someone earns between $10,000 and $50,000. Currently, the maximum rate people in that bracket pay is 17.5 percent. The Greens would reduce it to 17 percent. So, marginally better-off.
Elsewhere, if you earn over $75,000, the Greens want your top tax rate to be 35 percent. At the moment it's 33 percent.
If you earn over $120,000, your top tax rate will be 39 percent. At the moment it's 33 percent.
If you earn over $180,000, your top tax rate will be 45 percent. At the moment it's 39 percent.
So I reckon that, despite what the Greens are saying, most of us would actually end up paying more income tax if this Minimum Income Guarantee was going to be even remotely possible.
And I’m afraid that even my good heart is stopping me from giving a ringing endorsement to this idea.
Yes, I think a Minimum Income Guarantee would be brilliant. But I think the Greens have gone off half-cocked. Because I’m not convinced they’ve done the numbers properly. I’m not convinced that a wealth tax and tinkering with current income tax rates would make the scheme sustainable.
Most significantly, though, I don’t believe the Greens when they tell me that I wouldn’t have to pay more tax to make it happen.
I like their idea. But I don’t like it enough to pay more tax.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour is toast. Who’s saying that, do you think? And do I agree with them? I’ll tell you shortly.
First, though, I want to tell you about a book I’ve been reading called Atomic Habits.
The basic gist of some of the stuff I’ve read so far, is that if you want to make significant changes, you can do it by making a whole lot of small changes and, incrementally, they’ll add-up to big change.
And it talks about there being no such thing as an overnight success or overnight change. It’s just that a whole lot of things happen and build up until, bang, there’s one final thing that pushes things over the edge and makes big change happen.
And not just happen - but also makes big change apparent to everyone else.
Which I think is very relevant to what political commentator Matthew Hooton is saying about all this business with Transport Minister Michael Wood, and how he thinks it has almost guaranteed Christopher Luxon becoming Prime Minister in October.
He thinks the Michael Wood saga is going to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and, because of that, Labour can forget about a third term in government.
Like the thinking coming through in the book I just mentioned, the Michael Wood thing on its own doesn’t spell “corruption” - it doesn’t make Michael Wood an evil person. But it does spell arrogance.
And Mathew Hooton thinks that on top of all the other cock-ups that government ministers have been involved in recently - Jan Tinetti not correcting the record when she effectively told porkies in Parliament; Stuart Nash running amok on the emails, telling some his financial supporters about confidential Cabinet discussions; and Justice Minister Kiri Allan shooting her mouth off at a farewell function - the Michael Woof situation is going to be the final nail for Labour.
The important point he makes is that none of these ministers are legally corrupt. He says they just don’t seem to think the rules of Cabinet apply to them.
And, as I’ve said before as well, he thinks Labour is looking like a tired, arrogant third-term government. Not a second-term government trying to win a third term. And that’s exactly what it looks like. There’s no doubt about that.
Hooton says Labour is still patting itself on the back for the way it handled COVID and the March 15 attacks. And, because of that, it’s gone all arrogant on it - three years earlier than you might normally expect from a government.
And I couldn’t agree with him more.
On top of that, new survey results out today show that people think the National Party is the most capable of handling three of the top five issues New Zealanders care about.
This is the Ipsos Issues monitor which puts a survey out four or five times a year.
The findings of the latest one out today say most people think National is the best party to deal with inflation and the cost of living; crime and law & order; and housing. Which, by the way, are identified in the survey as being the issues people are most concerned about.
I thought at the start of the year that Chris Hipkins was looking promising to take out the election. But he has just been let down time-and-time-again by his ministers. And he will be fuming over this latest stuff with Michael Wood.
I saw him on TV last night saying how, like the rest of us, he just can’t understand how the airport shares thing dragged on for so long.
I’ve heard many people say over the last few days that the Michael Wood thing and the Jan Tinetti issues are very Wellington - or “beltway” if we want to use the American term.
But I think Hooton is right. And even if stuff is beltway and not necessarily having an impact on our daily lives, you do always get to the point where, if there are enough of them, it is the last cab off the rank that breaks the camel’s back.
And I think the Transport Minister is that last cab off the rank. And I think he has blown it for Labour.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When Christopher Luxon became leader of the National Party, he was touted by some as the new John Key. And, as we know, like Christopher Luxon - John Key grew up in Christchurch.
Luxon was middle class. Key, though, was on the other side of the tracks. Growing up in a state house in Burnside. The place John Key grew up in was one of those classic state houses. “Good bones”. That’s what people say all the time about those places, don’t they? And, quite often, they’d be three or four bedrooms.
But a lot of them were sold and, these days, there aren’t that many state housing tenants who actually need a three or four bedroom place and so the old Housing New Zealand - which is known these days as Kāinga Ora - has been building more modern places.
More modern and smaller than the old state houses. And, one of the areas they’re building in Christchurch is in Halswell. Which has brassed-off some of the locals big-time because nothing was said to them about it until work was about to begin.
The locals had assumed it was a private development and then found out what was actually happening when a leaflet from Kāinga Ora ended up in the letterboxes saying work was about to begin.
And the people in Halswell are saying that Kāinga Ora is being sneaky because they think it doesn't want people kicking up a fuss before they get on with building these places. And under council planning rules, Kāinga Ora doesn’t have to say a thing. No consultation required.
Just to highlight how nutbar some of these rules are. There are people who’ve bought a place across the road from us and they’ve pulled it down to build a new home.
They had to come to us with their plans and get us to sign some paperwork for the council because they needed approval from us. And why do you think that was?
Because their design includes a veranda that goes right around the house and the roof is going to extend over the veranda which means it’s bigger than it should be on the site and can only go ahead if the neighbours are happy with it.
Just to be clear: as far as I can work out, this new house is going to have no impact on us at all from a design or construction viewpoint - but these people had to come to us, tell us about it and get our sign-off.
But, at the same time, you’ve got Kāinga Ora allowed to build state housing developments when and where it wants without talking to the neighbours. If it was them wanting to build across the road - and not the people who have bought the land to build a house - we wouldn’t have heard a thing about it.
The explanation, of course, for this stark contrast in approaches between the people over the road from us needing our permission to build their veranda and Kāinga Ora being able to build where it wants without any consultation, is the fact that council planning rules are only focused on the structures on a property. And nothing to do with who might end up living there.
Maybe the very nice people building across the road from us might turn out to be nightmare neighbours. Who knows. I’m willing to put money on them not.
But when it comes to state houses we seem to think completely differently, don’t we? We jump to conclusions that anyone living in a Kāinga Ora property is going to be bad news. And I say “we” because I reckon - if I’m completely honest here - I reckon I would be the same as the people in Halswell who are upset that they weren’t told about Kāinga Ora building in their neck of the woods.
And, of course, I’d be just as guilty as the next person of making grand assumptions about what it’s like having state housing tenants in the area. Which I’d also be first to admit wasn’t based on anything other than grand assumptions because I have never lived in a state house or near state housing.
Which is why I got in touch this morning with a mate who does have Kāinga Ora tenants in his street.
I texted him about it and here’s what he said about his experience.
“I'm enjoying the feeling that there are people across the road living lives that could have probably taken much worse turns but are now housed in comfort on a nice quiet street.
“I also enjoy sending positivity their way through taking responsibility for my own prejudices towards the tenants.
“So far we've only heard noise from one of the new tenants who had a spate of arguments from a rocky relationship with someone, but they never went too late and they seemed to have settled down for now.
“There has been plenty of support from Kāinga Ora and police and, as I believe human nature prevents us from drawing strangers into the difficulties of our lives, it's a great lesson in not adding fuel to others' fires.
“The way I see it, it's a necessary service that brings life to a dull middle class neighbourhood!”
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National Party Leader, Christopher Luxon, is in Christchurch and joined John MacDonald on the show in studio. They discussed Kāinga Ora housing, should residents know when a development is planned?
What will he do to avoid a Michael Wood situation in his party, and how will he fix the terrible state of infrastructure in our country should he become Prime Minister?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
So the Prime Minister is saying today that the Transport Minister forgetting to sell his Auckland Airport shares - despite being asked to do it six times - could be one of those life admin tasks that the Transport Minister just hasn’t got around to.
And I can relate to that.
You know, it’s like if you’ve got gas hot water at home and the boss is in the shower and you hear a scream and the water’s turned off pretty quickly - you squirm and kick yourself for not ordering a replacement gas bottle sooner.
Or you come back to your car and see the parking officer writing out a ticket because your warrant’s overdue. ‘Jeepers, why didn’t I check the expiry date last week?’
But just like when the boss at home is forced to take a cold shower or when the parking guy’s writing you a ticket for not having a warrant, do you really think you’d get off the hook saying ‘ooh sorry - just a bit of life admin that I didn’t get around to’?
Of course you wouldn’t. With the cold shower situation you’d be out the door like a flash, ripping out the gas bottle from the barbeque and plugging it into the hot water system. And even then, you’d still be in the poo.
And the ticket for not having a warrant - those guys don’t give a damn about the fact that you’re just hopeless and can’t organise yourself to get a warrant on time. You know, the old talk-to-someone-who-cares response.
And so it is with Transport Minister Michael Wood forgetting to sell his airport shares.
Nice try Prime Minister - and maybe Michael Wood is just hopeless when it comes to life admin - but, just like when you run out of gas at home or forget to get a warrant for the car on time, you’re not going to get away with this one either.
The question to consider, though, is whether Michael Wood has been just hopeless or whether there’s more to it.
Because it's not an isolated incident. It comes straight after the situation last week with Education Minister Jan Tinetti failing to correct the record in Parliament, as soon as she realised she’d said something incorrect in the House.
And, before that, we had former minister Stuart Nash getting the boot for emailing donors about confidential Cabinet conversations and other fast-and-loose behaviour.
Remember he was asked if he’d read the Cabinet manual and he said something along the lines of “being aware of it”. Which was basically him saying he hadn’t read it.
So if I wrap all those things together - my view is I don’t think the Government is shifty, but I do think it is slack.
It’s almost as if it still hasn’t got over the shock of ending up in government back in 2017 when Winston Peters kept everyone waiting - as per usual - and then decided he was going to go with Labour.
Remember that? Even the Labour crew had no idea which way he was going to go until that moment. And what happened then, was Labour found itself scrambling trying to find all the staff it needed to run a government.
I know someone who got the last-minute call-up from Wellington to go and work for a new Cabinet minister. It was all go. They had no idea they were going to be forming a government and then it was all on.
And what we’ve seen from some Cabinet ministers over recent weeks makes the Government look like it’s still in the “rabbits-in-the headlights” state it was in five-and-a-half years ago.
And, as we know, a rabbit doesn’t stare at the headlights because it’s clever or shifty. It’s the complete opposite - it stares at the headlights because it’s got no idea how it ended up where it has and it doesn’t know what to do next.
Which is how Jan Tinetti, Michael Wood and, even the Prime Minister himself, look at the moment.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Some people will be thinking that we’re going to hell in a handbasket today.
Yesterday, Jacinda became a Dame and today, we’ve got a panel of experts saying that the voting age should be lowered to 16. 16! They’re just babies. No idea what they're doing.
That’s what some people will be thinking. Not me, though.
This independent panel also thinks the MMP threshold for getting into Parliament should be lowered from 5 percent to 3.5 percent.
Other things it's recommended include a referendum on changing the parliamentary term from three years to four years.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - I have no problem at all with the voting age going down to 16. Why’s that? Simple really, because there are people of all ages who are bozos. Not just 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds.
You get people my age who are bozos. There are people your age who are bozos. And what I mean by bozos, is people who don’t really have much of a clue what they’re doing when it comes to voting and ticking the boxes on the voting papers. These bozos of all ages base their votes on all sorts of weird ideas.
You know - won’t vote for Chris Hipkins because he’s a ginger. Won’t vote for Christopher Luxon because he’s rich. Won’t vote for the Greens because they saw this guy in the street once wearing a Green Party t-shirt and you should have seen the state of his toenails. Don’t want those dirty commies running the show. If you can’t clean your toenails, how can you run the country?
See what I mean. But, for some reason, people think 16 and 17-year-olds couldn’t possibly be trusted with this burden of responsibility that is voting. Very serious business. Not for kids.
But I don’t think that way. Because, when it comes down to it, if 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds could vote, it would only be the ones remotely interested in it who would actually do it.
And guess what? They wouldn’t all be voting for the loony left. Because that’s what some people think, don’t they? They think that anyone under the age of 18 would be ticking the box for Labour and the Greens. And some people seem to be terrified of that happening.
But I don’t think that would be the case at all. You hang around with teenagers for long enough, and they’ll tell you that quite a few young people think David Seymour, for example, is the bee's knees.
Whether it’s his social media activity or what - I don’t know - but a surprising number of young people are what I would describe as frustrated ACT voters. If they could vote, they’d be voting ACT. So that puts to bed the idea that giving younger people the vote would be a victory for the left. I don’t believe it for a minute.
So it’s a yes from me for lowering the voting age from 18 to 16.
As for extending the parliamentary term from three years to four years. This has to happen. In fact, it should be at least four years because how many times have we lamented the fact that politicians are so fixed on the next election that they only think three years ahead.
I want politicians who think ahead way further than that - and so making the parliamentary term four years is a no-brainer, as far as I’m concerned.
It’d be the end of three-term governments - because who would want the same government for 12 years?
So I’m all for the four-year term.
The recommendation I wouldn’t support, though, is the panel’s thinking that the MMP threshold for getting into Parliament be lowered from 5 percent to 3.5 percent. I think that would be disastrous.
New Zealand First would love it - because they’d romp in at three-and-a-half percent. But think of all the other fringe outfits that could also get 3.5 percent of the party vote.
Brian Tamaki’s outfit - much more likely to get three-and-a-half percent, than five percent. The New Conservatives. Lord knows who else. And can you imagine what Parliament would be like then?
It’d certainly be fun to watch - but that’s about it. So it’s a no from me in relation to lowering the MMP threshold.
The others, though - changing the voting age to 16 and extending the parliamentary term to four years - they both get the tick from me.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There are two types of politicians in this world. It’s not left-wing or right-wing. And it applies to all politicians - central government and local government.
The first type, are the ones who think we’re all stupid and will believe everything they say. The second type, are the ones who are so deluded that they actually believe everything they say themselves.
And I’m trying to work out which category Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger and his 16 cronies around the council table fit into. Do they think we’re stupid? Or do they actually believe everything they say?
I’ll get back to them shortly. But first, here’s what you need to know.
If you live in places such as Woolston and Bromley, you’re facing a rates increase of 14 percent. ‘Ooh yes we know, you’re in Bromley putting up with that stench from the burnt-out wastewater plant and the stench from that dirty old compost plant - but we’re still going to increase your rates by 14 percent’.
If that doesn’t prove to you that the Council doesn’t give a monkeys about the people of Bromley, then nothing will.
Elsewhere in the city, increases of between one percent and 13 percent are on the cards. One percent for people living in the central city and a 13 percent increase for people living in areas such as Aranui, Burwood, Avondale and New Brighton.
The one percent increase, by the way, is for central city ratepayers. If you’re in Avonhead and Russley, it looks like your rates will be going up by just two percent.
If you take all of those numbers, crunch them together and work out an average rates increase across the city, it’s just under eight percent. But I think we can reasonably say that it’s the people on the eastside who are, yet again, being shafted by the city council.
Especially Bromley. A 14 percent increase! Talk about a kick in the teeth.
This is the same council who knows how desperate people there are. And I know for a fact that the mayor and the councillors have all been told of one resident, in particular, who is so desperate, that they are completely at the end of their tether. I don’t think I need to elaborate on that one - you know what I mean when I say someone is completely at the end of their tether.
So back to our mayor and councillors - and whether they think we are stupid and will swallow anything and everything they say, or whether they actually believe some of the nonsense they come up with.
Let’s take Mayor Phil Mauger, for example.
Ahead of last year’s local body election, I asked him what he thought were the biggest issues or challenges facing Christchurch. And he came up with three.
He said Bromley, and sorting out the terrible stench the people there are really struggling with. The second challenge he said Christchurch was facing, was climate change. And the third, was inflation.
And he said he would be prioritising those things if he was elected mayor.
So I asked him how he was going to do that. Especially in relation to the inflation thing. And he said he was going to keep rates increases at an absolute minimum. And during the campaign, as we know, he talked about rates increases of no more than three or four percent.
Anyone with their head screwed on knew he was talking out of his you-know-what. But enough people fell for it - because he’s the mayor.
As for his other priorities - Bromley and climate change. Well, if you heard the passionate call we had yesterday from Vickie in Bromley, you’ll know he’s failing to deliver on sorting that shambles out.
And as for climate change? He wants to build an airport in Tarras - at a time when you’ve got Schipol Airport in Amsterdam abandoning plans to build a new runway and banning private jets all because of climate change.
But it’s not just Phil. There are other councillors around that council table who also trotted out the same old nonsense about keeping rates down.
So I’m trying to work out which category of politician the whole lot of them fit into.
The type that thinks we’re all stupid and will believe everything they say; or the type who are so deluded that they actually believe everything they say themselves.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
34 seconds. That’s all it took. 34 seconds.
That’s all it took victims advocate Ruth Money to sum up beautifully the shambles we seem to be in when it comes to crime in New Zealand.
It’s a 34 second summary that I hope every politician gets to hear at some point today - if they haven’t heard it already - because it just shows what a cock-up they’ve made and continue to make when it comes to crime. Labour, National, ACT, the Greens, the Maori Party. The whole lot of them.
If there’s one word to describe Ruth Money’s view of things, it would be “woeful”. And she was making the comments after new stats out today show that under the current government - between 2017 and 2022 - the total number of people charged and convicted for all types of criminal offences dropped by about a quarter.
But under National (between 2008 and 2017), the number of people charged fell by 40 percent and the number of convictions fell by 36 percent.
And if you want to go back to a time when charges and convictions actually increased, you’d have to go back to Helen Clark’s days in the 2000s, when there was a dramatic increase in police prosecutions which was the starting point of an exploding prison population.
Overall, the number of people charged with a crime in New Zealand now is about a third of what it was back in 1981. Back then there were 3 million people in New Zealand, now there are 5 million.
So the overarching message coming out of all of this, is that it’s much easier to get away with crime than it used to be. But it’s not something that has just happened while Labour has been in power. It’s been a slow burner for the past 20 years.
Which means that pretty much every politician in this country can’t claim innocence when it comes to who’s to blame for crime appearing to go through the roof.
Ruth Money says, because there are different classifications for the same kinds of offences, crime statistics don’t show cautions versus charges, they don’t show when someone has been charged with just a lead offence and not charged for every offence.
She says the recording practises keep changing and the data can be manipulated in so many different ways that the results are different every time you look. A complete shambles.
And here's how she summed it up on a 34-second statement: "Our response to crime in New Zealand is woeful. It's woeful for the person who has done the offending because they need
rehabilitation, they need safety from themselves, and they need proper reintegration or they're on a revolving door. And in my line of work, the victims don;t get the support that they need. There's little to no funding, little to no mental health support, and they might be waiting four-plus years for a justice system that is completely clogged-up and is slow to respond."
That’s it there. A complete summary of how the whole system is stuffed.
When I heard Ruth Money saying that this morning, a lightbulb went off in my head.
For starters, I thought about the victims of crime. As well as those who might not have been affected personally by crime, but are terrified that they will be.
People like dairy owners, service station workers, people living on their own, women who don’t feel safe on the streets at night. I thought about all of them, and I started to despise all the politicians trying to make political gain from their trauma, fears and anxieties.
And I despised these politicians further - politicians of all colours - for their lack of vision and unwillingness to work together to do something meaningful about making us all feel safer and less likely to be affected by crime.
Because it’s very clear to me what needs to happen here. As Ruth Money says, there is a complete lack of consistency when it comes to recording crime, charging people for crimes and punishing people for criminal offences. No consistency.
And this is what I think the politicians need to focus on. They need to make it their priority. But, most importantly, they need to do it together.
If Labour and National were able to agree on a housing policy, for example. (although that one’s on the rocks a bit at the moment), why can’t they do it for crime?
They are totally capable of it. And, if we are really going to do something meaningful about rising crime, we need to have a shared long-term plan. Not one that gets chucked out at the next election. Not one that is all knee-jerk in an election year.
I’m talking about a shared vision and a shared plan that makes it very clear what we will arrest and charge people for; what punishments they will get; and what support victims of crime will be guaranteed to get.
That way, the cops will know what they’re expected to do when they catch offenders. The judges will know what they’re expected to do when it comes to sentencing. And victims of crime will know that they won’t be left lingering on their own while the system grinds almost at a complete standstill.
That, in my opinion, is the only way we are going to make people feel safer.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Did you hear National Party leader Christopher Luxon talking to Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB this morning?
I saw a message someone sent Mike after the interview, begging him to make Luxon look good! When you start seeing that sort of thing, you know you’re looking at a party leader on the ropes.
Or is it the whole National Party on the ropes?
In the past few days, we’ve had two examples of National having no idea what it stands for. First-up, we had the party flip-flopping on its housing intensification agreement with Labour. Which came about after Christopher Luxon started mouthing off about it at that public meeting last week.
Granted, it is something Gerry Brownlee hinted at a few weeks back on Politics Friday. And really, if National thinks that it doesn't want a bar of the deal Judith Collins and Nicola Willis cooked up with Labour, then good on it.
But don’t announce it in a way that looks like the leader’s making it up on-the-fly during question and answer time in front of a few dozen people at a public meeting.
It just looks like you’re flailing and don’t really know which direction to go in.
Then, speaking of direction - or lack of - we have the shambles National’s created over Waka Kotahi’s plan to have bi-lingual road signs in both English and Te Reo Maori.
As you'll know, Waka Kotahi has started consulting people on having more signs in both languages. We’ve already got the road signs that tell us we’re approaching schools in both languages - you know the ones, which say kura and school.
Now, it’s come up with 94 other signs that it wants to make bi-lingual. They include signs for bus stops, shared zones, destinations such as city centres. Those sorts of things. And Waka Kpotahi says it wants to do it to support the revitalisation of the Maori language.
So straight away, National’s Transport spokesperson Simeon Brown gets a rush of blood to the head and shoots his mouth off saying National does not support bi-lingual road signs. Here’s a quote: “Signs need to be clear. We all speak English, and they should be in English. Place names are okay, but when it comes to important signs saying things like 'Expressway', they should be in English, as it's going to be confusing if you add more words."
Then we had National’s Chris Bishop saying, actually, we support them in principle. And then a reporter went around some of National’s Maori MPs and asked them what thought about it, and they give bi-lingual road signs the thumbs up.
Talk about all over the shop. Which brings us to the latest instalment in this train wreck, which was Christopher Luxon on the radio this morning claiming that all the MPs were pretty much saying the same thing.
Which, again, he was just making up on the spot because they clearly weren’t all saying the same thing at all. And that’s why that person I mentioned earlier, messaged Mike begging him to try and make Luxon look good.
Now don’t care whether road signs are bi-lingual or not. If Waka Kotahi wants to do it - go for it, because it won’t cause me any confusion.
But, like Christopher Luxon, I wouldn’t put it ahead of fixing potholes and doing other maintenance on our roads. But Waka Kotahi isn’t doing that, because the bi-lingual signs will be rolled out as signs need to be replaced. So Simeon Brown wouldn’t be finding himself dazed and confused straight away - it would just happen when a sign needed replacing.
So I think we can agree, National has made a complete mess of this.
Surely, if it knew where it stood, then it would’ve had the discipline to be clear from the start. “We don’t oppose it and, as long as it doesn’t mean less money being spent fixing potholes, we’re happy for it to proceed.”
But it didn’t say that. It had different people saying completely different things - and its leader on the radio this morning desperately claiming that they were all pretty much saying the same thing. A shambles.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Late last year, I had a catch-up with the Canterbury Metro Police Commander, Superintendent Lane Todd.
It was just after there’d been a lot of chat about crime in the central city and whether we should be getting a police helicopter in Christchurch - all of that stuff.
So I turned up at Police HQ in the centre of town and spent about an hour with Lane.
It was a really useful meeting - especially when it came to getting an understanding of how much police are involved in mental health call-outs here in Canterbury.
I can’t remember the stats off the top-of-my-head, but Lane pulled out a sheet of all the jobs his staff had been called out to in the 24 hours before we met. And, I’ll be honest with you, I was staggered at the amount of time they’d spent on mental health call-outs.
I knew that a lot of what the Police in Canterbury and right around New Zealand do is associated with people dealing with some pretty major mental health issues. But the number of call-outs was incredible.
Lane wasn’t doing this to make any particular point about police involvement in mental health issues. He was doing it to show me the scale of stuff that the Police have to deal with - day-in, day-out.
And so much of it is to do with mental health.
Which is something Police all around the world are struggling with. And it’s why the Metropolitan Police in London has announced that, from the end of August, it won’t be doing mental health call-outs anymore - unless, there is an immediate threat to life. And the bar’s going to be pretty high for them to turn up.
The Police in London get thousands of calls every year and so they’re calling time on it. For a couple of reasons. They say that the number of mental health call-outs has become so high, that it’s stopping them from doing their core job - which is fighting crime. And they say the last people a person in mental distress needs turning up are cops. They say these people need medical experts, not police officers.
Chris Cahill from the New Zealand Police Association said on Newstalk ZB today that New Zealand needs to think seriously about doing what the Police in London are doing, and pass the job of handling mental call-outs on to another outfit.
The question is: who might that be? If we pick up on what the Police in London are saying about cops being the last people someone in mental distress needs turning up, then the obvious answer would be mental health services taking over responsibility for these call-outs.
But chances are they wouldn’t want to do that without, at least, some form of Police support.
I’m really torn on this. Because, if I look at it purely from the perspective of freeing-up police time so they can focus on catching crims and even preventing crime - then taking mental health call-outs off their plate is a no-brainer. Especially when you consider how much of their time is taken up by them right now.
But if I put myself in the position of someone who is dealing with a person who is in really bad shape mentally, and maybe acting really aggressively, then there’s no doubt I’d want to get on the phone, Dial 111 and get the police around.
Thankfully, I haven’t been in that situation. But I was talking earlier today with someone who has, and they were telling me that they called St John’s when something was going and the ambo crew turned up but they wouldn’t go in to help until the Police arrived as well.
So, whether we like it or not, there is a high dependency on Police intervention and support when it comes to serious mental health incidents.
But, even though I’m a bit torn on this one, I actually agree that the people actually qualified to deal with mental health issues do need to step-up.
The thing is, though, these people are overstretched too. But when the state of mental health seems to be so bad in our community and, because of that, the Police are really struggling to do the job we expect them to do - then change is desperately needed.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Should we be taking vehicles off drunk drivers? I say yes. And I’ll tell you why.
It's been revealed this morning that a man who appeared in court in Christchurch last month and pleaded guilty to drink-driving, got behind the wheel again that very same day and ended up killing himself and another innocent driver.
He was just 24. His name is Zejayohn Keyli-West Hurinui. The guy he crashed into and who also died was 69. He was from Methven - his name is Anthony Wood. Anthony’s wife survived the crash, but was seriously injured.
So it was 9:15 at night —just over a month ago, on the 26th of April— when Zejayohn collided with Anthony Wood’s vehicle on Domett Road in Hurunui.
Just hours before that, the 24-year-old had been in court for sentencing after driving over the legal alcohol limit less than four weeks earlier.
It was in the early hours of April 1 when he pulled over on Scargill Valley Road in North Canterbury to roll a cigarette. That was when the Police turned up and did a roadside breath test and found he was more than twice the legal limit for driving after drinking alcohol.
His licence was suspended for 28 days on the spot and it was just over three weeks after that when he appeared in court, pleaded guilty and was sentenced.
It’s unclear at this stage what the sentence was, but the court summary says the penalty for the offence is either three months’ imprisonment or a $4,500 fine. Plus disqualified from driving for six months or more.
But, despite all that, and just hours after being sentenced, he was back behind the wheel and at 9:15 that night, he drove into Anthony Wood’s vehicle, leaving the two of them dead and Anthony’s wife seriously injured.
How many more reasons - other than that - do you need to be convinced that dishing people fines and taking their licences off them isn’t enough to try and stop this type of carnage happening on our roads?
I’m not saying that, if the court had taken a vehicle off this particular guy, that it would have prevented what happened. And I’m certainly not saying that taking a vehicle off him would’ve meant that he and that innocent guy would still be alive today.
Because there’s a chance he still would’ve ended up behind the wheel of some vehicle. And maybe when someone is that reckless and brazen to be driving just hours after standing up in court and pleading guilty to drink-driving, maybe there’s never going to be a way of keeping them off the road.
But is that a good enough reason not to get tough and really crack down on these selfish idiots? Of course it isn’t!
It’s the perfect reason to get tougher. Just like every other case of drink-driving is a perfect reason to get tougher.
I was surprised to find out not that long ago that, if you are caught driving over the limit, it doesn’t automatically mean losing your licence. I know of someone who got off with a fine - which surprised me.
But when you’ve got someone who gets behind the wheel twice the legal limit, goes to court and pleads guilty, and then drives again just hours later - well our system needs changing, don’t you think?
I’m in no doubt that it needs changing. Which is why I’m saying today that, if fines and suspended licences aren’t getting the message through, then we need some stronger penalties. And the starting point for that should be, giving courts the ability to take someone’s vehicle off them.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Because it’s Friday - I’m going to be kind.
I was going to say that the Christchurch City Council is a disaster. But, just because it’s Friday, I’m not going to say that.
But I am going to say that it’s a shambles.
And I’m not just plucking words out of nowhere or saying it for the sake of saying it. I’m saying it because of what’s come through in the council’s latest residents satisfaction survey.
Let’s start with the good news. 99 percent of people are happy with the Botanic Gardens. 97 percent of people think the council does a good job running the cemeteries around the place.
97 percent of people are happy with Hagley Park. The libraries get a 96 percent approval rating and, as for customer service, people are pretty happy with that too. Face-to-face service gets 98 percent approval; service on the phone has 90 percent of people satisfied. Email service not so great, but it’s still pretty good.
And I’ll agree with all of those. When I’ve had to call up the council about something, the people on the end of the line have always been great. Sometimes the follow-up has been a bit slow - like that time we had a leak just after there’d been some pretty major roadworks outside.
But then, another time, the water toby at the end of the driveway packed a sad on a Saturday and they had someone out to replace within just a few hours.
So yeah, the parks, the libraries, the people on the phone - I agree that they should be rated pretty highly. And that’s because, generally, places like the Christchurch City Council are full of people like you and me who don’t go out of their way to be difficult and who go to work everyday to do the best they can.
Even those transport people who installed that ridiculous cycleway set-up near the Museum and the Arts Centre the other week. Yes, it’s daft - but I’m sure, in their hearts, they had the best intentions.
But where things really go pear-shaped in the survey results - is when we get to the sort of stuff the politicians - the elected members - told us they were going into council to fix.
And these are the numbers that show they are failing big time.
15 percent - that’s how many of the people who took part in the survey think the council makes good financial decisions. Which means 85 percent of people think they make hopeless financial decisions.
It goes on. Only 28 percent of people in Christchurch are happy with the state of the roads. Which actually surprises me - because I’d like to meet these people who are happy with the roads. They obviously don’t get out much.
But again, that result says 72 percent of us aren’t happy with the roads in Christchurch. Is the Council really going to be satisfied with that? I hope not.
And then we get to the trust issue. And who was the guy who was going to get in there and turn the place upside down and get more people trusting the council?
Well, the results out today tell us that only 29 percent of people actually trust it. Which means more than two-thirds of people don’t trust the Christchurch City Council.
Last year, 31 percent said they trusted it. This year 29 percent, so they’re going backwards on that front.
And I think we can safely say that - on the basis of these survey results - the Council is going backwards full stop.
Yes, the botanic gardens and the libraries are great. Yes, the council staff that we deal with on a daily basis are great. And yes, even people like the transport staff who do some weird things - I’m confident that they’re good people too.
But as an organisation - or, more specifically, as an elected council, it’s a shambles.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I know it was pretty cold this morning, but, despite all that, I hope you didn’t spend too long in the shower. Otherwise, you would’ve had Megan Woods knocking on the door telling you it was time to get out.
So what we had yesterday was the Government launching a new campaign to give us tips on how to save money and deal with the cost of living crisis.
And what Energy Minister Megan Woods says we should be doing is taking shorter showers, washing our clothes in cold water instead of hot, switching-off appliances at the wall if we’re not using them, and shopping around to see if we can get a better deal with a different power supplier.
This all happened just before the Reserve Bank Governor announced he was upping the official cash rate to 5.5 percent. Which means when a whole lot of people come off their fixed mortgages throughout the rest of the year, things are really going to bite.
The fact the Government came out with this “we-know-best” advice was bad enough. The fact they did it just as we were finding out that its Budget last week was part of the reason why interest rates are going up, made it seem even stranger.
And the bad news for me - is that I’m not going to benefit in any way from Megan’s advice on my showering practises. Which is, that we should be limiting our time in the shower to five minutes because it will save money on the power bills.
I can’t actually remember the last time I had a five-minute shower. Ask anyone in my family, and they’ll tell you how I like to bang on all the time about my ability to be in and out of the shower in just 30 seconds!
It almost takes longer for the water to warm up than it does for me to have the shower. So the five-minute shower advice from Megan is not going to make any difference for me.
Then there’s the recommendation that we do more cold washes when we do the laundry. Well who doesn’t know that already?
Maybe I’m overestimating the number of people who actually have a clue about all this stuff. Perhaps there are going to be people all over the country who are so much more clued up about this stuff today because of what Megan Woods came out with yesterday. But I doubt it.
In fact, this list of things the Government came out with yesterday looks more like something you’d tell your teenagers - which is often a losing battle when they’re at home, but when they start flatting and paying for power and stuff themselves they seem to be more interested in this sort of thing.
But is this really the best the Government can come up with?
More specifically, is this the best the Minister of Energy can come up with? I don’t think it is. I think it’s patronising, to say the very least.
Especially, when you consider how much people are being rorted by the power sector. Shorter showers and turning off appliances at the wall - they’re not going to make one bit of difference when you consider all the energy costs you and I have no control over.
Just this week, I was talking to someone who said their most-recent power bill was $58. That’s relatively low I know - but this person lives on their own so they’re a low user.
Shorter showers and all the other “we-know-best” ideas the Government came out with yesterday will mean diddly-squat to this person. Because of that $58, only $6 is for the actual electricity. The other $52 is for lines charges.
Which is why, instead of lecturing us, the Government should be pointing the finger at these power companies that are just ripping us off. In fact, it shouldn’t just be pointing the finger at the power companies - it should be taking the stick to them.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
At any time in your life, have you ever been so disrespectful of authority that you’ve given a police officer a whack or a hiding?
I’m not talking here about muttering something under your breath after getting a speeding ticket. I’m talking about lashing out at a police officer.
Have you ever done that? I have never done it. It has never crossed my mind and I can’t imagine a time in the future when it might.
But, as we’re finding out today, there is no shortage of people prepared to dish out violence to police officers and we have to sit up and pay attention.
Newstalk ZB has obtained info that shows the number of assaults on police nearly doubled last year. In 2021, there were 631 recorded assaults. In 2022, that shot up to 1,000.
One police officer who has spoken to us has said: “I’ve been shot, stabbed, beaten, kicked ... you name it, they’ve done it to me."
And here’s how the Vice-President of the Police Association is describing the situation: “Police are seen as fair game and assaulted on a daily basis. It’s a disgrace.” And I couldn’t agree more.
It is an absolute disgrace. On so many fronts.
For starters, how can someone have such low respect for the Police that they have no qualms about lashing out and assaulting an officer? What’s that all about?
The Police Minister tried to explain by saying that these thugs tend to come from very dysfunctional backgrounds. No kidding. But also - so what? I wonder how a Police officer listening to the Minister saying that must’ve felt.
So how did we get to this point where we have this stat out today telling us that assaults on police nearly doubled in just one year?
The other reason why this is an absolute disgrace, is that it doesn’t just mean the cops themselves are at-risk. It means you and I are at-risk too.
Because I bet whenever you see police, you assume that things are going to be under control.
If you’ve ever had to call 111 to get the Police around because something’s going down, I bet you’ve felt very relieved when they’ve turned-up because the Police are the people willing to put themselves between you and the troublemakers. They’re the ones who stand between you and danger.
But, if respect for the Police has eroded so much that there are muppets more than willing to take them on, to assault them - then how safe do you feel now?
Picture this: it’s midnight or 1 o’clock in the morning and, suddenly, there’s this loud banging on your door. You look out the window and see there are gang members outside with what looks like a shotgun or baseball bats.
They’re at your place because someone in your family owes them money for drugs or they think the person they’re after lives there. One of these wrong-address cases.
You’re petrified and, of course, you grab your phone and dial 111, to get help.
In the meantime, you do what you can to try and convince the crims outside not to smash their way into your house - whatever delay tactics you can use until the cops arrive.
Eventually, you see the flashing lights pull up outside and you allow yourself to breathe because help is here, you will be safe. But what happens is, instead of the thugs outside giving in to the police, they take them on. They give the officers a hiding - or worse.
And suddenly, your moment of safety turns to more terror. Because, with the cops down, you’re the next target.
You might have actually been through an experience like that. But, either way, this is why this profound lack of respect for authority and, in particular, why this profound lack of respect for the Police needs to be cracked-down on.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Remember a few weeks back when the Christchurch City Council’s economic development and tourism agency, ChristchurchNZ, was in the gun for trying to re-brand the city?
Instead of Christchurch being the Garden City it wanted it to be the “City of Play”. But then the head of ChristchurchNZ got in touch and said it wasn’t the City of Play they wanted - it was “City of Balance”. And then went on to say the idea was that no one would actually say it.
It would just be inferred. And she talked about the City of Balance being a place where you can get everything in proportion and live the dream. A balanced life.
Well, ChristchurchNZ have to be congratulated because they’re not only talking the talk - they’re walking the walk. With the news today that they’ve been spending ratepayer money on massages, yoga and meditation classes for some of its staff. And I’m not being sarcastic there, either. I mean it.
The city council agency says it can’t compete with the private sector on pay so it had a wellness workshop at an outfit that exists to “bring people back to equilibrium”. Which sounds to me like they’re a perfect match for the crowd pushing this idea of “City of Balance”.
A balanced life. Massage, yoga and meditation. Perfect match.
And when I read the headline in the news about this this morning, I could see it was one of those headlines that I was supposed to be outraged by.
This is what it says: “ChristchurchNZ staff get yoga, massage for working long hours”. And what the headline writer obviously wanted me to think was “my bloody rates money being spent on a bunch of muppets who think they deserve special treatment because they work long hours”.
That’s how I’m supposed to be reacting to that headline. In fact, the headline writer probably wanted me to go further than that and start going on about the crew at ChristchurchNZ being a bunch of pen pushers who wouldn’t know a day’s work if it hit them in the face.
That’s how the headline writer wanted you to react too. You see it all the time. “You need to be outraged about this”.
But guess what? I’m not outraged. You might be. But I’m not.
So what happened, is a bunch of people from ChristchurchNZ went to a workshop called “Setting Ourselves Up for Success”, which was all about wellness and managing stress. That’s why massage, yoga and meditation was involved.
And this happened just after the SailGP yacht-racing event at Lyttelton - which was absolutely brilliant - and just before the big TRENZ tourism conference.
So the crew at ChristchurchNZ had been going flat-tack working on those massive projects and the agency thought it would be good to put something on for them. They’d been doing a lot of night time and weekend work on top of their usual workloads.
And so they took 21 people off to this workshop which was all about getting tips on how to manage stress and look after their wellbeing. They got lunch and a session in a massage chair.
All up it cost diddly squat. Just under $6,500. As a ratepayer myself, I’m more than happy with it. I know that when I pay my rates, a bunch of people from ChristchurchNZ getting a few tips on how to look after themselves and sitting in a massage chair is not where I imagine my money going. But so what?
And there may even be other people who work at the city council who deserve to be going off to a wellness workshop too.
As the council’s been saying recently, the amount of abuse their people have been copping has gone through the roof. Which is why they’re running a campaign to make us aware of what’s going on and how there are some awful people who think they can say what they want to council staff.
So some of them probably need some wellness tips too. And if the council wants to spend ratepayer money doing it - then go for it I say.
But today, I’m standing up and congratulating ChristchurchNZ for its proactive approach to looking after its people.
For a couple of reasons: 1. If spending this tiny amount of money encourages someone to stay at ChristchchurchNZ, then it’s a lot cheaper than finding someone else to take over their job. And 2. (and more importantly, in my view), this is about treating staff like the real people they are. And that is why I’m saying ChristchurchNZ, stand-up and take a bow.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you find yourself needing $140 million today, don’t panic. Just get on the phone to the Government.
No means testing. None of that carry-on. You want it, you’ve got it.
And if they tell you where to go, ask them what NZ Steel did differently. Or, more to the point, what its international parent company Bluescope did differently.
Because, despite making nearly $3 billion in profit last year, the Government is chipping-in $140 million to help Bluescope and NZ Steel do a major upgrade of its Glenbrook steel mill which will cut the plant's greenhouse gas emissions by about 45 percent.
And they’re going to do this by replacing two coal-powered blast furnaces with a new electric arc furnace.
All up it’s going to cost $300 million. The Government’s putting in $140 million from the special fund it’s got to help industries reduce the amount of carbon they stick in the atmosphere.
Now you might be the same as me. I want to like what the Government’s doing with NZ Steel - but I can’t. Because I can’t see past the fact that the outfit that owns NZ Steel made a record profit last year of $2.85 billion.
It was $1.62 billion more than it made the year before. A 135 percent increase.
And good on them for doing that. I’m not going to condemn them for that. But how much gall does it take to make those kinds of profits and then take $140 million from us.
The head of NZ Steel said on Newstalk ZB today that the upgrade wouldn't be happening if the Government wasn’t putting money into it, adding that there’s nothing in it for New Zealand Steel.
Which says to me that all the propaganda NZ Steel’s parent company publishes online about its “commitment” to sustainability and the environment is just a load of hot air.
Aside from me, I’ll tell you who else should be really annoyed by this - and that’s our farmers. Do you think they’d like a bit of financial support to do their bit for the environment? Of course they would!
But all we’ve heard from the Government when it comes to farming is carbon taxing. But this international outfit gets a truckload of taxpayer money. An international outfit that has a truckload of its own money, into the bargain.
If there’s hope on the horizon, it’s the suggestion that Fonterra could be about to benefit in the same way. At least that’s a New Zealand-owned outfit. They’re making profits too - the most-recent half-year result was $800 million. Nothing like Bluescope’s exorbitant profits.
I suspect, though, that there is more to this deal with the Government than just the eco thing. I suspect that the Government sees this as a way to ensure the company keeps operating here in New Zealand. Because it has options. It’s a global outfit. It doesn’t have to stick around.
But, if that is the case, the Government should just come out and say so. And, even then, it wouldn’t change my thinking on it because I never like it when you get these giant international companies playing us off.
It’s happened many times before. If you don’t scratch our back - we’re out of here. We need to back ourselves and not let these outfits bully us.
So I’m not drinking the Kool Aid on this one. Yes, reducing emissions is brilliant. Yes, I’m happy for the Government to help industries achieve that. But I cannot stomach $140 million of taxpayer money going to a foreign-owned company that posted a record profit of nearly $3 billion last year.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I think I can safely say that every politician who’s been banging on about the Budget since yesterday afternoon is a complete hypocrite. And I reckon you will think the same.
The story starts with something that happened before Budget Day yesterday.
In fact, it was one of the first things Police Minister Ginny Anderson fronted after she got the job.
And it was to do with an issue that was hot then and is still hot now - retail crime. So we’re talking ram raids on shops, armed hold ups, smash and grab burglaries. All of that appalling stuff that goes on day-in, day-out.
The stuff that terrifies the hell out of people in shops - the owners, the managers and the staff.
So last month, Police Minister Ginny Anderson announced a top-up in funding for the Government’s Retail Crime Prevention Programme.
But last night, I was going through all the stuff on the Government’s Budget website and found some details about security spending. This isn’t security for retailers I’m talking about, it’s security for MPs.
Specifically, security for MPs at their homes, offices and at Parliament. And it was highlighted in yesterday’s Budget because the Government’s putting more money into it.
Now, to be clear, I don’t think politicians should have to fend for themselves when it comes to security because - as you and I know - the world is more crazy than it used to be and there seems to be no shortage of people who have it in for politicians.
And, at the risk of sounding like Grant Robertson, this is not just something that New Zealand is affected by. It’s a global thing.
But it has always amazed me how accessible our politicians are. Or, in other words, how haphazard we seem to be at times when it comes to keeping politicians safe from muppets who have got a bee in their bonnet and can’t control themselves.
But the hypocrisy of it all. Before Budget Day, the Government announced it was putting $15 million into retail crime prevention. For things like fog cannons, bollards and security systems. $15 million to try and stop something that has become a complete scourge on society.
Guess how much was in yesterday’s Budget for MP’s security? $14 million.
So, after all the nodding and serious faces from the Government about being committed to stopping retail crime, it’s spending nearly as much on security for MPs at their homes, offices and at Parliament, as it’s spending to try and stop ram raids and other retail crimes.
And have you heard any one of the 120 MPs in this country say that that is nutbar? Of course not. They’ve said a lot about a lot of things. But nothing about that. Which is why I think every one of them is a complete hypocrite.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by Labour's Dan Rosewarne and National's Gerry Brownlee for today's Budget Special edition of Politics Friday.
Why is $14 million being spent on MP security, when just $15 million is going into retail crime prevention? Will free prescriptions make a huge difference for New Zealanders and every day living costs? And should we be investing so much into Te Matatini funding.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A daft idea that sounds brilliant, but isn't.
Like so many ideas - especially when it comes to being eco-friendly - this idea is one of those ones that makes people feel good. And they get so overwhelmed by “feeling good” about the idea, that they don’t actually test it or challenge it to see if it really is a good idea.
Just “sounding” like a good idea is enough for some people. And that is exactly what happened yesterday, when Christchurch city councillors got together to discuss a climate change report by Councillor Sara Templeton.
In that report, Councillor Templeton said the council should write to the Transport Minister to tell him that the Government should be paying-out subsidies to people who buy e-bikes.
If you buy an electric car, you can get an $8,000 subsidy from the Government. But nothing if you buy an ebike.
Councillor Templeton thinks that’s wrong and she wants government money going into ebikes. And she said in this report of hers that the council should write to the Government saying so.
And what do you think happened when city councillors considered this idea of hers yesterday? What do you think they did?
They did absolutely nothing - other than say it was a brilliant idea and vote in favour of it. All but one voted in favour.
All but one of them just accepted her recommendation and now someone’s got the job of writing the letter, Mayor Phil Mauger will sign it, lick the envelope and away it’ll go.
They not only voted in overwhelming numbers in support of asking the Government for ebike subsidies, they also didn’t even discuss it! There was no debate. All bar one-of-them nodded their heads and congratulated Sara for her report.
If they had even bothered to have a convo about it, they might of seen it for the nonsense it is.
Maybe - just maybe - it was rubber-stamped because it’s not council money they’re talking about.
It’s government money they want ploughed into ebikes. So it was probably very easy to vote “yes” because, if the Government decides to run with it, the council won’t have any skin in the game. I also understand that Christchurch council is the first in the country to do this. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Probably the complete opposite, if you ask me.
But, surely, if they’d thought about it for just five minutes before going all eco-gaga on it, the same things that have occurred to me would have occurred to them.
For starters, if the Government did make an ebike subsidy available, we know who’d be at the front of the queue with their hands out. It wouldn’t be your family of five struggling to put food on the table. It wouldn’t be them.
It’d be all the baby boomers who’ve always fancied doing the Central Otago rail trail but don’t have the legs to ride a normal bike anymore. That’s not a dig at baby boomers, by the way. But you get the type of person I’m talking about, don’t you?
Just like the EV subsidies going to people buying Teslas.
The other thing that jumped out at me about this subsidy idea - which might have jumped out to councillors too if they’d thought about it for five minutes - is that just because someone buys an ebike, it doesn’t mean they turn into Bear Grylls.
Just because you get an ebike, you’re not suddenly going to be the type of person who rides everywhere whatever the weather. Rain? Doesn’t put me off. Frosts? Love riding my bike on those days. That doesn’t happen.
And because you don’t turn into Bear Grylls or Sir Edmund Hillary when you buy an ebike, chances are government-subsidised ebikes would just sit in the garage.
The difference with electric cars is, that when you get an EV, you don’t have to change your whole lifestyle. Which is why it makes sense for the Government to pay subsidies to get people using them. But not for ebikes.
When you buy an EV, you don’t suddenly have to start dressing like someone working on a fishing boat before you head off to work in the morning. When you have an EV car, you can still drink your coffee. You can crank the heater up. What I’m getting at, is the shift from a petrol car to an electric car is actually no big deal.
Completely different story shifting from a car to a bike - whether it’s electric or not. Which is why the city council is dreaming.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch City Mayor, Phil Mauger joined John MacDonald in studio to discuss the failed attempt to gain chlorine exemption for Christchurch water. Has he 'reined in' his staff yet following his comments about the Rolleston Ave cycle way on Monday? And will subsiding e-bikes really be a game changer for the environment?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I have no problem with chlorine in the water. And, while they’re at it, I reckon they should stick fluoride in the stuff as well.
Maybe I’ve just become used to the chlorine. Although we do have one of those filter jugs on the bench. Either way, it doesn’t bother me.
Christchurch City Council, though, thinks very differently.
Last night, it put out a media release that - I have to say - would be one of the most fired-up statements I’ve ever seen come out from a council.
This is what the headline said: “Christchurch councillors outraged to hear chlorine forced into water supply”.
And then the statement went on to say that the council has been (quote) “led up the garden path” by the Government’s water regulator. Strong stuff aye?
The statement also says the mayor’s been in touch with the water regulator and has demanded that its chief executive front up at a public meeting. So let’s see what happens on that front.
So city councillors are going ape because they reckon the national water regulator led them to believe that getting an exemption from putting chlorine in the drinking water was achievable.
And, because of that, the council has spent time and money getting its infrastructure up-to-scratch so it can prove to the regulator that chlorine isn’t needed to keep the water safe to drink.
So that was the whole basis of the work. Get things up to scratch and get the exemption.
Little bit of background: The Water Services Act (which was passed in 2021), makes it mandatory for councils to put chlorine in the water - unless, unless they manage to get approval from the water authority for an exemption. And it’s the national water regulator that enforces the legislation.
You might recall that getting an exemption from the chlorine requirements was one of Lianne Dalziel’s major goals when she was heading towards the end of her term as mayor. So we can assume she’ll be outraged as well.
The current mayor is saying today that the goalposts have been changing all along and now they’ve changed again, to the point where he thinks there will never, ever be chlorine-free water in Christchurch. Never, ever.
And right now, council staff are out getting ready to stick it in the water in areas that aren’t already chlorinated.
My understanding is that, in itself, is going to cost the council close to a million bucks. That’s just to get the chlorine to where it isn’t at the moment.
Now just because I don’t really care whether there’s chlorine in the water or not - and, as I said earlier, I think there should be fluoride in the drinking water too. Just because chlorine doesn't bother me, I am with the council on one thing. And that’s this enforcement that’s going on.
I’d go as far, actually, to say that what the water regulator is doing is 3 Waters in sheep’s clothing. Because it’s all very well the council still owning the infrastructure - for now anyway. But what use is that when it’s being told by yet another centralised organisation what to do with its infrastructure? Especially, if the goal posts have kept changing.
And that’s where I think the Council should push back. Just like it did last year with the intensification rules that Labour and National started forcing on it.
You’ll remember city councillors saying “no thanks” over that last year. Or, as one councillor described it, they were “flipping the bird” to the Government.
Which eventually led to Wellington sending-in the mediator - who was actually the enforcer - sending him in to bang some heads together at the Council. And that’s exactly what Christchurch should be doing after being told to forget about an exemption from the chlorine rules.
I see the mayor is saying today that they’ll continue to fight and advocate for the people of Christchurch. Well, flipping the bird would be a good start, wouldn’t it?
Yes, we know the Government would just send in another one of its enforcers. But, surely, the Council should be going head-on over this if it really thinks it’s been hard done by. If it really thinks we’ve been hard done by.
Tell them where they can put their chlorine.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I don’t know how many people I’ve spoken to recently who have said they’ve got no idea which party they’re going to vote for in the election this year.
Just yesterday, a died-in-the-wool Labour leftie said the same to me. No idea who to vote for. Certainly won’t be Labour, they said.
And the National Party didn’t make things any easier yesterday with this idea to start sending receipts to taxpayers. Such a stupid idea.
According to what National leader Christopher Luxon said yesterday, the receipt you’d get would list what sector your taxes had been devoted to.
Here’s a quote from what he said yesterday: “I am sick of taxpayers being treated like a bottomless ATM, to be raided at any time, for any reason.”
No argument there. No one likes paying taxes. Even the so-called wealthy ones who came out the other day and said they want to pay more tax.
I think, generally, we can agree that no one likes paying taxes. But I think we can also generally agree that we accept it and do it because we know we have to do our bit to pay for essential public services.
But, do you know, I have never thought to myself “oooh, I’d really like to know what my tax has been spent on”. Never. Let alone been of a mind to go to the Government demanding evidence of what it’s been spent on.
I mean, I know it goes into schools and hospitals and roads and everything else the government-of-the-day pours money into - and that’s enough for me to know.
I also know that some of the tax I pay goes into things that I will never benefit from directly.
Example: the Ministry for Pacific Peoples. No direct benefit for me. But who cares? I don't care. More than happy to do my bit on that front.
And let’s say National does get in, and this stupid idea becomes reality. If you’re not a Pacifica person and you see that some of your tax has gone to the Ministry for Pacific Peoples - what difference is that going to make to your world? Nothing!
Just like whatever other information National thinks it’s going to include in its tax receipts. Useless information.
In Budget week, if that’s the best the National Party can come up with, then it’s laughable.
And on the same day too that the ACT Party released its alternative budget. Which talked about income tax brackets, slashing the number of public servants and increasing the number of prison beds.
Meaty stuff. You don’t have to agree with David Seymour’s politics and you don’t have to buy-in to his alternative budget, but yesterday ACT looked like a much more formidable challenge to Labour than National did.
And not just because it was talking about stuff people care about. But also because someone has obviously had a word in David Seymour’s ear and told him to wind-back all the slogans and soundbites that he used to trot out at the drop of a hat.
It wasn’t that long ago that all Seymour seemed to say was catchy slogans and I thought he was becoming a caricature of himself.
Not anymore - but National’s started doing it now. “Coalition of Chaos” - might’ve been clever once, but that’s all I’ve heard from Christopher Luxon over the past week. Another gimmick National came up with recently was the two-for-one rule in its agriculture policy.
Which means that for every new regulation central or local government wants to force on the rural sector, they have to take away two existing ones.
Soundbites, slogans and gimmicks.
And, as a voter, I’m sick of being treated like an idiot by political parties who think this shallow nonsense can win me over. Any political party. I don’t care who it is. If they think they can buy my vote with this sort of shallow nonsense, then I’ll call them out for it.
Which is why today I’m saying that National’s idea of sending me a receipt for my tax is just lame and stupid. And if that’s the best it can do at the start of Budget week, then it is in trouble.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch mayor Phil Mauger has come out firing today.
He’s accusing his council’s staff of “running amok” and says they need to be “reined in”. They're his actual words. “They're running amok and they need to be reined in”.
But wait, there’s more. He’s also describing his transport staff as "the anti-car brigade".
He’s not alone either. Some of the other usual suspects have weighed-in. Councillor Aaron Keown and Councillor James Gough also condemning their transport staff for making changes to the road near Hagley Park.
Specifically, Rolleston Ave and Park Terrace from the Antigua Boat Sheds to Salisbury Street. The bit that runs alongside Hagley Park, past Christ’s College and the George Hotel.
The changes to the road they’re brassed-off about is the creation of a new cycleway. What the council transport people have done, is they’ve blocked off one of the lanes heading north and turned it into a two-way cycle lane.
It’s marked-off with bollard-type things and means that stretch of road is now one-lane, instead of two.
And Phil Mauger claims he didn’t know a thing about it. And he and Aaron Keown and James Gough are demanding that the road be reinstated to how it’s always been - with two lanes. And they’re accusing council staff of being sneaky.
What seems to have happened, is the council transport people got a bit concerned about cyclists and pedestrians being put at risk by the development work going on at Canterbury Museum. And they thought closing a lane of traffic and turning it into a cycleway was the answer.
And so they went to councillors with this idea for a temporary traffic management plan. And, according to James Gough, councillors were led to believe that they would have a say on this.
But that didn’t happen. And a traffic lane on Park Terrace has disappeared and it’s now a cycleway.
Councillor Aaron Keown says in all the time he’s been a councillor, he’s never seen this sort of “temporary” work happen and he says it’s just unacceptable that council staff have gone and done this.
Which reeks of that idea that council staff tried to push last year, which would allow them to make a major change to a piece of road without any consultation or discussion first - because it would be a trial. And then, two years down the track, they’d ask us what we thought about it.
It’s also very similar to that daft idea they came up with earlier this year of spending more than $1 million upgrading a stretch of Gloucester Street, in central Christchurch; trialling it for 10 weeks; and then undoing all the work after 10 weeks if they thought it wasn’t working.
At least with this pop-up cycleway on Park Terrace, it doesn’t look like a million-dollar project. But I do think it’s completely unnecessary.
And what we now have, is city councillors fighting publicly with their own transport staff. Phil Mauger’s calling them “the anti-car brigade” and he and other councillors are making public demands that the changes be reversed.
Which raises the age-old question about local government. Which is just as pertinent today, as it ever was.
And that is: who’s running the place - the councillors elected by us? Or the staff who, apparently, work for them?
I know for a fact that staff at Environment Canterbury loved it when there were commissioners running the place instead of elected councillors. Much easier for them.
And I also know that city council staff often see councillors as a real pain in the backside. Because, if they’re any good, they ask questions.
But often - from my observations over the years - councillors aren’t any good and they don’t ask the challenging questions and the council staff get away with what they want to get away with.
That’s because they spend hours trying to anticipate the sorts of questions they might get from the elected members of the council which means, by the time they’re sitting in the council chamber, they can trot out the well-rehearsed lines to bat away any unhelpful questions from councillors.
Which is why, for a long time now, I’ve been of the belief that while mayors and councillors might like to think they’re running the place - they’re not. And it’s the council staff who really run the place.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Do you really think kids get a better education if they go to a private school?
Parents at St Cuthbert’s, a private school in Auckland, think so because they’re backing the school’s decision to drop NCEA Level 1.
A quick reminder how the NCEA system works. In Year 11 (which is the old Form 5) the kids can do NCEA Level 1 (which, if you need to think about it in the old ways - is the equivalent of School Cert).
And then in Year 12 (which used to be Form 6), they do Level 2. And then in Year 13 (the old Form 7), and they do NCEA Level 3.
So St Cuthberts in Auckland is ditching Level 1 and is going to be doing its own thing in Year 11, and then its students will pick up NCEA in Years 12 and 13.
But is this just posturing by this private school? Because NCEA Level 1 is actually voluntary. Not all schools have to do it. For example, Lincoln High School in Canterbury doesn't do Level 1. I’m not sure if it’s never done Level 1 - but I know it hasn’t done it for a number of years. Because it’s voluntary.
And so what St Cuthbert’s is doing is not unusual at all. Like Lincoln High, it’s choosing not to do something that it’s not obliged to do.
Nevertheless, the parents at St Cuthbert’s are right behind it.
One, who has a daughter who is at intermediate age and will be going into Year 9 next year, says she had been looking at sending her daughter to a state school for her high school years, but isn’t so sure now.
She says: “I had always thought my kids might go to university in Australia and it just concerns me that they might turn up and be so far behind the eight-ball that they can’t catch up.
“I believe in public education. I don’t want to be sending my kid to a private school. I want them to go to the local government school but it just doesn’t seem that it’s good enough."
I know a thing or two about state schools and private schools.
I’ll start with my own experience from when I was at school. I was at a state-integrated Catholic high school in Dunedin which, for all intents and purposes, was a state school. And I hated it.
It was violent; I thought the principal, especially, didn’t give a damn; I was failing miserably; and, as it turned out, it was rife with sexual abuse. So my parents let me leave and I worked for them for a year but then they had an offer out-of-the-blue to buy their little business and they took it.
Which left me without a job and that was when they suggested I go back to school and - despite them not having a lot of money - they sent me to John McGlashan College which, at the time, was fully private. These days it’s integrated - but, back then, it was full fees. So my parents sacrificed a lot to get me back on track.
And that school turned my life around. Within 18 months I had UE and a job at the local paper as a cadet reporter. I was exactly where I wanted to be.
So, on the basis of that experience, I could say that private schools are definitely the way to go. But fast-forward a few years and we found ourselves with three kids approaching high school age. So which way did we go? State or private?
Well, the bank-balance decided pretty much. Because we were never going to be able to afford to put three kids through private schools. But, do you know what? We’ve never regretted it.
Sure, when I went to that private school in Dunedin it opened doors that had never been open to me until then. But I can honestly say that, when it came to our kids, going through the state system wasn’t the roadblock to opportunity that some people might think.
Which is why, despite having my own life turned around by going to a private school for just 18 months, I don’t buy the argument that private schools are better than state schools.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to Megan Woods and Gerry Brownlee for Politics Friday to discuss their views on our education system - is private better than our public system?
Where the Grant Robertson find his $4 billion , and what should it be spent on? And will the National party rule out working with New Zealand First following the upcoming election should they be successful?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you’re one of the idiots I saw ploughing through the surface flooding on Brougham Street this morning doing at least 50 kph - probably more - then that’s what you are. You’re an idiot.
That’s what I said out loud when I saw you. In fact, there was another word that came before the idiot bit but I won’t repeat that.
And you’re the type of idiot that motor racing legend and road safety campaigner Greg Murphy probably had in mind when he said on TV last night that we’ve let people get licences without the skills they need to be competent and safe on the roads.
Couldn’t agree with him more.
And he thinks that every driver should be having regular safety refresher courses. Again, couldn’t agree with him more.
And that’s just based on the clowns I saw driving this morning in the rain. And it wasn't just the ones screaming through the surface flooding - I even saw one clown without their lights on! Not to mention all the others I’ve seen over my time as a driver.
Murphy’s view is that everyone is responsible for their own driving and decisions. And he reckons that if everyone went and got some proper skills and awareness training to understand what it takes to drive a car safely, for every minute they’re behind the wheel we would see a massive change in the statistics and road deaths.
So why wouldn’t you do it? The money maybe? There’s plenty of money - don’t let that curb your enthusiasm. How much money has been spent on the old Road to Zero ads? Truckloads. Put some or all of that into better driver training and we’d be well on the way to what Greg Murphy thinks we need.
The funny thing is, even when I refer to“driver training”, the image of a teenager instantly comes into my head. I didn’t think about oldies like me.
And that’s the mindset change we need to make if ideas like Greg Murphy’s are going to get any traction. Because I bet a whole lot of the people who saw Greg on TV last night nodded their heads about their being hopeless drivers and how they shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a vehicle and how they should be trained better, but didn't put themselves in that category.
Because most of us think we are brilliant drivers, don’t we? It’s everyone else on the road who are the idiots. Not me.
And, yes, you might accuse me of being exactly the same with my criticism earlier of those clowns on Brougham Street - ploughing through the surface flooding doing at least 50 kph. But do you really think I’m going to claim that I’ve never done stupid things behind the wheel? Of course I’m not.
Just the other day, for reasons I can’t explain, I was doing a right-hand turn and sitting in the middle of the road waiting for the traffic to go past. And, instead of waiting for the last car in the line of traffic coming towards me to go past, I turned right and realised pretty quickly that it was coming towards me at quite a speed and I had to gun it.
And as soon as I’d done it, I knew it was a mistake. I even said to myself ‘why the hell did you do that?’
So yes, I can be an idiot behind the wheel just like you. And, on that occasion, it was just impatience. Which is nuts, isn’t it? Putting myself in danger to get where I was going a few seconds earlier. That's what it came down to. And can you imagine how I'd be feeling if the worst had happened? Just to cut off a few seconds of travelling time.
But maybe what makes my idiocy different from the other idiocy I see on the roads, is that at least I know I’ve been an idiot. There are others out there, aren’t there, who have no idea.
The ones doing stupid turns like I did. The ones who tailgate you even when it’s pouring with rain.
We aren’t a nation of brilliant drivers. Some of us are worse than others. But, when it comes to it, we would all benefit from doing a refresher course every now and then. And if Greg Murphy thinks it would make a massive difference when it comes to reducing injuries and deaths on the roads, then I’m all for it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I don’t know about you, but whenever I take a car in for a warrant I invariably decide to stick around and head straight to the waiting area.
And if it’s at one of those places where you can see the workshop, I try to resist watching - but I can’t help it.
So I see my car at the front of the queue, and I watch one of the inspectors grab the keys off the board and make their way up to it. I say “make their way up to it” because no one’s ever in a hurry at these places, are they?
Cars queued out onto the street. More and more people streaming into the waiting area. But a warrant is not something to be rushed.
And so, once the inspector in the overalls gets behind the wheel, they crank the car up, drive into the workshop and slams on the brakes. I’m watching and I think ‘that stopped pretty quickly, that’ll be a tick for the brakes. Surely. Hopefully'.
And it’s at this point where the imagination cranks into full gear. I watch them go underneath with their torches to inspect the chassis and I imagine that they’re seeing the worst case of vehicle rust they’ve ever seen. The kind of thing they’ll talk about for years.
I know the rust isn’t there but I imagine that suddenly the whole thing’s full of it. And then I see them looking in the wheel area and imagine that they can see the axle is about to split in half or one of the wheels is about to fall off.
And so on and so on. I just can’t help myself. And I think the worst possible scenarios the whole time.
Because you hear stories, don’t you? Someone goes for a warrant and walks out facing a repair bill worth hundreds, if not thousands.
So all this turmoil is going on in my head and I’m trying to look cool as anything, and I toy with the idea of sitting down and flicking through that Hot Rod magazine on the table next to the water cooler, but I can’t do it.
I just stare through the glass at the trainwreck happening right in front of me. Well, the trainwreck happening in my head.
Then, after what seems like forever, the car is driven out of the workshop and parked out the back somewhere. And one of the inspectors picks up the clipboard and heads in my direction.
Well, kind of in my direction. They head back into the office. But why haven’t they come straight into the waiting area?
I knew, I knew it. The inspector isn’t in the waiting room because they’re behind the counter in the office writing the full list of all the things wrong with the car.
Fail, fail, fail. I knew it. I could just tell from that serious look on the chops. Oh, this is not going to be good.
And then they appear - they’re coming down the hallway to the waiting area. Look calm John. Look calm.
And everything goes slow motion. Like time is almost standing still. Just tell me, just tell me. I know it’s gonna cost thousands. Just tell me.
And then they speak: “The blue Toyota.”
“Yep, that’s me.”
“Ah, everything’s pretty good. Just keep an eye on the front left tyre - might need replacing before the next warrant. But you’re good to go”
And, at that point, I just want to kiss them.
Sound familiar to you? It’s a scene that plays out day in-day out. The Warrant of Fitness check. A process or a system that the Motor Trade Association is saying needs an overhaul.
It’s put a challenge out to whoever forms the next government to take a serious look at the way we check whether the vehicles on our roads are up to scratch. It thinks we are way too slack.
One of its main bones of contention is the fact that old rust buckets don't have to be checked-over any more often than modern vehicles. And I agree - it’s nutbar, isn’t it?
It says the stats show that 46 percent of vehicles fail their warrant first time around. And the state of our vehicles is a much greater cause of fatal crashes than it used to be.So it wants six-monthly warrants for older cars. And I think it’s a brilliant idea.
The other thing the Motor Trade Associations wants the next Government to do, is help low income families pay for a warrant on their car.
Now I know there will be people who will say that that’s all nanny state and if people have got a vehicle it’s their responsibility to get a warrant - and pay for it themselves.
But if there are unsafe cars on the road - partly because some people just can’t afford a warrant - then why not do something about it and help these people out?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I reckon the best description of the King’s Coronation that I’ve seen was by a journalist in the UK who said it was “huge, hideous, exquisite and sacred”.
Four words that sum it up brilliantly.
Which is exactly how I felt when I watched it the other night. I thought it was a brilliant spectacle - but I felt absolutely no connection at all to the Monarchy.
And I thought it was completely irrelevant to us here in New Zealand.
I thought the music was fantastic. Modern and traditional, at the same time. I thought William and Kate looked like they should’ve been the ones being crowned. Kate was absolutely stunning, wasn’t she?
And I’m probably not the first person to say that the King himself looked a bit out of sorts. If you’ve seen the video online, you’ll know that he was a bit brassed-off right from the start when he was kept waiting by William and Kate after turning up at the abbey.
At least the pen worked later on.
So the coronation event itself at Westminster Abbey was everything you’d expect. But it still left me cold. That was because it struck me how old-hat this idea of being bound to a monarch 18,000 kilometres away really is.
Not that my thinking surprised me. I’ve thought this way for a while now. But it’s when you see the whole thing playing out on the TV, that you really start to think.
And maybe it’s because the mantle has been passed from the late Queen - who seemed to have been around forever - and maybe having a different person on the throne does make it all seem very different.
So there I was on Saturday night. Appreciating the spectacle, but not feeling connected in any way, shape or form to what was going on.
As I say, no big surprise that that’s how I was feeling.
But where I have surprised myself, is when it comes to whether New Zealand becomes a republic.
Because you would assume, wouldn’t you, that if I felt completely detached from all the goings on at the Coronation, and felt this a disconnection to the monarchy for a long time, that I’d be waving the flag big time for republicanism.
But I’m not!
Maybe it says more about me than anything else. Maybe I have become such a slacker in my old age that the whole idea of turning New Zealand into a republic sounds like such hard work that I just can’t be bothered with it all.
I don’t think I am a complete slacker - but there is something in that.
Because, despite all the talk about New Zealand needing to make its own way in the world and all the talk from the Prime Minister saying he’d like us to have a head of state who actually lives here someday, I just don’t think it’s worth it.
I just don’t think all the palava we’d have to go through would be worth it.
Can you imagine all the things that would have to change? All the constitutional changes. All the money. All of that.
Which possibly makes me just as hypocritical as other people who have been in the firing line in recent days. Like the Prime Minister, who has been criticised by some for going to the Coronation in the first place when his support for a republic is obvious. I actually think that criticism is a bit mealy-mouthed because he’s the Prime Minister, for goodness sake.
But you see what I mean. And if I was really true to myself then I’d be telling you that I think New Zealand should quit the Commonwealth ASAP.
But I’m not saying that.
I do think it’s ridiculous that we are lorded over by a monarch 18,000 kilmetres away. But that still isn’t enough for me to say New Zealand should become a republic. Because I just don’t think all the hassle would be worth it. And I have surprised myself no end.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
One of the greatest albums of all time, Neil Young's Harvest will be recreated by a supergroup of New Zealand artists, track by track in its entirety plus a bonus set of classics and deep cuts.
Featuring Jon Toogood, Sam Scott, James Milne, Adam Hattaway, Dianne Swann, Jol Mulholland, Bret Adams, Matthias Jordan and more.
John MacDonald spoke to local artist Adam Hattaway about his involvement.
Tickets are available for the Christchurch concert this Thursday.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Christchurch City Council better be hanging its head in shame today.
Because after all the weasel words about being committed to finding a solution to the problem of car parking at Christchurch Hospital, we can say with certainty that that’s all they are - weasel words.
Because, after however long it’s been, we still don’t have the level of parking available that you would expect in New Zealand’s second-largest city.
But not only that, we’re also finding out today that the area around the hospital is the city’s hotspot for council parking tickets.
Figures released to Newstalk ZB tell us that, of all areas in the city, the biggest number of fines are issued in the Hagley Oval carpark - followed by the Horticultural carpark and the Botanic Gardens carpark.
Now I know that not everyone who has got a parking ticket in these areas will have been at the hospital. But I think we can safely assume that most of them were.
And even with the numbers to back it up, we’re still getting weasel words from the city council.
What do you think its Traffic Operations Manager is saying about it? He’s saying that parking fines in the vicinity of the hospital are issued on a “case-by-case basis”.
Do me a favour. A case-by-case basis? What does that even mean? How could a parking warden on patrol in that part of town even know what case-by-case means?
Do you think they have some telepathic skill that means they know which cars belong to people at the hospital and which don’t? Of course not!
City councillor Aaron Keown says it’s unacceptable that people are getting pinged so much when they go to the hospital. And his view is that the hospital should be the most accessible facility in the community.
Well it’s not. And, as the numbers out today show, if you are lucky enough to get a park, the parking wardens will get you if you dare stay a bit longer with that relative or if your appointment goes a bit longer than you thought it would.
And let’s not forget that it’s not just visitors getting pinged by the council. How galling must it be to do a shift at the hospital and come out and find a ticket on the windscreen?
I know that when you go to work, you don’t necessarily get free parking. But, as we’ve seen over the years as this shambolic situation has been allowed to fester - it’s a genuine safety issue for nurses and other health workers.
And I know some people think it’s a daft place for a busy hospital - right in the centre of town - but it is what it is, it is where it is, and so we have to do better to make it more accessible. Way better.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I went and saw my GP not that long ago and, do you know, it never crossed my mind whether she was vaccinated against COVID or not.
I didn’t think about it at all - about her, about the other doctors in the practise, the staff - no one.
Just like when I went to visit someone the other week who had just had surgery. Whether all the doctors and nurses walking around the place were vaccinated or not - never crossed my mind.
And I reckon I’m not the only person who doesn’t even give this a thought these days.
Once upon a time, we were all over this. And yes, I was one of those people pushing the no jab/no job argument. But that was then - and this is now.
And right now, we are in a situation where the Government thinks the answer to preparing our hospital system and wider health system for winter, is to provide more services on the phone, get pharmacies to treat minor ailments, and a whole lot of other things.
In fact, there are 24 things. It’s a 24-point action plan. That’s what the Government’s calling it. They probably had 22 or 23 things but thought 24 was catchier. You know, a 24-point plan for a 24-hour health service.
One of the more curious things in the action plan - well, I reckon anyway - is the idea the Government’s got about giving ambulance paramedics access to GP or specialist medical advice.
So, how I read that, is that if something happens to you and you call St John’s - and let’s assume you’re lucky enough for them to be able to actually turn up and they’re not all parked up outside the hospital waiting to get in the door.
So you call the ambo, they arrive, and how I see this idea of the Government’s working - is that once you’re in the ambo, they’ll be able to look up your health records and, if they need to, get on the blower to a specialist.
The weird bit, is the Government is saying this is such a good idea because it may mean that people might not even have to go to hospital.
Can you imagine St John’s going for that one. They scream out to someone’s place, get them on the stretcher, load them into the ambo, drive around the block a couple of times while they make a few phone calls and look up the computer, and then drop them back home again because they work out that they don’t actually need to go to hospital.
Sounds more like Driving Miss Daisy than St John’s ambulance.
But it's all part of the 24-point action plan. But a lot of it wouldn’t be necessary if the Government just woke up to the fact that no one cares about doctors and nurses being vaccinated. Well, I don’t.
Nor does this GP up in the Bay of Plenty who is so worn-out and burnt-out, working 24/7 on his own in the small town of Murupara - he’s so worn out that he is now flying-in unvaccinated doctors to help out.
The people in his area have been waiting up to four weeks to see him and he’s had a gutsful. He’s had a gutsful personally and he’s had a gutsful on behalf of his patients.
So he’s bringing in these doctors who have refused to get vaccinated and can’t get work anywhere.
And, you know what, I reckon if it’s good enough for his neck of the woods - it should be good enough for everywhere.
Do you really think those people up north who have been waiting weeks to see their GP are saying to him ‘oh I’ll wait a bit longer so I can see you Dr Conlon. I don’t want to be seen by one of those anti-vaxxers’. Do you think they'll be saying that to him? Of course not!
They’ll be on the phone to TVNZ nominating him for a Good Sorts award or something like that. If they aren’t, they should be. Because yes, it made sense for doctors and nurses and other medical people to be vaccinated back in the day.
But it is completely irrelevant now. I can see that. Maybe you can see that too. But the Government can’t. Or maybe it can, and the mandate thing is one thing it just can’t bring itself to throw on the policy bonfire.
Well it should. Because, when push comes to shove, I don’t give two hoots whether a doctor or nurse is vaccinated against COVID. I really don’t
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch mayor Phil Mauger joined John MacDonald to discuss the culture within Council, Chamber of Commerce confidence and what is happening with the roadworks on Moorhouse Ave?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m going to say it how I mean it right from the start. I despise vaping.
I also despise all those shiny vape shops. And how dairies have cashed-in on this appalling poison that was supposed to be the great saviour for people addicted to cigarettes.
What a crock that was, wasn't it? And we know it was a crock because now we have kids and teenagers - and probably some older people too - sucking on these blimmin’ vapes even though they’ve never smoked a cigarette.
In fact, not just sucking on them. Addicted to them.
So when I heard that Australia has announced a crackdown on vaping I thought to myself ‘we have to do the same thing here’.
The federal Government over there is introducing tough new rules because, like we should be doing, it's declared that vaping is an epidemic and has called time on all the corporates and retailers making money selling a lie to people that these things are better for their health.
And so what’s going to happen across the Tasman, is there’ll be no more shiny vape shops. There aren’t going to be any of the flavoured imports in Australia, either.
The ones you can smell a mile off. There are hundreds of them. Green Grape. Peach. Gummy Lemon. Nutty Cream. As if your genuine reformed smoker gives a toss about flavours. These are all targeted at people who have never smoked a cigarette before in their life.
It is such a con and we have all fallen for it. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything about it.
Which is why I love the tough talk that’s coming out of Australia.
So, the Government there is going to effectively shut down the vape shops by making pharmacies the only place you can get them. It’s going to restrict flavours and colours. It’s going to reduce the nicotine content. And it’s going to ban single use vapes which are not only toxic to the people who suck on them - but toxic for the natural environment too because they end up in landfills.
Win, win, win - as far as I’m concerned. Because I have long thought that the only way someone should be able to use a vape here is if they are a genuine reformed smoker and they should only be able to get these things with a prescription from a pharmacy.
The head of General Practice New Zealand Dr Bryan Betty thinks so too.
He’s been saying for an even longer time than me that vapes should be pharmacy-only and he wants an urgent debate about what we do about vaping here in New Zealand.
But, appallingly, just one day after Australia announced its plans, we’ve got Health Minister Dr Aysha Verrell saying that New Zealand won’t be following Australia’s lead anytime soon.
That’s because the Government has been “consulting” us on what we think should happen. You may have missed this because the Government announced it on the January 4. But, back then, it put out a statement asking what people thought about banning vape retailers from near schools and sports grounds.
It also put out this idea of somehow limiting the names vape manufacturers can use for their products so they aren’t so attractive to young people.
The third thing the Government put up for discussion, was trying to cut out the use of single-use products.
And it gave people until mid-March to comment and so it’ll now be going through all the feedback and then probably kick it into touch until after the election. Because that’s what governments do, don’t they?
Not in Australia, though. They see a problem and they do something about it. And I just wish we had the same fortitude on this side of the Tasman.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
No new taxes in the Budget. No new taxes in the Budget. No new taxes in the Budget.
Focussed on the cost of living. Focussed on the cost of living. Focussed on the cost of living.
I’m reading there from the list of key messages Prime Minister Chris Hipkins left in the bin here in the studio after he dropped by on Friday.
OK, I’m making that bit up. But that was what he was saying last week after that IRD tax report came out.
There will not be any new taxes in the Budget because we know people are struggling out there and all our attention is going to be helping people deal with the cost of living.
That was last week. This week, though, a slightly different story.
Because, yes, this is not a new tax - but the changes the Government has announced to its Clean Car Discount scheme is nothing more than a tax increase.
You see, what’s happened is electric vehicle sales have gone through the roof in New Zealand since the Government started offering subsidies for people buying EVs.
And because it promised the scheme would be self-sustaining, the Government has to get more money in the door to pay for the subsidies. Which means for anyone who buys a ute, life is going to get more expensive.
Because the ute tax is increasing. For new utes, the maximum fee or tax is going to increase from $5,175 to $6,900. And for second-hand import utes, the fee or tax is going to increase from $2,875 to $3,450.
It won’t just be utes - it will be any “high emitting vehicles”. And it’s not just the tax that’s going up, the Government is also lowering the bar in terms of what a “high emitting vehicle” actually is.
At the moment, if you buy a vehicle that puffs out more than 146 grams of CO2 per kilometre, you get stung. On the 1st July, that will change, and any vehicle that lets out more than 100 grams of CO2 per kilometre will have the ute tax added to the sale price.
So they’re the numbers. But I think the main issue here is the fact that the Government is going to sting people even more - especially people who have no option at the moment but to buy and use the types of vehicles that Transport Minister Michael Wood doesn’t want on our roads.
This, at the same time as it’s been banging on about no new taxes and being so focused on reducing the impact on people of the cost of living crisis.
I see Deputy Prime Minister Carmel Sepuloni has been saying that it’s no big deal because it’s not something that’s going to cost people on an ongoing basis.
They’ll just have to pay it when they buy a new ute.
And Transport Minister Michael Wood is saying he thinks it's fine that people who can afford to buy a brand new Tesla get a government subsidy because one less petrol guzzler on the road is a good thing.
On top of all that, who was the guy making all the noise last week about no new taxes and being so focussed on the cost of living crisis? Who was that? It was the Prime Minister.
And where’s he, as this increased tax is being announced? He’s uncontactable. Because he’s 42,000 feet up in the air flying to London for the King’s Coronation.
And then, once he gets there, he’ll be so busy with his bi-laterals and tri-laterals and getting the morning suit all lined up that any questions about the ute tax will be referred back to the guy in charge of that - Transport Minister Michael Woods.
Am I being unkind here? Do you think it is just coincidence that the PM is up in the clouds as this thing’s being announced? It couldn’t possibly be delayed until Chris Hipkins gets back from London next week.
Urgent announcement. Something happening two months from now. Best get it out ASAP. Oh, Chippy’s not going to be here? Didn’t think about that. Best we announce it though. Urgent. Only two months away. Couldn't possibly wait until next week.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I found a student flat this morning where everyone in the flat was awake before eight o’clock. Which was very useful. Because it's been a long time since I was in my early 20s, and I wanted to run National’s idea of paying off student loans to keep nurses and midwives in New Zealand after their study and training, past people who are studying right now.
And they made a very interesting point, which I’ll get to shortly.
But first: the gist of what Christopher Luxon announced yesterday is that if National forms the next government, it will take a maximum of $22,000 off a nurse or midwife’s student loan if they stay and work for five years after graduating - instead of taking off straight away and heading overseas.
Now A. I’ve never been to university. And B. I’ve never been in the military. But I seem to recall that this thing National is talking about for nurses and midwives has been done by the military for quite a while.
Because outfits like the air force put people through university and, if you do that, generally you have to stay in the air force for a certain period of time after you graduate. And don’t just rush off and earn the mega bucks working as an air traffic controller.
And I know that the Navy has a scholarship programme and that can require people to stay for a certain period of time after they graduate, because the Navy’s paid for someone to go to university and wants to get something in return for its investment..
So the idea is not a new one. And the National Party thinks it could work in the health sector.
Because, as we know, we are short of about 4,000 nurses here in New Zealand.
Some of that will be associated with the vaccine mandates. In fact, back in August last year National said it thought the mandates in the health sector should go so that unvaccinated nurses and midwives could go back to work and help reduce that shortage.
Now it’s banging a different drum and thinks offering new midwives and nurses the chance to stay in New Zealand for five years and have some of their student loan wiped could be the answer.
And, on paper, it sounds like it could work. Doesn’t it?
But then, what would I know? Because, as I say, I’ve never been to university so I don’t know what it’s like to have a student loan hanging over you. And also, while an idea like National's might sound attractive to me - what about the people this policy is aimed at?
That’s where my phone call to a student flat comes into it.
Because I wanted to find out what a bunch of 20-year-olds thought. And, initially, they liked National’s idea.
But then they thought about it a bit more and they started talking about the students they know who have already clocked-up $40,000 on the student loan and counting, and they started to think that National’s $22,000 might not be such a game changer, after all.
And then they started talking about all the students they know who have gone to university over the last two or three years because they haven’t been able to go overseas. These are the ones who are going to be graduating if National wins in October and gets the chance to implement this policy.
And so my student focus group came to the pretty quick conclusion that what National is proposing wouldn’t be enough to keep them here.
The reasons being that most students would still be in debt after doing their five years service. And, after the limitations on travel during the past three years because of Covid, most students are just going to want to get out of here when they finish their studies. Which is going to be challenging isn’t it for a whole lot of sectors - not just health.
So I think National’s barking up the wrong tree here. And that’s not just on the basis of what the students I spoke with this morning said. But also remembering that nurses in the public health sector in this country feel completely undervalued.
They’ve been marching on the streets over the last few weeks and then going back to work in what would have to be some of the most challenging working environments in the country.
Do you really think a new graduate is going to stick that out for five years just to have a bit of the student loan paid off?
Of course they’re not. And, instead of talking about writing-off student debt, National should be talking about paying nurses and midwives more.
Because, until our nurses and midwives feel the love and start getting paid what they’re worth, nothing is going to change.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Congratulations to the National Party because it will be over the moon that people are in the news today saying that it’s the political party for landlords.
It’s come after National’s housing spokesperson Chris Bishop jumped on a plane yesterday and screamed down to Queenstown to announce the party’s housing policy - which would allow all sorts of things, one of them being the right for landlords to evict tenants without any reason.
90 days notice. That’s all that would be required.
At the moment, thanks to Labour, landlords have to have a pretty good or genuine reason to kick tenants out of their properties. National thinks that’s nuts and wants to go back to how things used to be with 90 days notice being the only requirement.
I remember when things used to be that way - the way National wants things to be again - and we had a couple living next door in a property they were renting from the owners who had moved up north.
From everything I saw, they were great tenants. But then the earthquakes happened, and the owners of the place saw a chance to make a truckload of money renting it out to people who had to find somewhere to live while they had earthquake repairs done on their own homes.
So these landlords came up with some cock and bull story about wanting to move back to Christchurch to help with the rebuild - what a load of old nonsense - and so this lovely couple had to pack their bags and leave.
I say “load of old nonsense” because that’s exactly what it was. These landlords had no intention at all of moving back to Christchurch - and they didn’t - and they just rented it out to insurance companies for Lord knows how much money.
Now I’m not begrudging them for making a buck. Good on them. But the way they treated their tenants, I thought, was pretty shoddy.
The National Party obviously thinks differently. And, on the face of it, its policy announcement yesterday was a disaster.
Because, if you’re a politician and you want to come across as being the saviour for people desperately trying to rent somewhere to live, and people turn around and say you’re actually just in the pockets of the dirty landlords, then - on the face of it - it’s a political disaster.
Well, it would be if National really wanted us to think that it’s the Great White Hope when it comes to sorting out the shortage of rental properties.
But it doesn’t want that at all. It will be loving the headlines today saying that it’s the party for the landlords. There was Chris Bishop yesterday being the sheep in wolf's clothing telling struggling hospo workers in Queenstown that ‘vote National and we’ll make sure you’ve got a roof over your head”.
But that wasn’t what he was saying at all. What he was saying was “hey landlords, vote National and you won’t need to jump through all the hoops you have to jump through now because of the socialist Labour Party”.
So well done National. Congratulations.
Now the problem it claims to want to fix, is this situation where landlords aren’t even bothering renting out their properties because they think that if they can’t kick someone out with just 90 days notice, then it’s easier for them to rent it out on Air B n B.
Which is very similar to what was happening back in the days after the quakes where tenants were being kicked out of rental properties because of all the money landlords could make from short-term rentals. Like the situation I talked about earlier.
National thinks that if landlords had more freedom, then they’d be more inclined to go with long-term rentals and less inclined to go down the short-term rental route through Air B n B and outfits like that.
But I don’t buy that at all. Because even if landlords suddenly did have the right to kick tenants out with just 90 days notice, do you think they’d also suddenly want to have the hassle of chasing rent from tenants, dealing with every Tom, Dick and Harry who might turn up looking for a place and all that?
Of course, they wouldn’t. They’d stick with Air B n B thanks very much. Bookings done by the Air B n B crowd. Money straight into the bank account. Easy.
And if every other landlord only had to give 90 days notice with no good reason, they’d be jumping on the Air B n B bandwagon as well.
Which just goes to show that National doesn’t actually give two-hoots about renters and all Chris Bishop with his serious face on in Queenstown yesterday was doing, was trying to get the response the party actually wanted - which is being trotted out in the news today - and that’s that National is the political party for landlords.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins joined John MacDonald in studio on Canterbury Mornings.
They discussed tax and the IRD report, why are so many children not enrolled in schooling? And how will the Government's budget help the Christchurch Hospital situation?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Another day and news of yet more surgery delays at Christchurch Hospital.
Maybe if the super-rich were paying their fair share of tax, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
Because, in a nutshell, your typical rich-lister pays about half as much tax on every dollar of income they receive, compared to the rest of us.
That’s the main message the Government’s been pushing from the IRD’s report on the tax affairs of about 300 of the wealthiest families in New Zealand.
And, essentially, the main reason for that is we don’t have a capital gains tax in New Zealand.
Since the report came out, some people have been quick to point out that the numbers in it are a bit skewed because they’re based on assumptions of how much profit these people might make if they sold their fancy homes and things.
The kinds of profits or capital gains that wouldn’t be taxed, because we don’t have a capital gains tax.
And it seems that every time Revenue Minister David Parker has opened his mouth in the past 24 hours, he’s been falling over himself to say that this is not the start of any major tax reform.
But, irrespective of what the Government does or doesn’t do with this information dug-up by IRD, there is a conversation to be had. Because, put simply, irrespective of tax laws - it is not fair and decent that these people pay a much smaller proportion of tax on their income, compared to the rest of us.
Simple. It’s not fair and it’s not decent.
And some of the nonsense that some people have been trotting out trying to defend it has been incredible.
People saying ‘aww, without these people we’d be in the poo. These rich listers are the ones who take all the risks and create all the jobs” blah blah blah.
Yeah, that’s probably true. But is that really an excuse for them not to make the same contribution as the rest of us? Of course it isn’t.
And I bet these people banging on about how great the rich are and how we should be cutting them some slack because “without you good sir, we would be nothing” - I bet these same people wouldn’t be quite so forgiving of people rorting the system at the other end of the wealth spectrum.
People on benefits. Nah, they’re a bunch of bludgers sucking the system dry, aren’t they? In it for everything they can get.
But the rich-lister paying about half as much tax on every dollar of income they receive, compared to the rest of us? They're untouchable. Don’t mess with them.
This attitude staggers me.
But here’s where things get tricky, really tricky. Because if we want things to be fair and decent, then we have to face up to the fact that nothing can be done about it unless we are prepared to be part of the solution too.
And this is the point where you say “what a flippin’ hypocrite you are MacDonald”.
Because, if we want to fix this ludicrous situation where the super wealthy pay about half as much tax on every dollar of income they receive, compared to the rest of us - then the obvious solution is a capital gains tax.
Which would certainly see the rich-listers making a fairer tax contribution, but it would also hit you and me in the pocket too.
If you own a house and you sell it for a profit, you’d lose some of that profit paying a capital gains tax. If you own a rental property and sell it, you'd be taxed.
And I’m going to be completely honest with you - I would resent that. Because why on earth would I want to lose any of that profit? I wouldn’t, would I? You wouldn’t, either.
But, at the same time, I’m ready to point the finger at the super-rich and tell them that they should be doing exactly what I wouldn’t want to do myself.
So yes, I’m a hypocrite. And I’m pretty confident that, when push comes to shove, you’re a hypocrite too.
And that is why nothing will change.
Because our hypocrisy - my hypocrisy, your hypocrisy - is license for every politician in this country to keep sitting on their hands and doing absolutely nothing about it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you’re a parent or a grandparent in Canterbury, chances are you’ll be familiar with St George’s Hospital - which runs a birthing unit and provides post-natal care.
Not for much longer, though. Nine weeks from now, it will be all over because they can’t get enough midwives to run things safely. Which is going to be a real kick in the guts for the thousands who signed a petition to keep things going there.
And all the people who joined-in on a march to the hospital when the petition was presented to the honchos at St George’s.
That was in March/April last year, after word got out that the services at the hospital could be at-risk. And, as a result of all that, St George’s agreed to keep running maternity services until the end of its contract. And now it’s been confirmed that, come the end of June, that’ll be it.
So, in a way, not a surprise. But it will be gutting nonetheless for the women who fought to keep the unit operating, gutting for the women who are expecting a baby beyond June and now have to work out what options they’ve got, and gutting for the thousands of people in Canterbury who have used St George’s maternity services over the years.
I remember the night our daughter was born 20 years ago. She arrived safely at 5:20 in the evening at the old Christchurch Women’s Hospital and, then later that same night, we were cleared to transfer for the standard two-or-three night’s care at St George’s.
I had never driven as carefully and slowly and safely as I did that August night. It was pouring with rain and I remember not quite being overwhelmed, but the sense of responsibility to get that little bundle in the back seat safely up to St George’s really brought home the enormity of it all.
But, 20 years on from then, and who knows how many babies delivered and mothers cared for during that time, and we are about to see the end of St George’s maternity care.
I was actually in the maternity ward at St George’s the other night visiting someone recovering from surgery. It was just as quiet and peaceful as I remember it. There was the odd little squawk - but it reminded me how much of a godsend the midwives and staff at St Georges were for us, and how missed the maternity unit will be when it closes at the end of June.
Because, once that happens, parents will have to go somewhere else to have their babies and receive post-natal care.
A new central city birthing unit is due to open in Christchurch at the end of this year. But between the end of June and the end of the year, parents will have to find somewhere else to go.
Which, for most, will mean some of the smaller rural hospitals around the place. Which probably won’t be the end of the world but is this really how we should be treating young families?
The way it operates is women can choose to give birth at a hospital, a primary birthing unit such as St George’s - providing they’re healthy with no pregnancy complications - or at home.
But with the shortage of midwives, what’s been happening is that St George’s has found itself in having to send mothers with newborn babies home early and, you may recall, a situation where it even had to turn away a woman who was in labour.
At the same time, Christchurch Women’s Hospital was full and she ended-up having to go to Rangiora and her midwife missed the birth by five minutes because of the unexpected extra travel time.
If you’re a parent, you’ll know how devastating that situation would have been.
And so you can’t argue with St George’s when it says it just can’t keep operating like that. There’s a shortage of midwives and it doesn’t want to put women and babies at risk by just continuing on hoping things work out.
If it did that and something went bad as a result, we’d be all over them demanding answers wouldn’t we?
So I’m not blaming St George’s for this. Where the blame lies in all of this is the fact that we have allowed the likes of maternity services to bumble along and keep our fingers crossed that it all works out.
I’m talking about successive governments, health boards and probably you and me as well. Sure, 30,000 people signed the petition last year but really, when it comes down to it, we only really think about the likes of maternity services when we need them, don’t we?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Let’s not get too ahead of ourselves after Australia’s announcement that it plans to make it easier for kiwis to settle over there.
Because, the way some people are talking, it’s starting to sound like it did back in the 80s when everyone was banging on about ‘last one out, turn the lights off’.
But I don’t think the lights will be going out anytime soon because us kiwis are great at threatening to do something - but most of us never do it.
And moving to another country is a prime example. “You know, I could earn truckloads more if I went and lived in Australia. And if it wasn’t for….”
The old “if it wasn’t for” get out of jail card.
All that talk about moving across the ditch always comes with “if it wasn’t for”, doesn’t it?
Which is why I think we shouldn’t get too panicked about Australia’s announcement.
At the moment, if you move over to Australia, you have to be there for at least five years before you can get residency and all the benefits that come with that.
Under the new plan, you’ll only have to wait four years before you become eligible for what they’re calling a “pathway” to residency and citizenship.
Which will mean entitlement for things like social welfare benefits and other things, such as your kids being able to do things like go to university over there.
There are about 700,000 New Zealanders living in Australia right now. So they’re the ones who stand to benefit sooner rather than later.
But that hasn’t stopped talk from the likes of the Nurses Organisation saying we’re going to see truckloads of nurses moving to Australia.
But talk about the grass being greener. The only thing I’ve seen about living in Australia that beats New Zealand, is this apparent opportunity to earn more money over there.
And the numbers do back that up. According to Australia’s stats department, annual average earnings over there are $AUS94,000. Or about $NZ102,000. A fair amount of money.
Compare that to New Zealand, where Stats NZ numbers tell us that average weekly earnings here come to about $77,000 a year, and yes, things look rosier over in Australia.
Going by these numbers, an average income earner is better off by about $NZ25,000 in Australia.
Not to be sneezed at. But is that really worth upping sticks and leaving? I don’t think it is.
I don’t know how many people have said to me that the thought of moving from Canterbury to somewhere like Auckland is just not on the cards because of how much more it costs to live in Auckland.
I’ve been looking at some of the numbers from over in Australia and I reckon that extra $30,000 you might earn over there would be swallowed up pretty quickly by the extra living costs.
The other reason why I think these changes the Australian government is making won’t mean a sudden exodus, is that most of us just like living here.
It may be for family reasons. Or lifestyle reasons. Some people just can’t stand Australians, either. I’m not one of them. But that’s another reason why some people wouldn’t even think about living over there.
And I reckon that most of these people who bang on about moving to Australia only know the Australia they’ve seen during that quick trip to the Gold Coast during winter, or that shopping trip to Sydney or Melbourne. And, when push comes to shove, they stay here - don’t they?
Moving to Australia is not on my radar. The Australian government can make as many changes as it likes, but I’m staying put thanks, because I’ve got lots of reasons to stay - instead of reasons not to go.
Yes, I could probably earn more money in Australia. But, overall, I don’t actually think I’d be any better off, when you take everything into account.
I also don't think you can overestimate the value of being somewhere where you know people. Can’t put a price on that.
Yes, I know so many people have moved to New Zealand and made this place their home. I can think of friends who weren’t born here and who have moved here and have made this place their home. And we love them.
But they didn’t come here because of some change in immigration laws. And that’s why I think any talk about “last one out, turn the lights off’ is way premature and why I think these rule changes announced by Australia over the weekend aren’t something we should be worried about.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’ve always been very weary of how easily things can go pear-shaped when people are tanked-up on booze and other things.
That’s because, when I was a teenager, I spent quite a bit of my time in and around pubs.
Even before I was legal age, I was there because I played in bands. And most weekends I’d be playing somewhere - it could be two nights, or even three nights.
And when you’re in a band playing at a pub, you see everything. The good and the bad.
And I’ll never forget my best mate getting a hiding outside the Empire Tavern in Dunedin one Saturday night and having to call his parents from the hospital to tell them what had happened.
That was about 30 years ago. But nothing seems to have changed. We seem to be just as violent now, as we were then. It’s probably even worse now.
Bus drivers. Supermarket workers. No one’s immune from these thugs. Just like this guy in Christchurch whose life will never be the same after what happened to him.
Picture this: he’s out on the town on a Saturday night, and pretty much finds himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just after midnight, outside the Rockpool Bar, on Hereford Street.
So a fight breaks out and an 18-year-old guy who’s trolleyed after polishing off a bottle of rum can’t help himself and joins in on the scrap.
He punches one guy in the head six times and security staff from the pub jump in and try to calm him down. The guy who eventually ends up in hospital on life support - Wynton King - also tries to help the security guys calm this idiot down.
Not long after that, this clown makes a beeline for Wynton - who doesn’t see him coming - and punches him on the right side of his face. Wynton falls to the ground and hits his head on the footpath.
At this point, Regan Robson-Khan - the drunk thug - does a runner and tries to pick fights with other people, but eventually the cops catch-up with him.
Meanwhile, back on Hereford Street outside the Rockpool Bar, Wynton King - the victim - is being loaded into an ambulance in a critical condition. He’s taken to hospital and put on life support.
While he’s in a coma, Wynton has a stroke and the doctors tell his family he’ll never be the same again and so they make the awful decision to switch-off life support.
But somehow, Wynton keeps breathing. He doesn’t die. And, eventually - weeks after being taken off life support - he makes a recovery. Of sorts anyway.
But his life will never be the same again. He’s currently living in a care facility - this is six months after the attack on Hereford Street. He’ll never drive again. He’s going through the grief of losing his father all over again because, after the assault, he couldn’t remember that his father had passed away and had to be told that news all over again.
He can speak, but says he finds it difficult to say exactly what he wants to say. For example, if he’s hungry - he can’t tell anyone he’s hungry, and he’s not capable of preparing food himself. So he has to point to his stomach to get the message across.
So think about all that. And then think about the thug who caused all this.
The thug who, right now, is sitting at home doing nine months home detention. He’s not the one who will never drive again. He’s not the one living in a care facility. He’s not the one who will never play rugby again. He’s not the one who can’t tell people when he’s hungry and has to point to his stomach.
It is outrageous that nine-months home detention is the harshest penalty dished out for this crime. Absolutely outrageous.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Hand on heart, I have never heard anyone say they'd love to go to the Commonwealth Games one day.
The Rugby World Cup? Heard heaps of people say they'd love to go to that. Football World Cup? Who wouldn’t love to go to that? The Olympics? Absolutely. Wimbledon? A grand prix somewhere? Yes, yes, yes to all of the above.
But I have never had someone look me in the eye and say: “Now John, if I only get to do one thing in my life, it would have to be the Commonwealth Games. I want to be there for every bowls game, John. I want to be there to watch our team walk out onto the green and just smash it. I’ll mortgage the house if I have to.”
I’ve never heard anyone talk like that about the Commonwealth Games. But watching Sport Minister Grant Robertson on TV last night, I wondered if I’d missed something. Maybe there are people gagging to go to the Com Games.
Because the Government and the New Zealand Olympic Committee are mulling over the idea of putting in a bid to host the games in 2034.
Grant Robertson says, if it happens, it’ll have a distinctively New Zealand flavour. But I think it’s got a New Zealand flavour to it already. Because what they’re talking about is not having the Games in one city, but sharing it around towns and cities all over the country.
It’s a very New Zealand approach. It’s a bit like having a wedding or a 40th birthday party, realising the lounge and the living room are a bit small, and getting a marquee in or asking a mate with a lifestyle property to host it.
Because it seems to me that Grant’s looked around the place and thought ‘oh Phil down in Christchurch, he’ll have a stadium we can use’. And the crew in Cambridge have got a velodrome. And there’s truckloads of bowling greens around the place.
‘Yeah, I reckon we can pull it off if we all do our bit’.
And so, last night on the news, Grant was banging on about the tourism opportunity and all that. But, like I say, I have never heard anyone say that the Commonwealth Games is on their bucket list.
I’m sure for the athletes, the idea of having the Games in their home country is pretty cool. The ones I’ve seen and heard in the news over the past 24 hours have been very enthusiastic.
But then, they would be, wouldn’t they? Why’s that do you think? Because they’re athletes?
That’s partly right. The athletes in the news have been all for it because they're athletes who rely on the likes of the Sports Minister and the Olympic Committee to chase their sporting dreams.
So I will be very surprised if we hear any current athletes coming out and saying it’s a daft idea.
I don’t have those constraints - and I am more than happy to say that I think it’s a daft idea.
For several reasons:
First of all, I think we’re dreaming if we think there’d be a huge influx of tourists coming for the Games. It just would not happen.
Secondly: this idea of having events all around the country would be a logistical nightmare. The Commonwealth Games are all about unity - and we know that athletes love being around eachother.
Third reason why I think it’s a daft idea: who knows how many countries there’ll be in the Commonwealth in 11 years time?
Reason number four: I just don’t think hosting the Games really benefits the sports themselves. Think back to 1982 and how every kid suddenly wanted to play football after the All Whites made it to the World Cup?
Was that because of games in New Zealand? Of course, it wasn’t.
And probably the main reason why I think it’s nutbar to be talking about the Commonwealth Games, is the fact that we already have some major global sporting events on our plate.
And this is where I thought last night that, as Sports Minister, Grant Robertson was barking up the wrong tree.
Instead of the Commonwealth Games in 11 years' time, the Sport Minister should be focused on the world’s biggest women's sporting event - the FIFA Women's World Cup - which is happening here in New Zealand and Australia in July and August.
Why on Earth he would be trying to sell this idea of having the Commonwealth Games here in 2034, I will never know.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger on Canterbury Mornings about the Government's thoughts to bid for the Commonwealth Games.
Mauger has been a huge advocate for the Games returning to Christchurch, and put his thoughts forward as to why Christchurch could be a hub.
They also discussed water use rates going down in the city, excess water charges and the Mayoral Forum Transport Plan.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald today had the pleasure to chat to Kiwi rocker, Julia Deans.
New Zealand’s finest rockers together with a smoking hot band are set to recreate Hollywood history, performing the soundtracks to Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs & Pulp Fiction live in concert in Christchurch on April 28.
Fur Patrol’s rocker Julia Deans, dub-funk powerhouse Laughton Kora (Kora), Pluto frontman Milan Borich and hard rock hellraiser Booga Beazley (Head like a Hole) will be kicking off their shoes and
polishing their razors for a walk on the dark side.
Julia talked about the concert and her musical past, as lead singer of Fur Patrol and her role in The Adults.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I don't know about you, but when I went for my driver’s licence back in the day I reckon I would’ve been mortified if I failed. These days, though, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Because, these days, every second person who does their practical driving test fails.
Which says to me that we’re doing a hopeless job of training drivers. The Government sees it differently, though, and it’s taking the easy option and it’s going to make it free for people to re-sit their tests.
Which will mean people can just keep turning up, giving it a go a second, third, fourth go and hopefully hitting the jackpot one day and getting their licence.
But I think that, instead of making it cheaper to get a licence, the Government should be investing money in driver training.
Not that I’m completely innocent of taking the easy route to getting my licence.
I remember getting my motorbike licence very clearly. I was 16 and I heard about this scheme where you’d go to a few extra lessons on motorbike safety - there were about four sessions I think - and, once you’d done that, you’d get your full motorbike licence. Instead of having to wait however long it took normally to get your full licence.
So I remember thinking ‘I’ll have a bit of that’ and enrolled for the course, did my four Saturday sessions and then, on the last day, a traffic cop turned up to take us all through our paces.
And what a joke that was. Because he told us all we were all going to go for a ride together around the area and then, those of us he thought were up to it, would get our full licence.
It was a joke because, as soon as he’d said this, he took off on his motorbike and we all followed him.
I don’t know how much he saw in his rear-view mirror but he must’ve had a camera in the back of his helmet or something because after 15-20 minutes following him around he told us we’d all passed.
I don’t have such vivid memories of getting my car licence, but I do know I got that first-time around as well. In fact, I can’t remember too many people failing at all.
Different story these days, though. With 50 percent of people who go for their practical driving test failing the first-time.
And so the Government has decided that it’s going to make it easier for them to re-sit by doing away with the re-sitting fee.
But I think it’s a classic case of “cart before the horse”. Because, surely, if so many people aren’t meeting the standard first-time around when they go for their practical, then they’re not ready are they?
And if they’re not ready, then they’re not being trained properly. And that is what the Government should be focusing on. Because, at the moment, you can learn to drive from anyone.
You can spend money and go to an instructor or you can do it for free and get anyone else with a licence to teach you. Which can be pretty fraught at times, can’t it? And aside from the tantrums, it means all us “experienced drivers” just end up passing on our bad habits.
One of mine that I only really became aware of when our kids were learning to drive, was cutting the corner turning right at an intersection. So I wasn’t going forward far enough before turning right, to drive between the gap in the centre line and not cross the centre line before turning.
Hadn’t thought about it. But I do now.
Which is why I think that instead of making it cheaper to get your licence, the Government should be putting money into driver training and making it compulsory for people to learn to drive from qualified instructors. Not us know-alls who think we are God’s gift to motoring - when we are clearly not.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National's Deputy Leader Nicola Willis joined John MacDonald on Canterbury Mornings.
On the agenda was the policy National released today, and why they are determined to focus on the rural sector at this time?
National have also indicated that a Free Trade deal with India is a priority for them, but what about the fact India is in talks with Russia? Does that concern them?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today’s new money-making scheme is high-vis jackets for cats. Because that’s what cat lovers in North Canterbury might want to get if they’re worried about their feline friends getting caught in the crossfire during this year’s North Canterbury Hunting Competition, which is a fundraiser for Rotherham School.
That’s because there’s a new category this year for kids under-14, who are being challenged to kill as many wild cats as they can between now and late June. The kid who kills the most will win $250 and might even win themselves a dirt bike worth nearly $5k.
Great prizes for someone who might not even be at high school yet.
Now, a lot of the noise being made about the competition today is the new category targeting feral or wild cats. And there’s a local from Rotherham who doesn’t know how these kids are going to know whether her cat, for example, is wild or whether it’s a pet.
Which is why I’m suggesting that there might be a buck to be made making and selling hi-vis jackets for cats. They might already exist - I don’t know.
The organisers of the competition are saying that they acknowledge public concerns about the new feral cat section. And they’re encouraging kids to stay away from rural towns when they’re out hunting the wild cats.
When I was growing up, I don’t think anyone would’ve batted an eyelid at something like this.
As a townie kid growing up in Dunedin, some of my greatest childhood memories are from the time we went to the cousins' place in the country. They moved around a couple of farms but it was the one at Hyde, a few hours from Dunedin, that I probably think of most.
I thought it was brilliant that we could ride motorbikes, chase sheep trucks down the gravel road on our bikes and, yes, over the years, we killed an animal or two.
Didn’t think twice about it and I really envied the lifestyle the country cousins had.
They probably envied my city life too sometimes. But what I’m getting at, is that back then people didn’t overthink things like we do these days.
As a parent, I’m guilty of it. If you’re a parent, you might be guilty of it too.
I’m not sure what it is but my generation, at least, has done a great job of looking for the danger and risk in everything.
Which is why I the idea of these kids in North Canterbury running around shooting wild cats terrifies me and thrills me at the same time.
It thrills me because here’s something for kids that doesn’t involve a screen or social media. It’s all about being outside and actually doing something useful. Because no one loves wild cats, do they?
And knowing how to hunt would have to be one of life’s great skills. It’s just so practical. And I love the idea of kids being amongst all that.
It terrifies me at the same, of course, because - like I said - I’m from the generation that looks for the risk and danger in everything. And, of course, there’s risk and danger whenever firearms are involved in something.
And you could say that the risk and danger is even greater when there are kids involved because even adults when they’re hunting can get a bit over-enthusiastic. What do they call it? Buck fever? Where someone is so focused on getting the kill that they can end up shooting the wrong thing.
So I get all that. And that’s probably what the cat lady in Rotherham is worried about.
But, when I weigh it all up, I actually think it’s brilliant that the kids in North Canterbury are getting involved in all this. And even though the idea of kids with guns terrifies me - I hope the organisers don’t get spooked and pull the pin.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When it comes to beggars and begging, I’m really torn.
On the one hand, I’m not so heartless that I don’t feel very sad for these people. Because I do. Pretty much every time I see someone on the street asking for money, I think about how their life might’ve got to the point where they feel the only option is to ask strangers for spare change.
It’s not the only option for some - because we know that not every person on the street asking for money is genuinely homeless.
But, then, there are some genuinely homeless people. I see them on the way into work every morning.
But I’ve never given money to these people. Probably because I don’t see how $2 is going to make much difference. And probably also too because I never know how desperate they really are.
Or, more to the point - instead of not knowing how desperate they are, it’s probably not knowing what they're desperate for. Are they desperate for money for food? Or are they desperate for money for drugs?
The other thing too, is some of the people asking for money can be pretty aggressive. Not all of them. But some can be.
You know, they’ll come up to you speaking like someone out of the Bible. “Any spare change, bless you”. But if you don’t give them anything, they’ll tell you where to go.
So I’ve got a lot of heart. But I really struggle with the “good heart” bit because I see some people parked out on the street and I ask myself “when did that actually become an option here in New Zealand?”.
I know that sounds really harsh and it makes me sound pretty old school or hard school. And I know I’m in a pretty privileged position and everything, but you’ve got to ask sometimes don’t you. When did sticking your hand out like that become a genuine option?
And for some, it will simply be because they don't have the wherewithal to do things any differently. What I mean by that, is they might have mental health issues or they will have been raised to maybe expect handouts or have low expectations of themselves. And so they just can’t see opportunities the way other, more fortunate people can.
Here’s an example. One day I saw this guy asking people for money and offering a piece of his art in exchange. Paintings. Which were actually pretty good.
I remember thinking afterwards how that was such a good example of how someone’s view of the world can completely change their approach to life. Here was this guy sitting on the footpath asking for money and giving away his art.
But someone who had the wherewithal to think differently probably would’ve tried to sell their art - not give it away in exchange for a couple of coins.
The exact same thing: money being exchanged for a piece of art. But one approach was begging, the alternative approach would be trading.
So I am very sympathetic. But I get brassed off too. By people like the woman at the traffic lights yesterday wanting people to wind down their windows and give her some cash.
Like the guy who will approach me in town wanting something, I’ll say no, and then he’ll do the exact same thing a few minutes later.
But whatever your attitude, I think we would all agree that begging has become a real issue.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
So the question today is “are we being ripped-off big time by the Government’s latest version of its water reforms?”
That’s the question. And my answer is a resounding “yes”.
And it’s the rip-off bit of the “Affordable Water Reforms”. Until yesterday, they were called the 3 Waters reforms. Today, they’re known as the “Affordable Water Reforms”.
You may already know my view on the money the Government’s previously put on the table in exchange for the water assets currently owned by local councils. I’ll get to that. But, first, let’s remember what these reforms are all about.
A few years back, in Havelock North, a whole lot of people got really crook and a few people actually died after the drinking water up there got contaminated.
And, quite rightly, after that happened everyone sat up and wanted to know how that sort of thing could happen in the modern day and councils all around the country got a bit spooked. Because they didn’t want the same thing to happen in their neck of the woods.
So, in Christchurch for example, the council started looking underground to see what sort of shape its water infrastructure was in - and it wasn’t pretty.
There was a particular issue with the well heads. Which meant, potentially, all that beautiful Canterbury water was coming out of the aquifers but, by the time it reached your kitchen, it could’ve been contaminated a bit because of the state the wellheads were in.
So panic stations at council HQ and they started putting chlorine in the water to protect us. And they got on with the job of repairing the well heads.
That was the band-aid bit. Then the Government stepped in and said “we don’t trust you councils to do the right thing anymore”. That isn’t exactly what they said, but you get the gist. And so it came up with the 3 Waters reforms.
Which, basically, meant that councils wouldn’t be responsible anymore for drinking water, wastewater and stormwater - and four new entities would be set-up around the country to take over.
But, for the Government to take over and make decisions about what happens with water services, it needed to actually own the infrastructure that delivers water to houses and businesses. The infrastructure that takes the wastewater away from houses and businesses, and the infrastructure that gets rid of stormwater. Pipes, pumps - all that stuff. Which are worth a truckload of money.
In Christchurch city, for example, the pipes and pumps and all the other stuff owned by the Christchurch City Council is valued at about $6.9 billion.
And guess what the Government offered to pay for it when it first came up with the 3 Water plan? $120 million.
And ever since that $120 million’s been on the table, I’ve likened that offer to paying an as is/where is price for a house that’s had all its earthquake repairs done.
$120 million in exchange for $7 billion worth of assets was just offensive. But yesterday, it got a whole lot worse.
Because instead of offering $120 million for assets $7 billion worth of assets - the Government’s reduced the offer to $30 million.
$30 million in exchange for billions of dollars of assets.
The reason for this, of course, will be the fact that the Government has to find money to set up 10 new water authorities around the country - instead of the four it originally proposed in the first version of its reforms.
Which, in a way, is a bit of a tale about being careful what you wish for. Because councils all around the country have been saying having just four water authorities is crazy. So the Government’s said “fine, we’ll give you 10. But that’s going to cost, so we’ll pay you less money for your assets”.
Which, as far as I’m concerned, is nothing short of outrageous.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by Gerry Brownlee and Duncan Webb for Politics Friday. The pair were asked about the new Affordable Water Policy and what it actually means. Is it a complete waste of money, and why are we being ripped off?
Also what do they make of the retirement age? Is it time we changed the age in New Zealand?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Sometimes I think that when people take part in research, they’re told to just say whatever it is that comes into their head - without even thinking about it.
And it looks to me like that’s what happened with this research by the University of Otago into how people feel about the age of retirement and the age someone should qualify for the NZ Super pension.
Here’s how I reckon they did the research.
"Right, thank you for taking part in our survey. Now I just want you to tell me what comes into your head when I ask you these questions. Don’t think about it.
Question 1: Do you think you’ll have enough money to retire?"
Answer: "No".
"Question 2: Should the age you qualify for the pension be increased from 65 to 67?"
Answer: "No".
"Question 3: How can the country afford it?"
Answer: "Pay more taxes".
That surely has to be the only explanation, as far as I’m concerned anyway, for these la-la land findings where most people want the cake and they want to eat it too.
Because, from the research, we know that less people are feeling confident about having enough money for their retirement. I think pretty much everyone would be in that boat, don’t you think?
We’re all living with so much more debt these days; costs are going through the roof everywhere; and aside from Kiwisaver - who can afford to put money away for retirement?
We also know from the research that most people don’t want the retirement age and the age of entitlement for NZ Super to change. So, because we don’t have enough money, we expect the Government to pick up the slack.
But the real doozy - the one that really puts these findings into la-la land territory - is this idea that most people think we should just pay more tax if it means we can all retire at 65 and have enough to retire on.
Think about what you have left after all the costs you have every week. Rent or mortgage, groceries, petrol, diesel, electricity, gas. What else? Insurance. School fees or donations. Childcare costs. Clothes. Medical bills. See what I mean?
And you really think most people can afford to pay more taxes on top of that?
Of course we can’t. But, according to this new research anyway, that’s what most people think we should do if it means we can keep the retirement age and the age of entitlement for NZ Super at 65.
We can’t afford it. And the country can’t afford it. And anyone who thinks we can, is in lal-la land.
You hear some people tut-tutting about other people “living beyond their means”. But they seem perfectly happy - or, at least, they expect - the country to live beyond its means.
Which is exactly what we’re going to be doing if we cling to this pipedream of giving everyone NZ Super when they turn 65. Such unrealistic expectations.
We’ve got a health system under enormous pressure. Our roads are shot. And, at the same time, we’ve got certain political parties talking about cutting taxes. And, when it comes election time, there’ll be people more than willing to tick a certain box if it means them paying less tax.
Which is why I think this idea of paying more tax so we can keep the retirement age at 65 is ludicrous. And, in my mind, we have to stop paying NZ Super to every Tom, Dick and Harry just because they get to 65.
We just can’t afford it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by JJ and Baz of UK Punk Rock band, The Stranglers.
The band is in Christchurch ahead of their Thursday night show, and discussed the rollercoaster history of the band, new music success and performing live.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When I had Covid last year, I wouldn’t have known I had it if I hadn’t tested.
And the only reason I did a test was because my wife was crook and under the rules I had to test negative to keep going to work.
So, no symptoms at all, but still positive. So I was in Covid prison for seven days, as well.
And every day - in fact, sometimes several times a day - I would get the RATs out just to double check I did actually have it. Because I felt perfectly fine.
I had a whole pile of them with the two red lines. Felt fine, but I was actually crook.
And if I hadn’t tested the first time, I would’ve kept sailing around the place thinking I was Mr Healthy.
And if what happened last year at our place was to happen again today, I’d still end up in Covid prison for a week because, yesterday, the Government decided to stick with the Covid isolation rules for a bit longer.
Most reports I’ve seen over the past 24 hours have said the Government wants to keep them in place for a couple of months. Although one overseas media outlet is saying this morning that the isolation rules are here for the rest of the year.
Either way, if you get Covid anytime soon - you’ll be expected to isolate.
And I reckon the only reason the Government has done what it’s done, is because generally people are bozos and can’t be trusted to do the right thing.
When I say “the right thing”, it’s no different from what “the right thing” was before Covid was around. Which was simple: if you’re sick, stay home.
But we had outfits like Codral saying “soldier on”. Remember that? And ads on TV with people at bus stops looking miserable because they were full of a cold or man-flu. Feeling very sorry for themselves but “soldiering on” for the greater good.
And, because we’ve still got this stupid “soldier on” mentality, even after the whole Covid thing, the Government feels it’s got no choice but to keep the isolation rules going.
Remember early on in the pandemic when Sir Ashley Bloomfield stood up on TV and said “people aren’t the problem, the virus is the problem”. It was a nice line. Then. These days, though, I am in no doubt that people are the problem.
How many people have you looked sideways at because they’ve been sneezing and rasping and, somehow, they’re medical experts too and they've told you “oh, it’s not Covid. It’s just hayfever”. Even without testing, they know for sure it’s not Covid. Experts apparently!
Yeah, I’ve got another word to describe them. Bozos.
And it’s these bozos who have a whole of other people living in fear. It’s not the Government making people scared - it’s all these selfish idiots who just want to keep on soldiering on, even when they’re full of Covid.
People waiting for specialist health treatment. They’re terrified of the bozos, because if they get Covid their treatment could be off.
People with respiratory conditions. They’re terrified of the bozos because if they get Covid, it could be curtains for them.
Employers. Especially the ones in hospitality or retail. They’re terrified of the bozos because if Covid goes through the shop or the restaurant or the cafe, they can’t operate.
And despite Sir Ashley Bloomfield’s kind words back in the day when he said people weren’t the problem, the virus was the problem - despite all that, I’m in no doubt that people are the problem, because they just can’t be trusted to do the right thing.
The right thing being - if you’re sick, stay home.
And because people are the problem, we are stuck with these home isolation rules and for who knows how long - because I don't see people suddenly growing brain cells and suddenly becoming less selfish than they are right now.
Which is why I think the Government has done the right thing and the wrong thing.
By keeping the isolation rules, it’s done the right thing - because there are so many bozos out there who only think about number one.
But it’s done the wrong thing too, because, surely, we’ve reached a point where Covid has to be seen in the same light as influenza - and we don’t force people to stay home if they have the flu, despite the fact that they can a lot sicker with the flu than they’ll ever be with Covid.
So, I’m disappointed that the isolation rules haven’t been scrapped but, because people are so selfish, I don't think the Government had any choice.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It just doesn’t make sense in any way, shape or form for Christchurch City Council’s airport company to keep up this pipedream of building another airport in Central Otago.
Tarras is the location. And you’ll remember how a few years back the airport company bought a fair bit of land down there - 750 hectares.
But it wasn’t until media got a whiff of it that it announced - or was forced to announce - its plan to set-up another airport to service Queenstown and Wanaka.
It wants a slice of the action from that market, which I can kind of understand. And if Queenstown and Wanaka airports can’t be extended, then I can see why some people would think building another one nearby is the answer.
And, to be honest, until now I’ve never really felt strongly either way. Until now.
Unlike those who are concerned about the whole environmental thing and think it’s nuts to be building more airports and aren’t happy about how this thing could impact the natural environment at Tarras.
Aviation, of course, is in the gun big time when it comes to climate change. And some in the aviation sector are responding.
For example, Schipol Airport in Amsterdam - which is one of the world’s busiest airports - announced last week that it was going to ban private jets from using the airport, reduce hours and scrap a plan to build a new runway.
Christchurch Airport, though, wants to build a whole new airport - about 400 kilometres from the city it serves. And 400 kilometres from the city that its owners - the Christchurch City Council - want more people to come to.
The environmental people who aren’t happy with Christchurch Airport’s plan to expand into central Otago are really ramping things up at the moment, too. Turning up at Christchurch City Council meetings with their “No New Airports” banners. They’re doing the same down south with the Otago Regional Council and Central Otago council.
But the reason I’ve had this realisation that this new airport is a nutbar idea, comes from ChristchurchNZ’s intention to market Christchurch to the world as the City of Play.
And how there’s going to be this big effort to shift peoples’ thinking of Christchurch as a gateway to the rest of the South Island. And, instead, promote it as a destination in itself.
So why on earth would you want to build another airport - 400 kilometres away from Christchurch - if you want this place to be the destination, not just part of the journey?
Well, you wouldn't. Unless you’re Christchurch Airport, which wants to make it easier for more people to skip across the Tasman and completely avoid Christchurch, at the same time as the local tourism agency is trying to get people to stop using Christchurch as a stepping stone and to treat it more as a destination.
And what makes this situation particularly oddball, is the fact that both these organisations - the tourism agency and the airport - both of them are owned by the Christchurch City Council. But it looks like they’re singing from completely different song sheets.
The airport, by the way, is 75 percent owned by the city council. The Government has a 25 percent stake in it. So, for all intents and purposes, the council owns and runs it. Just like it owns ChristchurchNZ.
ChristchurchNZ has its own Board and is a bit of an arms-length operation. But there’s no escaping the fact that we have two city council outfits completely at odds with each other.
ChristchurchNZ wants to get more people coming here and not treating the city as just a gateway. The airport company wants to make it easier for people to fly directly to Queenstown and Wanaka, and avoid Christchurch altogether.
Is this as weird to you, as it is to me? I don’t think it’s weird. I think it’s nutbar. And I think the airport company should just forget about it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What do you think we’re more likely to hear Dan the Weatherman say on TV when he’s giving us the weather forecast?
Is he more likely to say: “And tomorrow it’s going to be a lovely sunny day in the Garden City”?
Or he is more likely to say: “And tomorrow it’s going to be a lovely sunny day in the City of Play”?
Well, if he was doing it right now - of course he would say “Garden City” because he won’t even know yet that Christchurch is now the “City of Play”.
But I’ll be you anything - I’ll be you $100,000 (which is the amount of money that’s been spent so far on this exercise) - I’ll bet you $100,000 that you will never hear Dan the Weatherman talk about the “City of Play”.
Not that the success of ChristchurchNZ’s new promotional idea is likely to be measured by the number of mentions it gets on the weather forecast - but if it was, it would be a big-time failure.
Just like you’ve never heard people talk about Christchurch being “Fresh Each Day” (remember that one?). And just like you never hear people say “Of course you Can-terbury”. Talk about groan material.
I’ve never liked city slogans - mostly because they’re pretty naff. But, when it comes down to it you generally just get one shot at it. Because once you’ve got a slogan, it sticks.
Which is why Christchurch will always - whether you like it or not, or whether the people at outfits like the city council and ChristchurchNZ like it or not - Christchurch will always be the Garden City.
A slightly more burned-off garden city than it used to be, thanks to the excess water charge regime. But it’s been the Garden City since whenever that line was made up - and it always will be.
Which hasn’t stopped ChristchurchNZ - which is the city council’s economic development and tourism agency - trying to get a new brand for Christchurch.
It wasn’t that long ago that this same outfit was doing the rounds telling people that Christchurch was the “City of Exploration and Endless Opportunity”. From what I saw, so much work went into that idea. And what happened to that? Disappeared. And the same outfit that came up with that, is now pushing the idea that Christchurch is the “City of Play”.
From what I can gather, what they’re trying to achieve with this is to try and get away from the idea that Christchurch is just a gateway to the rest of the South Island.
It wasn’t that long ago that the thinking was that if we could get people to stay just another night or two in Christchurch before they head off to other areas such as Queenstown, then we’d see some real benefits.
But we don’t want to be a gateway anymore, apparently. Which is why we’re now telling people that this is the place to come and stay - and “play”. The City of Play!
Someone who does love the new slogan and the new logo is mayor Phil Mauger.
Of course, during the election campaign last year he went on about his vision for Christchurch being a great place to play. So this new line fits in nicely with that.
But, jeepers, what the hell does it mean? It’s actually so vague that it’s probably why this sort of thing just drives me nuts so much.
I don’t need this sort of thing to make me proud of Christchurch. It’s what goes on here that makes me proud.
Like SailGP the other week. The Crusaders. The fact that at the Maadi Cup national rowing champs last week, it was the schools from Christchurch that dominated. That made me so proud of Christchurch.
Marlon Williams makes me proud of Christchurch. The way we responded to the mosque shootings, made me incredibly proud. And the fact we all dealt with so much after the earthquakes but most of us stuck around. That’s what makes me proud.
And the way the kids in this city showed us during those terrible, terrible times that they actually gave a damn and that they really are the leaders of tomorrow.
That’s the stuff that makes me proud.
And I don’t need a slogan or a logo to make me feel that. And I refuse to believe that the rest of the country and the rest of the world need a slogan or a logo to make them think that Christchurch is a pretty special place, as well.
Which is why every time I hear about more money and energy being poured down the drain on such shallow things like slogans, and narratives and brands, I just despair.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch Mayor, Phil Mauger, joined John MacDonald on Canterbury Mornings for his regular catch up.
The pair discussed the new branding for Christchurch as the 'City of Play', what will happen with the Adventure Park and has he had any response to his letter to the Health Minister regarding our hospital.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I love a beer or a glass of wine –a nd I like to think that I know when I should or shouldn’t be driving after I’ve had a drink. Even so, it’s still a bit of a guessing game, isn’t it? Because no one ever really knows.
And, let’s face it, once you’ve got a few drinks on board you’re probably not the most qualified person to make the call as to whether you should drive or not.
And, today, there will be a 21-year-old chap ruing his decision to get behind the wheel and shoot off to get a few extra supplies on the night of his 21st birthday party in October last year.
“Ruing” is probably putting it mildly. Because, just a few minutes after heading towards Rakaia from where the party was being held, this young guy lost control of the car and ploughed into a tree.
It was a straight piece of road and he’d driven it countless times. But with a few drinks on board, it was a different story.
The upshot was, his friend who had been travelling in the front passenger seat was dead and three other passengers who hadn’t been wearing seatbelts were outside the vehicle either seriously or critically injured.
We can assume they’d been having a brilliant night, decided to shoot out to get a few extra things in Rakaia, and didn’t think twice about getting in the car with their mate.
Now I am not going to defend the guy driving.
Because there is no excuse for what he did. But you can so easily understand how this sort of thing happens, can’t you? We’ve all been in situations where the vibe on the night makes everything seem possible.
“We’ll be fine. We’re just heading down the road, we’ll be back shortly. And I’ve only had one-or-two. I’m fine to drive.”
And, again, I’m not defending this guy. But it does seem nuts, doesn’t it, that after all the carnage on our roads caused by drunk drivers we still rely on the people who’ve been doing the drinking to decide whether they should be driving or not.
Surely the time has come for some major change. And maybe the time has come for us to decide once-and-for-all that if someone is going to drive a vehicle, then they can’t have any alcohol at all in their system. A zero limit.
As I say, I like to have a few drinks. And what I’m proposing would undoubtedly impact on me if we had the fortitude to finally do something meaningful to try and prevent these sorts of tragedies.
But, you know, it is possible to go out and not drink. A mate of mine was having a party a few weeks back out in Darfield. Both of us couldn’t go, so I had to drive out there myself.
And so I didn’t drink. I had some no alcohol beers - which were pretty sweet and nowhere near as enjoyable as what I might normally drink - but there was no way I was going to drink and then drive all the way back to town from Darfield. No way.
So I made a plan and stuck to it.
Which is what every person would have to do if we made it illegal for anyone to drive with any alcohol at all in their system.
Over the years, we’ve tinkered around the edges with drink-driving laws. I distinctly remember when Sir John Key’s National government reduced the legal blood alcohol limit.
And I remember how, pretty much overnight, everyone I knew was so much more cautious. In fact, I remember people deciding then that they just wouldn’t drive even if they’d had just one drink. They didn’t think it was worth the risk of getting caught.
But I think that was more of a reactionary thing at the time and I don’t think that level of vigilance has stuck.
The other thing, too, is when you have a legal alcohol limit - whatever it is - it’s still pretty hard for people to decide whether they should be stepping-in and stopping someone from driving.
Sure, if someone’s slurring their words or staggering around the place, it’s pretty obvious. A lot of the time, though, who would know whether or not someone’s ok to drive? Unless you or they have kept a written record of the intake, again - it’s just a guessing game.
But if we had a zero alcohol limit, it’d be easy. “You’ve had at least one drink mate, you’re not driving”. No arguments, easy.
And if we had a zero alcohol limit, and you’re heading out for the night, you’d pretty much know whether you’re going to be drinking or not and so you’d plan accordingly.
What’s more, it is so much easier these days for people to get around with Ubers and all that, that I don’t think it would be a major inconvenience at all for most people.
And so what if it is an inconvenience? I’ll take inconvenience over more tragic road deaths any day.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Last week, we wanted to canonise Judge Campbell Savage - the Christchurch judge who sent that 18-year-old to prison for just under three years.
He was a real scoundrel that kid and, as I said last week, when I saw the story in the news I had to read it several times just to be sure that what I thought I saw was real.
An 18-year-old sent to prison. Who would’ve thought? And, I’m picking you were like me, and you couldn’t quite believe it either.
But, after the news we’ve been hearing today, it’s lucky that guy actually ended up in court in the first place because new stats show that last year more than half of the teenagers and kids caught nicking stuff from shops didn’t end up in court.
Instead, they got to have things like family group conferences. These are generally run by Oranga Tamariki and, what they do is they try to get to the nub of the problem as to why a kid has gone off the rails, and then they put together a plan to get everyone working together to get them back on the straight and narrow.
But some of these kids who didn’t go to court didn’t even have to go to a family group conference. They got off with either a formal or informal warning. Can you imagine the impact an informal warning would have?
Which is why I think most of them - if not all of them - should’ve gone through the courts. And I’ll tell you why I think that.
Number 1: Courts don’t just hand out punishments. They also set obligations. Obligations that people can be held accountable to. If someone gets a warning —formal or informal— outside the court, there’s no obligation. There’s just an expectation that they’ll pull up their socks.
But if you’re obliged to be good, because a judge said so, it’s so much easier to try and keep someone on the right track. Or get them on the right track.
Reason Number 2 why these kids should be going through the courts: In some cases (not all), but in some cases, a court appearance will spook someone so much that they realise they’re on a slippery slope if they keep doing what they’re doing, and they will pull their head in.
And Reason Number 3 why pretty much every young person who commits a crime should go to court is that it tells the victims of crime that they matter.
You imagine running a shop and some of these really bad kids keep doing your place over, how would you feel hearing they got a warning? Or got to do the old family group conference thing?
You’d feel cheated, wouldn’t you? You’d feel like all the attention and concern was going to the offender, wouldn’t you? I reckon I would.
And what about the police who haul these kids in? They must feel cheated at times too.
This, by the way, is not me saying every shoplifter or every young offender should be locked up. This is me saying that courts are places where obligations to behave yourself are made very clear.
If you do this again, this will happen to you. This is your last chance. Yes, your honour.
This informal warning thing, what obligations come out of that? None. A warning might tell someone they’re expected to behave better, but it doesn’t tell them they’re obliged to behave better.
And that’s what courts do.
Do you think Christchurch's Judge Campbell Savage would let some young punk walk out of court with no obligations to sort themselves out and stop offending? Of course that wouldn’t happen.
There’d be no limp expectations; there would be hard-and-fast obligations.
Not that every judge could be relied on to be as staunch as Judge Savage. But I reckon, hands down, a lot more would be gained from putting these kids through the courts system, instead of the family group conferences, warnings, and wet bus tickets.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I remember years ago when the Anglican Church was being bullied by every Tom, Dick and Harry about fixing up the Cathedral in Cathedral Square after the earthquakes, and I was having a conversation with a person who was involved in the campaign with Jim Anderton and all those guys.
And he was telling me how imperative it was that the cathedral be rebuilt or restored, how it was part of the fabric of Canterbury society blah blah blah. And I remember asking him about his memories of going to the Cathedral and he told me was an atheist!
He didn’t believe in God but he was demanding that God’s house be fixed, come hell or high water.
And I think that exchange coloured my whole attitude towards the Anglican cathedral. I’m not an advocate - put it that way.
Because what really hit home when I was being lectured at by the atheist, was that his misguided passion for the Anglican cathedral was all about architecture - and nothing more. A monument. It wasn’t about the people. It was all about architecture and a physical presence.
Which is the same tension that the Catholic Church in Christchurch is dealing with, with some members of the church very unhappy that it’s pouring a truckload of money into a new cathedral development in the central city.
About $100 million by the time you take the land and the construction costs into account. And what these 300 are saying, is that if the church is going to spend that sort of money, it should be spent in the community and around parishes.
So instead of building an edifice in the centre of town - which, if it goes ahead, will only be a few blocks away from the Anglican Cathedral - these parishioners are saying the Catholic Church should be focusing its attention on where the people actually go to church.
Which is all the Catholic churches and parishes around Canterbury. And I think they have a very good point. That’s because I think that, when it comes down to it, churches are actually all about people - not buildings.
And I come at this with a bit of knowledge and experience. I grew up going to Mass on Sundays. I did the altar boy thing, first communion, confirmation - the whole nine yards.
Actually, last night, I was having a conversation with a couple of people about the last time they went to Mass.
It was a while ago for me. So I’m not exactly a card-carrying member of the Catholic Church these days but, you know, you can take the boy out of St Mary’s Kaikorai in Dunedin but you can’t necessarily take the St Mary’s Kaikorai out of the boy.
And I’m with these parishioners who have gone to the Vatican saying the church is about the people and the parishes, not a cathedral in the centre of town.
That’s because, as a Catholic - however lapsed I might be - it’s not the church buildings I remember. It’s what happened inside them and how it seemed that whenever something happened in the community, the church people were the ones who rallied to help out or share the celebration.
It was all about the people. It was me and my mates turning up to be altar boys and me getting told off by the priest for asking when we were going to put the dresses on. “They’re not dresses boy!”
Or all of us kids traipsing into the church to learn how to do the confession thing and bouncing up and down on the kneeling pad to make the light outside the confessional flash on-and-off. And the ill-fated altar boys picnic up Flagstaff hill in Dunedin - and the Deacon thinking he knew a shortcut, and all of us getting lost and the army having to come and search for us.
Also my vivid memories of the time a kid at school was killed in a road accident and all us kids going to the Rosary and the funeral. Everyone coming together. Don’t ask me about the architecture at the church. It was all about the people.
And it’s no different today. And it’s why these Catholic parishioners in Christchurch have looked up and said ‘hold on a minute. Why are we pouring money into a brand new Cathedral?' They’re saying ‘isn’t our church about people and parishes?’.
And they’ve gone to the Vatican with a legal challenge against the new Catholic Cathedral going ahead, and the Vatican has sat-up and taken notice - and the Catholic cathedral development is on hold until the case is considered.
Like I say, I’m with the parishioners on this one. That’s because I think that, when it comes down to it, churches are actually about people - not buildings.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John was joined by Labour's Sarah Pallett and National's Nicola Grigg for Politics Friday.
They discussed the Stuart Nash situation, Red Zone land on the Port Hills being sold and the Vatican getting involved in the rebuild of the Catholic Cathedral.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A Christchurch judge has sent an 18-year-old guy to prison for two-years-11-months and I don’t know whether the judge has done the right thing or the wrong thing.
I mean, talk about judges being all over the show when it comes to sentences.
Let me give you a bit of background. Straight up: I think the guy sounds like a real piece of work. That’s putting it politely. There are other words I’d like to use, but you get the gist.
And if it was one of my kids that he and his mates targeted then, absolutely, I’d want the full weight of the law thrown at him, as well. But I’m trying to look at it from a broader perspective, because that’s the luxury I’ve got - this guy’s crappy behaviour hasn’t affected me personally.
So what he did was he went on what is being describing as a violent rampage - stealing other kids’ bikes, threatening and assaulting them. He didn’t operate on his own - he had others involved too - but he was the one sentenced in court in Christchurch yesterday.
So here’s an example of the sort of stuff he and his associates got up to. In February last year, a guy was riding his bike - which was worth nearly $3,000 - on a cycleway in Papanui.
These guys knocked him off his bike, demanded his iPhone and earpods, punched and kicked him in the head and all over his body, and then nicked his bike.
What else did this guy get up to? Well, a month later, he walked into an intermediate school with a bike wheel. He went to the bike stand, removed a wheel from a bike which was chained to the stand, stuck his wheel on it and took off with it.
He also stole stuff from a supermarket and went for a ride in a stolen car. At the more extreme end of things, he and his mates also went into jewellery shops in a couple of malls in Christchurch, asked to try-on watches and took off with a couple of them.
So, all up, he was done on charges of theft, unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle, aggravated robbery, intimidation, nicking a bike etc.
And, now that I’ve gone through all the stuff he got up to, I think the judge had no option but to send him to prison.
Forget about the broader perspective, this guy has got exactly what he deserves.
Because he was not a first-time offender. He’d been through the Youth Court multiple times and his lawyer - as you would expect - told the court about his challenging background.
But good on the judge - Judge Campbell Savage is his name - for turning around to this guy in court yesterday and telling him that ‘yes, you haven’t had a great start to life, but you’re running out of time to claim that I should be lenient on you because of your age’. That’s me paraphrasing what the judge said.
Here’s a direct quote: “I acknowledge you didn’t have an easy start to life but that’s not a card you can keep playing.” How about that? A judge telling a crim that the “tough upbringing” line doesn’t wash anymore. Savage by name…slightly savage by nature?
Either way, if it was one of my kids that this creep and his mates had targeted, I’d be over the moon hearing a judge talk like that. Maybe Stuart Nash’s comment about judges not reading the room when it comes to sentences might not have been in vain after all!
Because I can’t remember the last time I saw a judge get something so right when it comes to sentencing and reflecting the fact that society has just had a gutsful of people who think they have the right to intimidate people, assault people, and nick their stuff.
Just like society has had a gutsful of turkeys like these treating retailers like a foodbank and walking in and just helping themselves to whatever they want.
And yes, I know it’s possible that this guy is going to walk out of prison in just under three years - or however long he ends up inside - more of a creep than he is now. But, if turning up at Youth Court multiple times over the years hasn’t sorted him out, then prison’s the only option, isn’t it?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald was thrilled to talk to Graham Gouldman of hit English rock band, 10cc.
The band will be performing in Christchurch at the Issac Theatre Royal on June 1st as part of their 'Ultimate Greatest Hits Tour'.
John spoke to Graham about the tour, the bands long history and his journey of songwriting.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Minister of Muscles Stuart Nash might need a few extra protein shakes after last night’s drama.
It was about 7 o’clock when the Prime Minister fronted the media and announced that he had stripped Nash of all his ministerial responsibilities and he was no longer a Cabinet Minister. And he never would be again.
Remember Nash was on his final, final, final, final warning after getting all cocky on it a couple of weeks ago and telling the world how he once phoned up the Police Commissioner about appealing a court sentence he didn’t agree with.
He also criticised judges for the sentences they’ve been handing out. Things you don’t do when you’re a Cabinet Minister.
So when that all came out, the Prime Minister took the Police portfolio off him, but allowed him to stay on as economic development, forestry and fisheries minister. But said at the time that he was on his final, final, final, final, final warning.
But that all changed late yesterday. And the straw that finally broke the camel’s back was the Prime Minister being told that Nash had sent an email in March 2020 to two business people who had provided financial support for his election campaign.
At the time, Nash was the Minister for Small Business and he got in touch with these two guys to tell them where various Cabinet members stood on the issue of rent relief for businesses impacted negatively by Covid.
They’re commercial property owners who, obviously, had an interest in where Cabinet stood on the issue.
And so Nash sent them an email saying he was brassed-off that his Cabinet colleagues didn’t support the idea of helping businesses pay their rent.
Remember, as commercial landlords, these guys stood to benefit in some way, shape or form.
So he came out of Cabinet, went to his office, slammed the door shut, fired up the laptop and sent them an email. And he said in the email “I am as annoyed (and surprised) about the final outcome of the 'commercial rent relief package' as you are.
“I should have argued much harder for this when I saw that things were changing; but without the support I thought I had, it would have been incredibly difficult."
Read between the lines, and Stuart Nash was saying to these guys ‘I know you helped me, I tried to help you, but I just couldn’t pull it off. Sorry.’ That’s me paraphrasing there, but that was the gist of it.
It’s important to point out too that, even though Nash behaved badly, the guys who got the email don’t appear to have done anything wrong. And whether it was either of them who ended up leaking the email to media yesterday, who knows.
Either way, Chris Hipkins was incensed by it all. Not just because of what Nash had done, but also because Nash had reassured him after the earlier stuff that there was nothing else that could come out and bite them both on the backside.
Nash said there wasn’t. But, as we now know, there was. And so apparently, when the PM confronted Nash about it last night, Nash offered to resign. But Hipkins told him to stick his resignation, because he wasn’t going to get to be the hero and resign - he was being fired.
And if you saw Christopher Luxon being interviewed at Parliament last night after the Prime Minister announced the sacking, he was fired up big time as well - saying that Nash sending that email to his financial supporters was akin to insider trading.
Luxon was very hot under the collar. I suspect he was probably more concerned about this latest Nash thing creating another distraction and another missed opportunity for National to talk about its policies.
But, either way, he was demanding that Nash go completely. Out of there. Straightaway. Gone by bedtime.
Which was never going to happen - because a journalist texted Nash asking him if he was going to resign as an MP and he got back to them saying he wasn't. And that he’d be sticking around until the election.
So it seems he’s going to dig his heels in and stay on the parliamentary payroll until October.
Which, I think, shows how pompous Stuart Nash really is. And I think he should go completely. Sticking around on the payroll until October? Forget about it mate.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Here are some official stats about violence in this country.
When it comes to sexual violence convictions, Ministry of Justice data shows that 46 percent of offenders are European New Zealanders and 29 percent are Maori.
Numbers that were probably ringing around in Marama Davidson’s head when she said after the transgender protest in Auckland on Saturday that white men are the violent ones.
That’s me paraphrasing. What she actually said was: “I know who causes violence in the world - it is white cis men. That is white cis men who cause violence in the world."
A cis man being someone who was born a male. As opposed to someone who has identified as a man later in life. So what she was saying at the weekend was that biological men are the bad guys. Or, more specifically, white biological men.
Come yesterday, though, and with the alarm bells going off in the Prime Minister’s Office, the Green Party Co-Leader and the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence was clarifying things.
And she claimed that what she was actually saying was that most violence towards women is dished out by men.
Whether or not that should be considered enough for her to keep her job, I’ll get to shortly.
But while we’re reeling off statistics, here’s another one. Again, according to Ministry of Justice data, when it comes to family violence convictions 56 percent are Māori and 35 percent European.
So that doesn’t stack up with the white guys are the bad guys statement she made on Saturday.
The sexual violence stats do. The family violence stats don’t. Not that I think Chris Hipkins was splitting hairs over stats when he told his staff to get on the blower to the Greens and tell them Marama needed to pull her head in.
Or, as the PM put it, to do something about her inappropriate behaviour. And so what she did was put out the statement clarifying things.
She said when she made the comments at the weekend she was still in shock after being hit by a motorbike. Which you can understand. Anyone would.
And, it was at that point, when the Counterspin conspiracy theory crew turned up with their camera and started talking to her about how the protest had panned out.
Marama Davidson said to the film crew, as she was walking down the street, that as the government minister responsible for reducing violence she knows who causes violence in the world - and it’s the white cis men who cause the violence. That’s what she said.
Yesterday, though, she said: "Violence is unacceptable in any community and as the Minister responsible for Aotearoa's first ever plan to eliminate family violence and sexual violence, I am committed to an Aotearoa where all people are safe and can live peaceful lives."
And she went on to say: "Women are overwhelmingly more likely to be victims of family violence and sexual violence at the hands of men.”
Now, at this point, I’m going to be generous to Marama. Because I suspect that she was speaking to Counterspin Media’s audience when she said what she said on Saturday. Because Counterspin is the far-right media that the conspiracy theorists and the white supremacy guys flock to.
So she was talking directly to their audience.
Problem is, as soon as her comments went wider, every white guy under the sun was taking offence. And the politicians jumped on board. Which is why Act’s David Seymour was on Newstalk ZB this morning saying she can’t stay on as a Minister. It’s also why the Prime Minister came out and said her comments weren’t appropriate and why she put out the clarification yesterday.
But this is where my generosity ends.
Because just by making those comments on Saturday, I think it’s going to be very difficult for Marama Davidson to convince people that she doesn’t have an unconscious bias when it comes to ethnicity and violence.
I don’t necessarily think she does. But if it even looks like she does, then that will be enough for a whole lot of people to believe she does. And, for me, that makes it impossible for her to be a credible Minister responsible for doing something about all violence - not just violence committed by white men.
And, for that reason, I think the Prime Minister is dreaming if he thinks she’s done enough to warrant staying on as Minister.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Next time I spill tomato juice down the front of my shirt, I’ll know what it was like for Posie Parker on Saturday.
Posie is the gender activist that most of us had never heard of until she arrived in Australia on her so-called “speaking tour” and had a bunch of far-right clowns turn up and do the Nazi salute.
It was all over the news which meant that, as soon as word got out that she was heading our way too, there was a lot of noise and demands for her to be kept out of the country.
The Immigration Minister Michael Wood made it clear he didn’t want her coming here but she wasn’t enough of a risk for his immigration officials to tell her she couldn’t come.
And so, on Saturday morning in central Auckland, her speaking tour took her to Albert Park. But she didn’t get very far because all the noise last week meant she was outnumbered big time. They reckon there could have been a couple of thousand people there on Saturday.
And they were there banging pots and chanting and playing music. In a way, the pro-transgender crew took a leaf out of Trevor Mallard’s book. He played Barry Manilow during the protest at Parliament last year. On Saturday, the protesters went for Whitney Houston.
But it all got too much when the tomato juice started flying - although there have been conflicting reports as to what it actually was. Initially, it was paint. Another report said it was soup and egg. By today, we’re being told it was tomato juice. So let’s assume for now it was tomato juice - until the forensics report comes through and we know for sure.
So Posie cops a bit of tomato juice and she pulls the plug. Then, once she’s out of there, she has a chat with her “security people” and, apparently, they tell her that they can’t guarantee her safety if she goes ahead with the “speaking event” she had planned for Wellington yesterday.
And, by Saturday night, Posie is at Auckland airport, presumably heading home to the UK.
When I saw that I wondered what she would say to the person next to her on the plane about what she’d done in New Zealand. If she said "not much”, she wouldn’t have been lying.
The problem was though, there were truckloads of people who had planned to protest at the Wellington event yesterday - which was cancelled. And a whole lot of people had planned to do the same thing in Christchurch.
So what do you do when the person you’re protesting against is a no-show? Simple. You have a rally instead of a protest. And that’s exactly what happened in Wellington and Christchurch yesterday. And why wouldn’t you?
The thing is though, did it really have to get so ugly on Saturday?
You might recall a few weeks back when there was a bit of a to-do about Turanga central library in Christchurch having a storytelling event for kids with drag queens. It started with a few far-right clowns getting excited online but they weren’t the only ones who turned up and protested outside the library that Sunday morning.
And, from the reports I read, that got ugly too with some people being abused as they left the building and staff being abused inside, as well.
I had no problem at all with that storytelling event. And I thought it was appalling that some people thought it was perfectly fine to stand outside a library and force the kids to walk through a sea of intolerance and hate.
But, even though I was fully supportive of the drag queen storytelling at the library –and completely opposed to the protest outside– that doesn’t mean that I think that what happened on Saturday at the Posie Parker event was justified.
And this is where the pro-transgender crew got it all completely wrong at the weekend. Did they really think that one person’s toxic view of the world was going to bring their world crashing down?
Posie Parker is not a dictator in charge of a country that denies people their human rights. Posie Parker is not Vladimir Putin. Posie Parker is not South Africa in 1982.
The event in Auckland on Saturday was not the Springbok Tour. It wasn’t French nuclear testing in the Pacific. All it was was someone from Britain on a bit of a glorified holiday. That's all it was.
But it didn’t stop several thousand people turning up and, quite frankly, doing a complete disservice to the cause they are so committed to.
Posie Parker did not warrant the complete over-reaction we saw at the weekend. Simply because Posie Parker is a nobody. A nobody who is probably back home in Britain now, doing a few loads of washing and trying to decide whether she should try and stay awake or give in to the jetlag.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There’s that old line, isn’t there, about it taking a village to raise a child.
If I think about the literal meaning of that - I think about the mini communities or villages we have in our lives. School communities. Sports communities.
The types of things that, generally through our kids, we meet and spend time with other people pretty much in the same boat.
So, if you think about a school community, there are parents helping eachother out all the time. Giving other people's kids a lift so they can get to certain activities.
In the sports communities, some people are more than willing to put their hand up to help other people's kids follow their passions and build on any talents they might have.
But I think the “village” concept is a bit more broad than that. I think of the “village” being every one of us throughout the city, throughout the region, and throughout the country. We’re a village of about 5-million people.
And when you look at it that way, I think a lot of people in the village aren’t doing their bit for our kids.
And I am just as guilty as the next person. Because yesterday, when these latest child poverty stats came out - the ones that show that, in the year to June 2022, there was no change in the number of kids living in poverty.
It was one-in-10 last year. And one-in-10 the year before. And pretty much everyone I heard commenting on this yesterday said the same thing. That, now we’re in a cost-of-living crisis, the numbers will be worse. They won’t be the same. They’ll be worse.
It’s just that with official stats like these - they take time to gather and analyse, and so we’re always looking at how things were, not necessarily how they are.
But, as I say, the general consensus on child poverty is that the situation will be even worse now than these latest stats tell us.
The thing is, is that when I heard all this stuff yesterday - I’ll put my hand up and admit it, when I heard it, I wasn’t outraged.
I know I should’ve been. Because I’m part of that village, remember, that it takes to raise a child. And I don’t know whether it’s because child poverty is something we’ve heard about for so long now, that we just think ‘that’s a shame’ and move on.
Is it because, thankfully, I’ve never been in a situation where I’ve considered myself to be living in poverty and so if it doesn’t affect me then it’s just another story in the news? Is that why?
Is it because I have some sort of unconscious bias that makes me think someone living in poverty only has themselves to blame? As far as I’m aware, I don’t think that way. But who knows?
Have I become so conditioned to the fact that kids in New Zealand do sleep in cars and motels, and do go to school hungry - have I become so used to that, that whenever I hear about it I just thank my lucky stars that that’s not my life and move on to the next thing?
Why, for example, is it only Christmas time when I think about giving stuff to the foodbank? Because it makes me feel good during “the happiest time of the year”? But then, at the same time, I’m happy to shell out money and go to a concert to raise money for the areas recovering from Cyclone Gabrielle? You see? It doesn’t make sense, does it? I don’t make sense.
And we’ve got politicians banging on about reading, writing and maths and how our education system’s no longer in the top 10 in the world and how outrageous that is. And so we’re going to have bootcamps at school and ‘you will do one hour of maths, one hour of reading and one hour of writing every day’. Yes sir!
But where’s the outrage about the fact that one-in-10 of these kids - probably more - where’s the outrage that they are living in poverty? I’m not hearing it. And what does National think one-hour of maths, reading and writing every day is going to do for these kids? When they don't even know where the next meal is coming from.
Yes, I know the Government has had its serious face on when it comes to child poverty - and even has a Child Poverty Reduction Minister. I think, on the basis of the stats that came out yesterday, the Prime Minister needed to take out the “reduction” part of that job title and put it on the bonfire.
Because I think it’s well and truly time to admit that this so-called “village” is failing big time when it comes to our collective contribution, and doing our bit for all children in this country.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John was joined by Labours Sarah Pallett and Nationals Gerry Brownlee. They discussed Nationals education plan, is it really the answer the education system needs?
Water bottling looks to be returning to Christchurch, what do they feel about it? And Wayne Brown has withdrawn Auckland from Local Government New Zealand, is this a good move or not?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Whenever in the past I’ve been in positions that have involved hiring staff I’ve always known that, when you decide to appoint someone, you need to know clearly in your head why you’re appointing them and what it is about them that makes them the best person for the job.
You do that for a couple of reasons. Firstly, just to double-check your thinking and to make sure that the person you think is the best person for the role, actually is.
The other reason you need to be very clear why you’re appointing them and what makes them the best person for the job, is that you have to sell that person to all the other people not involved in the hiring process.
The people who might raise an eyebrow or two if they think you’ve made the wrong call. Or don't understand and appreciate why you’ve made that call.
So you go through a process and you get to a point where you know who it is you want doing that particular job.
Not that it always works out. I remember hiring someone once and getting an anonymous letter from someone saying they couldn’t believe I had hired this person because they were bad news.
Which made me feel really good. And guess what? They were bad news and I suppose you could say that I really cocked that one up.
I mention this just to show that I know a thing or two about appointing people into roles. And how it is so important to A. not cock-up it up (and I’ve just admitted to cocking up on one occasion), and B. making sure you’re in a position to sell that person and demonstrate why they’re the best person for the job.
We’re yet to see whether Chris Hipkins has cocked-up by appointing Ginny Andersen to the role of Police Minister - just seven weeks after becoming a Cabinet Minister in the first place. Only time will tell on that front.
But what he did make a shambles of yesterday was the “selling” bit. When he announced the appointment he said she was “very well suited” to be Police Minister. Here’s a direct quote: “She worked for the police for 10 years and has experience working there.”
Which sounded like the start of a ringing endorsement. It sounded like the start of what I was talking about earlier - the bit where you have to sell the person you’re appointing to those not involved in the appointment process.
But it wasn’t the start of anything. That was it. That was all the Prime Minister could say about the relevant experience that Ginny Andersen is bringing to her new job as Police Minister.
He couldn’t recall the exact details of what she did at the Police, but he knew she was a civilian staff member - not a sworn officer.
Then he went away and put out a statement with a bit more intel on Ginny Andersen’s police background and relevant experience - which seems to have focused in the policy areas.
So it was all a bit ham-fisted the way the Prime Minister went about things yesterday and I thought Chris Cahill from the Police Association actually did a much better job of selling Ginny Andersen as Police Minister when he spoke on Newstalk ZB this morning.
He also said the new minister had already been on the phone to get his views on the biggest issues that need to be addressed when it comes to crime and policing. And he sounded to me like he’s willing to let her prove herself.
And that’s where I’m at on this one too. Yes, the Prime Minister could have done a much better job selling Ginny Andersen to us. I mean, it was ridiculous he couldn’t say right at the start what she’d done at the Police. So he screwed up the sell-job.
And what that did, is it got all the political crusties tied up in knots saying the Government has shown it isn’t taking crime seriously. And everyone was quick to say that she’ll be no match for National’s Police spokesperson Mark Mitchell. And that may very well be the case. But do we really measure someone on the amount of noise they make?
Haven’t we learnt anything from the last week? Have all the old crusties forgotten about all the appendage-swinging we saw from the last Police Minister and where that got us? Which Mark Mitchell himself isn’t shy of either, is he? At times, he’s chief appendage swinger. And I think old Nashy had a bit of appendage-swinging envy last week when he had the brain explosion live on radio.
So I say give Ginny Andersen a go. Because she might just surprise us.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m still getting my head around the fact that, after all the logistics of getting the boats and the competitors here from around the world and all the planning and disruption, the actual SailGP races on Saturday and Sunday only lasted a total of about an hour or so.
Three races on Saturday and three races yesterday.
And this is what was going through my head and what we were talking about as we drove across to Diamond Harbour on Saturday, to watch the racing from the other side of the harbour.
I think I had convinced myself on the way over there that it was another example of these huge sporting events that high amounts of money get poured into and seem to be the domain of the rich and famous.
But that wasn’t enough to make us turn around and go back home and so we got around to Charteris Bay, and saw we needed to go around a bit further and we got to Diamond Harbour.
We snaked our way down to what I realised afterwards was a little patch of grass known as the Coastal Cliff Reserve.
This was on Saturday and, I tell you what, when I got there and could see how close to the action we were going to be, all those high-and-mighty thoughts about this being a rich person’s sport out of touch with the real world just disappeared. Just like that.
And by the time the racing actually started, I was hooked. So much so, that we headed back over there yesterday and went to the same spot. It was just as good.
And I don't know how many people I heard saying ‘why would you bother paying to get into the fanzone over in Lyttelton when we can watch it all over here for free’.
I thought too that the elevation from being up on the hill made the spectating experience all the better, instead of being in the bleaches over at Lyttelton.
There were obviously a lot of people over there, because every time something exciting happened during the races, you could hear the roar of the crowd. But, for my money, the place to be on Saturday and Sunday was Diamond Harbour.
Which is why it’s interesting to hear that businesses in Lyttelton didn’t find SailGP to be the bonanza they had expected it to be.
Reports this morning are saying that the bars in the port town weren’t any busier on Saturday night and there’s a guy who runs an ice cream parlour saying he got more stock in and had extra staff on and it wasn’t worth it.
Singer/songwriter Marlon Williams has even got in on the act. He’s saying today that it was surreal seeing how Lyttelton was transformed over the weekend. But he thought it would’ve been a good thing to have it more integrated with the community.
And there’s a view coming through that it would’ve been better if people could’ve just watched it from wherever they wanted to, instead of being herded into the fanzone.
I know there were lots of people in Lyttelton hosting BBQs at their places. But I certainly think that the relaxed vibe we enjoyed watching the racing over at Diamond Harbour wouldn't have been there at the corporate-style fanzone on the waterfront.
And, as I looked across the harbour, I certainly didn’t envy all those people getting back home from Lyttelton when the racing was all over.
And I imagine getting home was the main thing on people’s minds - which is why a lot of the businesses in Lyttelton felt like they missed out on what might’ve been a bonanza of a weekend on the takings front.
Originally, the city council’s economic and tourism agency ChristchurchNZ estimated the event would attract 10,000 people to Lyttelton and 50 million people would watch it on TV.
On those numbers, they reckoned the economic benefits to New Zealand from the event - not just Christchurch, or Canterbury; but New Zealand - would be $28 million. But they said late last week they thought it might be more than that, because more people were coming from outside Canterbury for the event than they originally anticipated. So more money being spent on travel and accommodation etc.
Either way, the event is over. The boats are being taken apart, packed into containers and shipped over to San Francisco for the final races in this series.
As far as I’m concerned, I thought the racing was brilliant. I loved hanging out with all the people over in Diamond Harbour and it was just a shame that New Zealand couldn’t pull off a win in the final yesterday afternoon. But SailGP gets the big thumbs-up from me.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I reckon Stuart Nash would benefit from having a bit more time to spend in the gym.
I don’t know how many times this week I’ve seen stories about him being known around Parliament as the “Minister of Muscles”.
But it’s the way he muscles in where he shouldn’t be that’s got him in hot water.
It all started on Wednesday morning when he was on Newstalk ZB bragging about cracking down on gangs.
And it was all going brilliantly for him. Talk about puff out the chest and bang the drum. In fact, at one point there, I thought he must have been having a few sleepovers at Mark Mitchell’s place - National’s police spokesperson.
Because you know how when kids start hanging out with their besties and doing the sleepover thing and everything, they start talking and sounding like their best mate.
And that I thought that when I heard Nash on Wednesday morning. Was it Nash or was it Mitchell?
But he got a bit carried away, didn’t he? He was so excited about proving he wasn’t one of those soft-on-crime wowsers who’d had the Police portfolio before Chippy gave it back to him earlier this year.
He was so excited and thought it was going so well, that he started banging on about a particular case where a guy down south who had lost his Class A firearms licence in 2017, was found in 2021 to have thousands of rounds of ammunition and a banned weapon.
And for that he got four months home detention. Which, at the time, outraged Stuart Nash. Which is fair enough.
But this is where things went pear-shaped. Because it was at this point in the conversation with Mike, where he mentioned that he'd called up the Police Commissioner and said 'surely you're going to appeal this'.
And then, while he was at it, he had a go at the judges handing out the sentences saying they had to read the room better.
While all that was happening, ACT’s David Seymour was taking notes, kicked up a stink and, by early afternoon on Wednesday, Nash was no longer Police Minister. With the Prime Minister saying that if he hadn't resigned he would have been pushed.
But he wasn’t completely out in the cold and he was allowed to hold on to his Forestry, Economic Development, and Fisheries portfolios.
Now, though, it’s been revealed that Stuart Nash not only phoned the Police Commissioner to ask if he was going to appeal a court sentence, but he also nearly faced a contempt charge after saying on radio that he hoped a man charged with killing a police officer would get a long prison sentence.
That was just after Eli Epiha had been arrested. He was accused but hadn’t yet been found guilty and that, as anyone knows, is an absolute no-no. The reason being that, if you say stuff like that, the accused can claim that they have been denied their right to a fair trial.
Which is why the Solicitor-General considered prosecuting him for contempt. He got off, though, with a warning about breaching the Cabinet manual.
So I think, on the evidence presented, we can safely say the Minister of Muscles is a loose cannon. Yes, he might say the sort of stuff that you and I think - and I actually like politicians who say it how they see it.
But I think Nash has well-and-truly cooked his goose. And I don’t think there is any good reason for the Prime Minister to let him continue to be a Minister in Cabinet.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Newstalk ZB's Canterbury Mornings was thrilled to host Charlie and Craig Reid of The Proclaimers live in the studio today.
John talked to the Scottish legends about their musical journey, the new album 'Dentures Out', and their concert tonight in Christchurch, which is part of their biggest New Zealand tour to date.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Police Minister Stuart Nash says, when it comes to sentences for gang members, judges in our courts need to "read the room better".
Comments, I think, are just as relevant to other cases. Such as the one which wound up in the High Court in Christchurch yesterday with 18-year-old Khanye Te HeuHeu being sent to prison for five-and-a-half years for killing 16-year-old Zion Purukamu at a birthday party at an Airbnb property in Fendalton.
A crime, by the way, that this guy has apparently shown no remorse for and a crime he only admitted to after the original charge of murder was downgraded to manslaughter. He had denied the murder charge, because he says what he did was in self-defence.
I’m not sure how stabbing someone in the back is self-defence, but there you go.
So the sentencing judge was already limited in what she could do yesterday because, despite the fact that a 16-year-old went out to a birthday party in August 2021 and never came home because some guy at the party got angry with him and stabbed him to death, the judge had to limit the sentence to one appropriate for manslaughter.
But, boy, did she get it wrong. In my eyes anyway.
I've commented before about jail sentences and there have been a couple recent of cases, in particular, where I’ve thought that the judge did the right thing and the wrong thing.
One of them was the prison sentence handed down to the young guy who was responsible for that terrible car crash near Timaru where five teenagers died. One of them was in the boot.
That guy got two-and-a-half years and, at the time, I said that I thought the judge had done the right thing and the wrong thing.
I felt it was the right thing to send him to prison because of the fact that his stupidity had cost five people their lives. But I felt it was the wrong thing too, because what good would come of him being locked inside with other crims?
And this sentencing in the High Court in Christchurch yesterday is another one of those cases where I could say that the judge did the right thing and the wrong thing.
The judge certainly did the right thing sending him to prison. But we could also say, couldn’t we, that she did the wrong thing because sending an 18-year-old to prison for five-and-a-half-years is probably also going to sentence them to a lifetime.
But when someone walks out the door on a Friday night with a knife in their pocket, they lose all sympathy from me.
And so, in this case, the judge did the right thing sending him to prison - but where she went wrong, was sending him away for just for just five-and-a-half years.
Because he went to that party with a knife. His intent was clear that night. I know he probably didn’t go to the party planning to kill someone, but he went there that night thinking that if anyone gives him trouble, they’ll get it.
And that’s what happened. As reported from court yesterday, the victim Zion Purukamu confronted Te HeuHeu about kissing a girl that Zion and his friends considered to be too intoxicated to know what she was doing and so they asked Te HeuHeu to leave.
He took exception to that, he refused to leave, and a fight broke out. The fight continued in the driveway and that was when Te HeuHeu pulled a knife from his clothing and stabbed Zion. He also stabbed two of Zion’s mates.
Thankfully, they survived. But it was a different story, though, for Zion and his family - some of whom spoke at the sentencing yesterday and who were extremely upset when the judge said she was imposing the five-and-a-half year sentence.
The Crown's starting point for sentencing was 12 years but the judge, taking into account Te HeuHeu's age at the time of the offending (he was 16), his guilty plea and elements of his upbringing and background, settled on the five-and-a-half years.
The background stuff the judge was referring to was the lack of contact Te HeuHeu had with his father during his formative years, the impact of having a stepfather and half-siblings join the family, his connection with the local Black Power gang which he had been prospecting for, and his use of methamphetamine.
So a starting point of 12 years, take all those things into account, and you settle on a five-and-a-half year sentence.
But when someone gets that level of sentence for killing someone with a knife and stabbing two other people, in my honest opinion they have got away with the proverbial murder.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A billion dollars. That’s how much Prime Minister Chris Hipkins slashed from the Government’s spending plan yesterday.
Not that it’s going straight into the bank, because it’s a bit like robbing Peter to pay Paul. The money will go instead into the bread and butter things Hipkins has been talking about since he became leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister seven weeks ago.
And, as a result of yesterday’s announcement, pensioners, students, and everyone on main benefits will be better off from April 1.
On the New Zealand Super front - if you’re a couple, you’ll receive $103 more each fortnight and if you’re a single person on Super living alone, you’ll be $67 better off each fortnight from the 1st of April. Who’s going to argue with that?
Just like other beneficiaries and students aren’t going to argue with it, either.
So, great news. Great news for superannuitants. Great news for students. And great news for most beneficiaries.
Maybe not such great news on the inflation front. But, let’s face it, even though we complain about inflation - I reckon when it comes down to it, unless you’re an economist, you’ll take money in the pocket even if it means collective pain from inflation.
A fair chunk of the savings announced yesterday is going to come from the Government scrapping the Clean Car Upgrade Scheme. That frees-up $568 million for other spending.
I saw some of the international news coverage of yesterday’s announcement describing it along the lines of the Government putting welfare ahead of climate change.
Which is why Climate Change Minister James Shaw didn’t look too happy on the TV news last night.
In fact, the Green Party as a whole won’t be happy about it. But they’ll be on their own - at the left end of the political spectrum anyway - because every Labour politician I’ve seen or heard talking about this has been on-song. Even Transport Minister Michael Wood who, early last week, was all about climate change.
Today, of course, he’s acknowledging the collective decision-making of Cabinet and he’s right on board with this plan to spend less on things associated with climate change and more on dealing with the cost-of-living crisis.
And he’d be a mug not to be on board with it. Because, if the latest political poll that also came out yesterday is anything to go by, people are liking the policy bonfire.
A bilion dollars saved yesterday. Just like that. More millions saved a couple of weeks back with the ditching of the likes of that ill-fated public media merger.
People are liking it. And Michael Wood and every other Cabinet member and Labour MP knows that too and, in an election year, that’s what it’s all about isn’t it? Job preservation.
As last night's One News Kantar poll showed, Labour could form the next government with the Greens and the Maori Party.
Something National and ACT couldn’t. Which is quite a shift, given it was not that long ago that people were saying the election was National’s to lose.
And Labour has obviously tuned in to the fact that when push comes to shove, most of us are more worried about the basics like putting food on the table.
Which also came through loud and clear in that poll last night. It asked people to rank the issue that will be front-of-mind when they decide who to vote for this year.
The results showed that climate change is way down the list of priorities and far and away the thing most voters are going to be mindful of is the cost-of-living and what our political parties are going to do about it.
National’s already announced its additional childcare support and is still talking about changing the tax thresholds. Both of which are hard to argue with.
But, if we want to use a sporting analogy, Labour is well-and-truly out of the blocks and I reckon the spending re-prioritisation it announced yesterday is going to be a winner with people.
For the simple reason that, despite all the pointy-headed talk about more money in the pocket being inflationary, most people - when push comes to shove - will take the money and run.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Have you ever nicked anything from a shop before?
The reason I ask, is this news out today about retail crime going through the roof. Let’s start with the numbers, which have been obtained and released by the National Party.
Overall, the rate of retail crime increased last year by 39 percent.
Break that down to a day-by-day number, and every day last year the police received nearly 300 calls about stuff being nicked from shops and other retail outlets.
The exact average number is 292.
When I first heard these numbers, I’ll be honest, I thought to myself ‘is that all?’.
When I heard National’s Mark Mitchell on Newstalk ZB I felt like I was just listening to another politician telling me I should be angry about something.
But then I thought beyond the numbers, and knew that they would just be the tip of the iceberg - so to speak.
Because, chances are, most of those 292 calls made to the police every day last year were about real serious stuff.
Things like what we’ve seen on the news about ram raids, and that shocking raid on the Michael Hill jewellery store up north. Because, unless there was something major like that going on, why would you bother calling the police?
This is not me beating up on the police, by the way. It’s just how it is. How many times have we heard retailers saying they call the police but there’s no response - for the simple fact that the police are just overwhelmed.
So, unless something life-threatening is going on, the police just can’t help anymore. But let’s just dig into those numbers a little bit more.
Last year, on average, there were 292 calls to police reporting cases of retail crime every day.
That’s a call to police every five minutes, 24-hours a day, seven-days-a-week.
That is a crazy statistic. But, like I say, initially it didn’t shock me. For the simple reason, that it wasn’t as high as I would have expected. Because you talk to any retailer and they’ll tell you this stuff is rife.
I’ve seen it happening with my own eyes. People just walking into convenience stores all the time and helping themselves to stuff.
And the staff just shrug their shoulders and try not to put themselves at-risk or in danger. They call the police - but there’s nothing they can do. Well, they used to call the police.
Which is why the shocking thing - for me anyway - about these numbers released by National, is that even with a retail crime being reported every five minutes, every hour of the day, every day last year - that is just the start.
And there will be truckloads of offences happening, where retailers just shrug their shoulders and do what they can to keep going. Which is the tragedy in all of this.
Retailers around New Zealand seem to have been beaten into submission by these muppets who think they can just walk into a shop and help themselves.
And the muppets do it, because they know that, most of the time, they’ll get away with it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald was joined by Duncan Webb and Gerry Brownlee. Had Duncan done any further work on the investigation about Water Use Charges being fair for Christchurch residents? What will National do about the consultant spend in Government should they win the election? And what do they think about the current fight between the Christchurch Council and developers?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I don’t think anyone will disagree that the heart and soul of Christchurch's post-earthquake rebuild - especially in the central city - has been delivered by the private sector.
Sure, a truckload of public money has gone into things like the Te Pae Convention Centre and the Margaret Mahy Playground. But, if you ask most people, I reckon they’ll say it’s things like Riverside Market, Little High, The Terrace and all the cafes and restaurants that are back up-and-running in town that have really brought the place back to life.
Which is why I hope Christchurch city councillors had their listening ears on yesterday when two of the most prominent developers in Christchurch turned up at council HQ and gave them what-for.
The two developers I’m talking about are Philip Carter and Shaun Stockman.
Philip Carter's name is synonymous with property and development in Christchurch, and The Crossing is one of his central city developments.
Shaun Stockman and his company Stockman Group are involved in all sorts of things. Those old buildings in town where the facades have been saved and new structures built behind them - that’s just some of the stuff that Shaun Stockman’s involved with.
So they went to the city council yesterday and told councillors that the way the council’s running things is enough for them to pull their money out of the central city.
They say the council has broken promises that were made to developers after the earthquakes. Promises, they say, investment decisions were based on.
So why are they so upset? Let’s start at Lichfield Street, which the council wants to make one-way between Madras and Manchester with a 10 kph speed limit.
Philip Carter says the council told him explicitly that Lichfield Street would remain two-way, which was critical for him because Lichfield is what he calls an “artery” for his car park at The Crossing.
Philip Carter says he's having some real trust issues with the council, which told him one thing and appears to want to do something else altogether.
He’s also unhappy about the idea of making that stretch of Gloucester Street by the Turanga central library and the convention centre one-way. I thought that was nutbar too and, thankfully, the plug appears to have been pulled.
Nevertheless, Philip Carter’s view is that the council seems intent on driving away investment in the city. And he’s starting by pulling the pin on some of his investments:
He said yesterday that if the council keeps making it more difficult to get into the central city, he will stop a development he’s got planned for the old Holiday Inn site (which he already has an international tenant lined up for).
And he’ll downscale the international hotel he plans to build next to the Convention Centre.
He told councillors yesterday that he’d recently taken an investor from the UK to a site near the convention centre and asked him if he wanted to put a hotel there. But after hearing about what had been planning to do on Gloucester St, the investor said “Why would I?”.
The thing to remember about investors and property developers is, generally, it’s not a philanthropic exercise.
Philip Carter doesn't do what he does for love. He does it for money. So, of course, he’s going to bang the table if he thinks the bureaucrats at the council are getting in the way of his money-making.
But we are kidding ourselves if we think the ongoing revival of our city is going to come from public investment.
No. It’s people like Philip Carter and Shaun Stockman and all the other developers - the people who actually do the doing - who have been so important for the city’s recovery and are so important for its future. Which is why I hope those councillors yesterday were listening.
Yes, we’ve seen this before. The people with the money making noise to get their way. But, at the same time, these people with the money could’ve quite easily gone elsewhere after the earthquakes.
Many did. But not these guys. And, because of that, they need to be listened to and respected.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Greg Murphy doesn’t mince his words, does he?
I suppose you get like that when you make a living out of driving cars around race tracks at breakneck speeds. Not much time to overthink things. Respond fast.
Which is why it is so refreshing to hear someone like him. Firstly, because he knows what he’s talking about. If you want to talk to someone who knows what cars and driving are all about, you talk to someone like Greg Murphy.
The other reason he’s so refreshing, is that he says it the way he sees it.
It’s been revealed that despite all the noises about road to zero and making things safer on the roads, Waka Kotahi is on track not to meet its objective of having 1000 kilometres of new median barriers in place by 2030. Seven years away.
All the talk has been about installing new median barriers on about 1000 kilometres of road. So far, it’s delivered 67 kilometres of new median barriers and by the time it gets to 2030, instead of delivering 1000 kilometres it will probably only deliver about half of that.
To be precise, Waka Kotahi is saying instead of 1000 kilometres it now expects to have covered 587 kilometres.
And Greg Murphy is less than impressed. He says he’s heard a truckload of excuses. But he’s over that and he thinks the transport agency needs to up its game big time. And I couldn’t agree with him more.
I’ve been convinced for a very long time that, if you were going to do one thing, installing more median barriers would be the thing that would make the biggest difference.
In fact, I think it needs to go beyond highways and - if money was no object - I’d have median barriers on pretty much every road. Because anything that keeps vehicles apart from each other has to be a good thing, surely.
And Waka Kotahi seems to think so. Well, I thought it did, anyway. But I’m starting to wonder.
As for Greg Murphy, he’s beyond the “starting to wonder” phase. As he said on Newstalk ZB today, it’s impossible for Waka Kotahi to continue to defend its lack of progress on the median barrier front.
And thank goodness for people like him. Because if Waka Kotahi thinks tinkering with speed limits is the answer - to the point where, half the time when I’m driving around the place, I don’t even know what speed I should be driving - it needs to think again.
It terrifies me how little there is protecting me and whoever else is in the car with me, against some of the absolute idiots we see on the roads day in, day out.
And I don’t know how many times I’ve heard politicians and the Waka Kotahi people or seen them on the TV nodding and agreeing that you can do what you like with the speed limits, but it won’t stop certain people ignoring them and driving like absolute losers.
But then they just go back to the office, get in front of the whiteboard and pick another road to play around with the speed limit.
Aww, what do you reckon Bruce? 80? 75? 60?
And that’s exactly why Greg Murphy is putting a bomb under Waka Kotahi today. He says delivering 67 kilometres of median barrier and being on-track to deliver half of what it said it would by 2030 shows, yet again, that Waka Kotahi is failing to do what it exists to do.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Beloved Kiwi Comedian Dai Henwood joined John MacDonald on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings ahead of his Unity speaking engagement in Christchurch tonight.
The event is part of Unity Week, and Henwood will be speaking about his cancer journey and what it has taught him about life.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you’ve been to Christchurch Hospital anytime recently, chances are you’ve come across gang members either inside the building or outside in the car park area.
I was there the other week and there were four Mongrel Mob guys out in the car park. But that was nothing compared to what I saw about 18 months ago when I was visiting the hospital daily for about a week.
There were Mongrel Mob guys all over the place. I could see them up in the Intensive Care area and they seemed to be on patrol out in the car park.
Granted, they never said anything to me or threatened me in any way. But I reckon you’d have to be pretty hard not to, at least, feel intimidated.
And this is what the mum of a 15-year-old boy was confronted with at Christchurch Hospital late last year when her son was there as part of his cancer treatment.
He was having surgery and these Mongrel Mob guys were all over the place - refusing to wear masks inside in the intensive care waiting area, and generally being menacing.
She says they were threatening hospital staff, “guarding” entrances (as if they have a right to do that), and even blocking-off public car parks.
And because of her son’s compromised immunity, because of the cancer and the cancer treatment, this mum was really unhappy that these guys were running roughshod over everything and so, when it seemed hospital staff weren’t doing anything about it, she called the police.
Not one time. Not two times. But four times. And each time , the Police refused to turn up.
So we had gang members making the place their own, not giving a damn about anyone else, threatening people and blocking off areas, but no-show from the cops.
And, as if her experience at the hospital wasn’t bad enough, she’s now been told by the Independent Police Conduct Authority that the Police did nothing wrong by not turning up.
She pleaded with them to come and sort the situation out. But they didn’t.
Apparently, the fact no actual offences were being committed and that hospital staff didn’t think a police response was warranted was enough for the Authority to support the decision made by the police not to respond to Anne-Marie’s calls for help.
Which, if we’re going to look at this in a very black and white way, is probably technically correct.
But you would have thought, wouldn’t you, that a hospital - of all places - would be somewhere where you wouldn’t split hairs. And if gang members were there behaving in a way that you or I certainly wouldn’t get away with, then surely the cops could have - should have - turned up and told these guys to pull their heads in.
But they didn’t.
Hospitals are stressful places. They’re full of great people doing amazing work, but they are stressful places. And no one has the right to run roughshod over other people at a hospital.
I don’t have the right to do that - and I don’t expect it. You don’t have the right - and you don’t expect it. And gang members don’t have the right - but they expect it.
In fact, they don’t just expect it. They assume it - and, it seems, they are free to get away with it, because the Police let them away with it back in December when this mum’s son was in hospital for cancer surgery.
And now the Police Conduct Authority has let them away with it, saying that the right decision was made not to respond because these clowns weren’t actually breaking any laws and because hospital staff didn’t think Police were needed.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I could be imagining this, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t that long ago that Transport Minister Michael Wood was thumping the desk in Wellington demanding answers over the state of our roads.
He was making all the right noises. Then we had another summer when a lot of us were travelling all over the place and seeing with our own eyes how bad things are out there.
But at least we thought the message might have finally got through and perhaps 2023 might have been our year. The year that the powers-that-be would finally wake up and acknowledge that we have let our roads get into a complete state of disrepair and something has to be done about it.
I think, though, we can pretty much say those hopes have been dashed with the news that the Government is proposing to take $2 billion away from its road maintenance fund to spend instead on building new bus lanes and cycleways.
This is part of a new transport strategy the Government is putting together, which it will put out for public consultation in a few months.
The number one objective of this new strategy is to base all transport decisions on climate change, and how we can have a transport system that supports the Government’s commitment to reduce emissions.
So what that means, is any decision about transport funding - anything at all - would be looked at through what’s described as “the climate change lens”.
Example: that road between Christchurch and Ashburton. It’s been obvious for years that something needs to be done about it because who would think it was part of the main highway through New Zealand?
Mmmmm. Good point. Maybe we should replace it with a multi-lane highway. That would make sense because of all the vehicles that use it and because it’s a key piece of infrastructure in the South Island.
Yes, but hold on a minute. If we build them a nice new road in Canterbury, that’s not going to get them out of cars and onto public transport is it?
Good point. We won’t do that.
See what I mean? That’s the sort of thing Michael Wood is talking about. The climate change lens.
And part of looking at things through the climate change lens, is this idea to take $2 billion out of the road maintenance fund and spend the money instead on new bus lanes and cycleways.
When you’re looking through the old climate change lens, bus lanes and cycleways get the big tick because (theoretically, anyway) the more bus lanes and cycleways we have, the less likely people are to use cars. That’s the theory.
The reality, though, is quite different.
And the reality in the here and now, is that we are driving on broken roads that the Government is proposing to spend less on fixing. $2 billion less.
Remembering too that it’s just motorists who are impacted by all the potholes and subsidence that is so common on our roads these days.
All the cyclists who look absolutely beautiful through the climate change lens, they’ll be the losers too if the Government goes ahead with this proposal. Because the Government’s road repair money doesn’t just go on state highways out in the wops. The Government puts money into roads in cities and towns too.
But irrespective of which roads the money is spent on fixing, what about electric vehicles? The last time I checked, EVs use roads just as much as the petrol and diesel guzzlers. So how does spending less on road maintenance stack up there? It doesn’t.
And how does spending less on road maintenance stack up with the Government’s other big idea - the “Road to Zero” strategy? Yes, we all know that driver behaviour is a big part of that, but so too is the quality of our roads.
Which is not just about fixing potholes. It’s also about doing sensible things like putting median barriers on as many roads as possible. I’m a big fan of that.
But under this proposal from the Government, that won’t be a priority. Because median barriers won’t put people off using their cars and jumping on a bus or a bike, will they? So no money for that either, sorry.
Other ways the Government is looking to discourage us from using motor vehicles is increasing fuel taxes and increasing road user charges. But, for me, it’s this idea of taking $2 billion away from road maintenance and building more bus lanes and cycleways that tells me that all the huffing and puffing from the Transport Minister a few months ago about the state of our roads, was just that - huffing and puffing.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today, the school students are out on the streets for another climate change strike.
And, while they’re doing that, there’ll be an environmental disgrace happening beneath their feet.
Those of them in Christchurch, anyway.
Because it’s been revealed that, because of leaky pipes, we’ve lost 14 billion litres of water in a year, or 38 million litres a day, in Christchurch. 27 percent of our water, gone without a trace.
Pure, unchlorinated water - which pretty much everyone in Christchurch likes to think is the best water in the country, if not the world. Pure, unchlorinated water that is just disappearing into the ground because of the crumbling infrastructure.
Let me take you back to 2019, when thousands of people took to the streets in Christchurch protesting against two water bottling plants getting free access to aquifer water, sticking it in bottles, and shipping them overseas.
There were two outfits - Cloud Ocean Water and Rapaki Natural Resources - and between them, they had consents allowing them to extract 8.8 billion litres of water, using old consents issued years ago when the site they did their bottling on was a wool scouring plant.
So in some ways, clever them for spotting a loophole and making the most of it. It should never have happened, of course. Which is why people were so upset about it and why thousands took to the streets in protest.
Fast forward to today, when we’re learning that the amount of water lost in Christchurch last year because of decrepit pipes was 14 billion litres. I’m wondering if you’re as upset about that as you were about the water bottling plants?
Because, as these stats show, we’re losing nearly twice the amount of water through leaks as we were losing because of the water bottling.
But where are the howls of protest over this?
As I say, the students are going to be out on the streets protesting today - demanding more action from the Government on climate change.
But I actually think they’re targeting the wrong people. I think they should be marching to the Christchurch City Council building and demanding greater action from the council on this environmental disgrace happening beneath our feet.
Water is pouring into the ground because of crappy infrastructure. In 2018, it was 9 billion litres. Last year, in 2022, it was 14 billion litres.
This in a city that, just under three years ago, declared a climate change emergency. Remember that? It was May 2019, and the Christchurch City Council announced it was joining cities all around the world and declaring an emergency.
All the talk was about reducing carbon emissions, But how can it possibly defend the situation we’re in now, with truckloads of water just disappearing because the infrastructure isn’t up to scratch?
Which does seem nuts, doesn’t it, when you consider all the work done after the earthquakes to fix the pipes. Yet, here we are, with the numbers that show the problem is getting worse.
And that is what the climate protesters should be condemning today on their climate change march. Sure, demand more from the Government. But, I tell you what, the Government is Greta Thunberg compared to the council.
It is an absolute disgrace. Especially when you stick your head up and look beyond the boundaries of Christchurch, Canterbury and New Zealand. When you look up and read reports by the likes of the UN, which says there is a global water crisis.
We get all upset about food waste these days, don’t we? And, generally, that’s because it feels so wrong to be chucking out food when there are people going hungry.
So why don’t we feel so bad about chucking away perfectly good water? Because that’s what we’re doing. It is an environmental disgrace.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to Poto Williams and Gerry Brownlee about the news that Christchurch is losing 38 million litres of water every day due to leaking pipes and broken infrastructure. Is this good enough from the Christchurch Council?
Is Andrew Coster still up to the job as Police Commissioner, and does he have Poto Williams' support? And is Wellington getting too heavy handed when it comes to local issues in Christchurch?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You’re never going to get me saying the police have it easy. And, likewise, you’re never going to hear me saying being Police Commissioner is a cushy number.
You imagine being the top dog in charge of the police force. Not an easy gig.
But, pretty much like every job that most people wouldn’t want to do, there are always others willing to put their hand up and give it a go.
Police Commissioner is the last job I’d want. Just like I wouldn’t want to be a politician. But there are no shortage of people wanting to be politicians. Lord knows why. But they’re out there, and good on them.
And thank goodness too that there are people willing to put themselves on the line everyday and be police officers. And thank goodness too that there are people such as Andrew Coster who are prepared to take on the job of Police Commissioner.
But I tell you what, when I heard him speaking on Newstalk ZB last night, I really started to wonder if he’s up to it.
Think back one year ago exactly, to the protests at Parliament. That was another time I was scratching my head about the job Andrew Coster was doing.
But it’s the way he’s handling things after Cyclone Gabrielle that’s really testing my confidence in him.
Firstly, there’s this steadfast refusal to bring the military in to do more than deliver stuff and fix things. We’ve talked, haven’t we, about how reassuring it was to have the soldiers on the ground in Canterbury after the earthquakes.
And the head of Federated Farmers was talking about this on the radio this morning and how reassuring it would be for the people up north to have more soldiers up there bolstering the police numbers.
It’s a no-brainer, as far as I’m concerned. But Andrew Coster just keeps trotting out the line that the police have it all under control and there’s no need for the military to be on patrol up there.
Then there’s this claim that more police are going in to the cyclone-affected areas - this was after the public meeting up there the other night where residents said some of them are taking things into their own hands and arming themselves because they don’t think there are enough cops to keep a lid on the looters and thieves.
So he announces yesterday that more police are going in. But when he was quizzed abpout it on Newstalk ZB, it turned out that the number of police wasn’t increasing - but he was setting up pop-up police stations for people to go to.
When I heard that, I thought what a load of nonsense and how stupid he was to think he could get away with setting up a few pop-up police stations and claiming that amounted to an increase in numbers on the ground.
And he was forced to admit that last night.
But it’s the way the Prime Minister was mis-led that really takes the cake for me.
Chris Hipkins responded to media reports of road workers having firearms pointed at them. Which was said to be a reason why people up there felt unsafe and wanted greater police and military presence.
I remember hearing the Prime Minister saying that the reports about the road workers were only second or third-hand - rumour effectively - and hadn’t been reported to the police.
Which upset the road workers greatly. And, since then, the Prime Minister has apologised to them for dismissing what was a very traumatic experience for them. And good on Chris Hipkins for fronting up on that.
But can you imagine the words the Prime Minister thought to himself or even said out loud when he found out the information from the police that his comments were based on was incorrect?
You imagine having a gun pulled on you by a bunch of crims. And then hearing someone like the Prime Minister, of all people, throwing doubt on whether it even happened.
Because that was the experience of those roadworkers. I’m sure they will have appreciated the apology from the Prime Minister. But - here’s the question - should the Prime Minister be so forgiving of the Police Commissioner?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Shout out time for Christchurch city councillor Sam MacDonald who has gone into bat for those of us who think the council has made a right cluster of its excess water charges regime.
The council has brought in the excess water use charges because it wants us to use less water. There are environmental factors but it also thinks that if we use less water, it may not have to spend truckloads of money over the next 10-or-so years on water infrastructure.
It’s also been saying over the last few months that, where this sort of thing has been done elsewhere in the country, water use has dropped by 20-to-30 percent.
Although, I see the council has said in the past 24 hours that, since the charges were introduced, water use has decreased by something closer to 10 percent in Christchurch.
So decreasing water use by 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent - whatever - that’s fine and dandy. But the beef I’ve still got with this new regime is that it doesn’t treat everyone equally.
These charges don’t apply to every household. They only apply to properties that have their own water meters.
So if you share a water meter with some of the houses around you, you can use as much water as you want and you won’t be stung for it.
That’s just plain wrong, as far as I’m concerned.
But it seems to me that Councillor Sam MacDonald went as far as he could yesterday, getting councillors to agree to consider increasing the daily water limit. And that’s because yesterday the council was meeting to consider its annual plan for the year ahead.
If he wanted to get them to scrap the whole excess water charges thing altogether, that would’ve had to have been done through the council’s Long Term Plan process.
Either way, the whole thing is Mickey Mouse because of the inequity. Because of the fact that there are, and will be for some time, thousands of properties in Christchurch that won’t be penalised because they don’t have their own water meter.
25,000 properties where people can use as much water as they want, with no consequences. Water the garden, as many baths and showers as they want. They can run through the sprinkler day and night.
25,000 properties out of a total of just over 110,000 residential connections in the Christchurch City Council area. So that’s about 22 percent of places connected to the city council water supply where they don’t have to think twice about how much water they’re using.
But, at least there’s a glimmer of hope on the horizon, with the decision by councillors to go back out and consult the public on whether or not it should increase the daily water limit per property from 700 litres to 900 litres.
Naturally, I think that’s a no-brainer. But I also think that the council needs to pull the plug on the thousands of invoices that have gone out in the past week or so.
I know the argument will be that these invoices have been calculated using the 700-litre-per-day limit, which has been the limit up until now and still is the limit. But, as of yesterday, it’s all up in the air again with the majority of councillors agreeing to put a higher daily limit out for consultation.
It wasn’t a unanimous decision by the way - it was a nine/eight split among councillors. Nine were in favour of lifting the daily limit and eight were against.
Nevertheless, the daily limit is up for discussion again. And that’s a good thing. But I think that, as long as it is up for discussion, the council has to pull the plug on all invoicing.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
On Friday night, we went to a brilliant concert in the Christchurch Town Hall. It was a fundraiser for the people up north affected by the cyclone.
The place was packed and they raised a fair chunk of money. Everyone involved was doing it for free so it was pretty much all profit.
We also had tickets to another concert on the same night which was announced before the Town Hall concert was announced.
So we had to make a call. And we decided to get tickets to the Town Hall gig and just treat the tickets to the other gig as another donation to the cause.
Just like people at the Town Hall concert who had already bought tickets but would’ve also made $3 donations via the text collection that our company’s been associated with, which was promoted pretty heavily on the night.
The reason I’m mentioning all this isn’t just to update you on John MacDonald’s social activities. I’m mentioning it because those two concerts here in Canterbury on Friday night are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to raising money for the relief and rebuild efforts up north after Cyclone Gabrielle.
I see there are more concerts planned. And there are all sorts of fundraising efforts going on right around the country.
But we know, don’t we, that the recovery and rebuild up north is almost going to require a bottomless pit of money - something the Government is grappling with. And so yesterday it announced two initiatives to help with that.
One is an international fundraising campaign - which has happened before. It happened after the Canterbury earthquakes and it’s a brilliant way of tapping into all those New Zealanders living around the world who see things like the cyclone happening from afar and want to do something to help.
So international fundraising is a no-brainer.
The other thing the Government announced yesterday was a special one-off Lotto draw. It’s going to happen on March 18, and Lotto is going to double the amount it normally gives out from each draw. Which means half of all the money raised will go to the cyclone relief and recovery.
But the Problem Gambling Foundation isn’t happy about it.
It’s saying today that by having a special Lotto draw to raise money for the people and areas affected by the cyclone, by doing that we are normalising gambling which, it says, causes major harm to society. Which, I don’t think anyone will disagree with.
Just like alcohol causes major harm to society.
But the Problem Gambling Foundation says this special draw, in particular, will normalise gambling because it will be heavily promoted and presented or portrayed as a good thing.
Now, if this was the only thing that was being done to raise money over-and-above what the Government and the insurance companies spend, then I think the Problem Gambling Foundation would have a stronger argument.
But it’s not the only thing. The concert I mentioned earlier that we went to on Friday night is just one example of the gazillions of things that have already happened and are still to happen. Which is why I’m more than comfortable with the Lotto draw idea.
Because, I’m a bit of a realist when it comes to this. And if we were going to get all high and mighty about not using money from gambling for the cyclone recovery, then we’d have to be just as high and mighty about all the other things that rely on gambling money.
For example, I hate the pokie machines. Whenever I see someone sitting on a stool in a pub piling money into the slot machines, it depresses me.
Which probably makes me the biggest hypocrite out because I’ve been quite happy to dip into the money that comes from those pokie machines to raise funds for school.
And every time I’ve put in an application to the organisations that dish out grants from pokie machine money, I’ve felt a real tension between my position on pokie machines and my interest in helping school raise some bucks.
But I always got over that - because I've known that the money would still be going into the machines whether-or-not I got all high and mighty on it. And if I didn't put my hand up for a share, someone else would.
Which is why, when I hear what the Problem Gambling Foundation is saying today about the special Lotto draw for the cyclone recovery and rebuild being a bad thing, I’m taking a practical view of it all and seeing it for what it is.
Which, in my view, is a fantastic way of raising desperately-needed money.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
At one point during the weekend, I was speechless. Because I couldn’t believe it. The National Party was actually announcing a policy.
It was a bit light on detail, so maybe it was more a statement of intent. But let's call it a policy.
And it was all to do with 3 Waters. Which has been a real political hot potato - possibly the hottest political hot potato we’ve had since the seabed and foreshore legislation debate nearly 20 years ago.
As you’ll know, after the situation in Havelock North a few years back when the water supply system failed and a whole lot of people got crook and a small number died, the-powers-that-be have been trying to work out what to do to avoid something like that happening again.
Generally, there’s been agreement that the quality of our water systems up and down the country is variable - and there’s been a lot of talk about what to do about it.
Enter the Labour government, which came up with its 3 Waters legislation. Which, I think it’s fair to say, has been based on the assumption —rightly or wrongly— that all councils are doing a hopeless job of running their water systems and the government could do a better job.
So we’re talking drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater. The 3 waters.
And like it’s done with the health system and the polytech system, Labour wants to centralise control of water infrastructure by taking responsibility for all things water away from councils and putting it in the hands of new water authorities.
There would be four of them. With one responsible for pretty much most of the South Island. The areas that are Ngāi Tahu would be covered by this one water authority. The Ngāi Tahu boundary being relevant because, under Labour’s plan, the water authority would be co-governed by council representatives and iwi.
And there’s been a lot of noise about the co-governance part - mostly because it seems no one actually understands what that means. A few weeks back when I spoke with Te Maire Tau from Ngāi Tahu, he struggled to explain co-governance.
And then half an hour later I spoke to National’s Christopher Luxon, and he couldn’t really explain it either. But somehow it’s become the big bogeyman.
And some politicians have been more than willing to tell us we should be scared of it but when you ask most of them what it is, they struggle to explain it. But don’t let that get in the way - just be scared of it.
Well, I’m yet to be scared.
But back to National’s 3 Waters policy announced at the weekend. Essentially, it answers the question we’ve been asking for a while now - which is, when National says it will repeal and replace the 3 Waters legislation if it forms the next government, what will it replace it with?
And we now know, that it will replace Labour’s idea of a complete takeover with a big stick approach.
Essentially, National is saying that instead of taking assets off councils and running water services centrally, it would let councils hold on to the assets but it would tell councils what needs doing and what they need to invest to keep their water infrastructure up-to-scratch.
And it would require councils to ringfence money specifically for spending on water infrastructure and services. If they didn’t do that, they’d get the big stick.
National says councils would be free to charge for water whatever way they see fit.
The council would just have to spend any revenue it gets on water services and nothing else.
National says because of this ringfencing, councils could then borrow money for water infrastructure and services.
As far as I’m concerned, National has failed to deliver a credible alternative to Labour’s 3 Waters policy.
Yes, it delivers on National’s promise to keep water in local ownership and control. But I think it’s an approach that might’ve sounded credible a few months ago - but not after the disastrous flooding issues we’ve seen over the last few weeks.
Which has had me looking at the whole 3 Waters thing in a different light. The main thing for me about Labour’s plan has been this seizing of council assets and paying a peppercorn price in exchange.
In Christchurch, the Government is offering $120 million for $8 billion of water infrastructure assets. So I’ve thought all along that that part of it is nutbar.
But if National thinks it’s a much better idea to let councils hold on to their water assets and tell them what to do with them, and let them charge for water free range and get themselves into huge debt to pay for what the Government is telling them to do - then that’s a fail as far as I’m concerned.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It's enough to make you want to put your head in your hands.
When the whole country is trying to work out how we’re going to pay for building all those new roads and everything else that needs rebuilding up north because of Cyclone Gabrielle, there’s news today that more than $1 million is going to be spent on a stretch of Gloucester Street, in central Christchurch.
And what’s more, once the so-called “upgrade” happens, it’s going to be trialled for 10 weeks and if the council decides 'nah, it doesn’t really work', all the work will be undone and it’ll go back to what it’s like at the moment.
The stretch of Gloucester Street I’m talking about is right in the centre of town - where the Turanga central library and the Isaac Theatre Royal are. And where the new Court Theatre is going to be built.
The bit, if you’re travelling west, that takes you to the intersection where you have to turn left or right, because if you went straight ahead you’d come to the big concrete wall at the new Te Pae Convention Centre.
The idea is to make the street more “people friendly” by reducing the speed limit from 30 kph to 10 kph, making it one-way - which will mean you’ll only be drive westward towards the convention centre - and there’ll be planter boxes and all the other usual stuff that makes streets narrower and slows down traffic.
Yhe budget is $1.4M million. With 90 percent of the money coming from Waka Kotahi’s “Streets for People” programme and the rest paid for by the Christchurch City Council.
Apparently, the $1.4M is the total budget for making the changes and undoing them if they decide after 10 weeks that it’s not really worth it. Either way, can you think of anything more wasteful?
Blowing nearly $1.5M on, effectively, a piece of public consultation. Because, as part of deciding whether to stick with the changes once they’re made, the council will be running an online survey to find out what we all think of them.
The city council is saying that the changes are being trialled on Gloucester Street because that’s the performing arts precinct.
So I imagine they’re thinking that with all the people trotting along to the Isaac Theatre Royal and the Convention Centre and the Court Theatre (once it’s built), a narrower, slower street would make it more people-friendly and safer.
The fly-in-the-ointment there, though, is that piece of land on the Gloucester/Colombo corner - where you’ve got Turanga and the Convention Centre - where the Court Theatre is going to be one day.
If you’ve been in Christchurch for any period of time over the past 12 years, you’ll know that once they start building the Court Theatre, that stretch of Gloucester will be anything but a “street for the people”. There’ll be trucks going in and out - the whole she-bang.
But that may not be an issue because the money will be spent on all these changes and, after a 10-week trial, the council will do its consultation and it may actually decide that the whole thing’s a daft idea and all the work and the changes will be undone and it’ll go back to how it is now.
And that will be Christchurch making the best use of $1.4 million.
And if the changes stay, we will have yet another street in downtown Christchurch that is pretty much a no-go zone for vehicles - one-way, with a 10 kph speed limit.
So when does work start? It starts next week. I’m not quite sure how long it's going to take but once it’s finished, and it’s been in place for 10 weeks, you’ll be able to have your say.
But I think this shouldn’t be allowed to go any further. Sure, the city council is saying that it's getting most of the $1.4 million from the Government - 90 percent of it. But this money would have been approved long before Cyclone Gabrielle and I can’t believe no one at the city appears to have looked up from their spreadsheet and Gantt chart and said ‘do you think we should still be going ahead with this?’.
That doesn’t appear to have happened, and it is shameful on so many fronts.
It is shameful that Waka Kotahi and the council think it’s a good use of taxpayer and ratepayer money to fund what could turn out to be nothing more than an expensive trial and consultation exercise.
And it is shameful that, at a time when the country is facing huge rebuild costs thanks to Cyclone Gabrielle, the Christchurch City Council hasn’t made a symbolic gesture and said to the Government ‘thanks, but no thanks’ for the money.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to Gerry Brownlee and Dan Rosewarne today on Politics Friday, Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings.
Do they feel the Council should be spending $1.5million, including Government funding, on implementing a trial to lower the speed limit on Gloucester street to 10km and one way. If it is not well received, they will scrap the idea. Is this really the best use of money?
It's a year since the Ukraine invasion, why have Labour not removed the Russian Ambassador from Wellington?
And housing intensification for Christchurch, do both parties still feel this is right for Christchurch?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
For quite a while now, I have been really brassed-off whenever I’ve seen the bank we’re with advertising a special mortgage rate for new customers. And each time they’ve done it, I’ve gone into the bank and said to them that, as an existing customer, I should be entitled to the same rate too.
But, oh no, can’t do that. And time and time again, I’ve thought to myself that they are breaking pretty much the first rule of business development - which is to look after your existing customers as much as you can, because it is much easier to keep customers than get new ones.
So I’m not terribly surprised to hear independent economist Tony Alexander saying today that the banks are involved in what he’s calling an “under the line” mortgage war.
These banks are struggling to meet their home loan sales targets. So, what they’re doing, is they’re cutting their mortgage rates for new customers to try and get more loans and customers on their book.
The BNZ is one bank he’s actually named as being involved in this, but Tony Alexander says BNZ isn’t on its own and pretty much all of the banks are desperate to get new customers.
Now a business getting new customers is fine - I’ve got no beef with that. The banks are businesses, just like we’re a business. But where I get really uncomfortable, is knowing that I’m effectively subsidising someone else by paying higher interest rates than they are.
And where I really get brassed off, is when I raise this with the bank and they pretty much tell me where to go. Knowing, probably, that changing banks is not just a case of flicking a switch and there are costs involved and so they think - or know - that I probably just won’t bother doing anything about it.
So I don’t for a minute feel sorry for them for not reaching their sales targets, as Tony Alexander is saying. I don’t feel sorry for them because they are already doing pretty well, thank you very much. Most recent figures show that the combined profits in the banking sector in New Zealand was around the $10 billion mark.
In recent times, ANZ - New Zealand’s biggest bank - posted a full-year profit of $2.3 billion - an eight percent increase on the year before.
ASB’s profit went up 11 percent to $1.4 billion. And so it goes.
I won’t go through the annual reports of every bank - but you get the gist.
The banks are making truckloads of money. So much so, that some of them have been quick to make donations to the cyclone relief.
Which is brilliant - there’s no way I’m going to knock them for that. ANZ has donated $3 million. ASB has donated $5 million. And good on them for doing that. I hope some of the other banks will follow suit.
But it suggests, doesn’t it, that the banks - if they wanted to - could absorb some of the costs that they seem to be passing on to borrowers.
And for me, that would be the simple act of flagging this under-the-line mortgage war that Tony Alexander is talking about today and working just as hard to look after their existing customers, as they are for new customers.
You may have heard Reserve Bank governor Adrian Orr on Newstalk ZB saying that he thinks the banks are taking the mickey a bit in terms of reducing services and all that. He didn’t use the term “taking the mickey” but that's what he was getting at.
And, the way I heard it, he expects them to lift their game. And I totally agree - because, at the moment, I am in no doubt that the banks in this country are ripping us off, and need to up their game big time.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
With Selwyn Sounds just over a week away, John MacDonald had the pleasure of talking to Boh Runga, lead singer of Stellar.
Stellar is well known for their hit songs Violent, What You Do and Part of Me and were a huge hit on the New Zealand music charts in the early 2000s.
They discussed her musical family, with sisters Pearl and Bic, and how life with Stellar has progressed over the passed 20 years.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger to discuss excess water charges going out this week, does he still think the charges are unfair for all?
The mayor was also questioned as to why he thinks council should invest in the Dux de Lux, and what is happening with security in our city centre?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There’s only one way to say this: the bozos running New Zealand Rugby need to go.
And, just in case you’re thinking I’m being a bit harsh - according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, a bozo is a foolish or incompetent person.
I think, though, when it comes to NZ Rugby the “or” bit isn't needed, and instead the bozos there are foolish and incompetent.
This is not new for me. For the past year or so, with the long drawn-out All Blacks coaching debacle, NZ Rugby’s bozo-ness has been on show for the whole world to see.
Foster has had an appalling record in terms of team success on the field but, somehow - mysteriously - he’s kept the job.
And, more recently, we’ve had Razor Robertson going AWOL and saying the other week that some sort of announcement about the All Blacks coaching job is coming real soon. Which put the cat amongst the pigeons at rugby HQ.
Just on that, doing what he did the other week actually diminished by respect for Razor a bit.
But back to Foster - and the latest chapter in this whole sorry saga which played out this morning on Newstalk ZB. When a broken-sounding Ian Foster spoke out against NZ Rugby’s plan to have a new All Blacks coaching team appointed before this year’s rugby world cup.
Well before this year’s World Cup, actually. Because it’s understood that the rugby bosses are keen to have the new coach confirmed by April - five months before the World Cup tournament in France.
Five months out from Ian Foster hopefully leading the All Blacks to victory.
Not surprisingly, Foster thinks having the next coach looking over his shoulder in the lead-up to and during the World Cup would be hugely unsettling for the players and the current coaching team.
He also said this morning that he wants to put his energy this year into the World Cup, not re-applying for the coaching job.
Although, it’s pretty clear that he doesn’t think he’s got much chance of holding onto the job. Irrespective of what happens at the World Cup.
As he says, he’s read the tea leaves and knows NZ Rugby wants change. Which, quite frankly, should have happened well before now. Foster should’ve gone last year after the Irish series - and Razor should’ve got the job. Simple.
NZ Rugby, though, seems terrified of Razor. But, even if they are terrified of him, they should just give him a go and if he blows it, he blows it. He could be brilliant, he could be a disaster.
Either way, though, I don’t think NZ Rugby should be making any decisions until after the World Cup in France in September and October. And not just not making a decision on who the next All Blacks coach should be, it shouldn’t even be starting the recruitment process until after the tournament.
Because, whatever we think of Ian Foster, he is right on one thing: recruiting a new coach during a World Cup year would be disastrous. Of course it would be a distraction. Especially when you consider the incompetence NZ Rugby has shown in this matter so far. Do you really think they’re suddenly going to get their act together?
Of course they’re not. It’ll be another dog’s breakfast. And another dog’s breakfast is the last thing the All Blacks need in this World Cup year.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by National Party leader, Christopher Luxon, on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings.
They discussed National's plan to tackle Climate Change, how did he feel about Maureen Pugh's comments? And National's plan to help find money for the cyclone recovery - is higher tax the answer?
And how will they get kids back into school should they be elected this year.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There’s that old line about people not caring what you know, until they know that you care.
And if you’ve heard or seen Police Commissioner Andrew Coster over the past 24 hours, you will have picked up that he knows a lot - the caring bit, though, isn’t so obvious.
Because, despite what people on the ground in cyclone-ravaged areas of the North Island are saying about criminal activity going nuts since the big storm, Commissioner Coster is sticking to the lines about reported crime being less than normal.
If anything’s increased, he says, it’s family harm offences.
He does acknowledge, though, that with all the communication challenges —with phones and electricity out— perhaps the reported stuff isn’t a reflection of everything that’s going on. But he’s got his stats and he’s sticking to them.
What’s more, you may have heard the Prime Minister saying on Newstalk ZB that some of the things people have been talking about —like the apparent cases of guns being pointed at people running checkpoints— have been third or fourth hand. And, according to the Prime Minister anyway, no one’s actually reported it to the Police.
Either way, that doesn’t diminish my view that the Police Commissioner is completely missing the point here. We’ve got opposition politicians —and others— saying bring in the Army to help the Police deal with the lawlessness.
And we’ve got the Commissioner responding with a whole lot of numbers which, on the face of it, are accurate. But it is a classic example of why it is so important to show that you care, before banging on about what you know.
We’ve got people saying they feel unsafe and we’ve got the Police Commissioner saying they shouldn’t feel unsafe because the stats don’t back that up. Really comforting.
And I think if you were in Canterbury during the earthquakes, you’ll be able to relate to all this.
Like me, you’ll remember the gun carriers and trucks rolling into town from Burnham every morning. And you’ll remember the soldiers being on duty at all the entry points into the CBD.
I’ll never forget going to Pak n Save one night on Moorhouse Avenue, and coming out of the car park onto Manchester Street and seeing the soldiers on duty and seeing that giant area of darkness over their shoulders that was the CBD.
And I remember whenever I saw them rolling in and out of town, it just made things feel more secure for some reason. That these men and women were here for us.
Don’t ask me to tell you what I thought they were here for or what they were here to do. Sure, they had the roadblocks to take care of but just seeing them coming in and out of town from Burnham made things feel just that little bit more secure.
Which is why I think the Police Commissioner is completely missing the point. He’s telling people in the cyclone areas what he knows (all the stats about crime being down etc), but he’s not showing them that he cares.
He’s not acknowledging that when people’s lives are turned upside down, of course they’re going to be suspicious of things like people taking photos. But in the past 24 hours he’s been saying where that’s been happening, it’s just been people taking photos of all the devastation. “Disaster tourism” as he puts it.
Do you think anyone in Hawkes Bay finds that one bit reassuring? Of course not. Because when you’ve been through a disaster, you’re on heightened alert.
Back in 2011 after the big earthquake, a rumour started doing the rounds that an old volcano in Christchurch was about to go off. Completely wrong. But there were smart people who gave it credence simply because they were traumatised and on alert for every possible threat to their safety.
That will be what’s happening in Hawkes bay and Gisborne. Yes, there will be some crims doing what they know best. Yes, it’ll be business as usual for the gangs. And yes Commissioner, I know the stats don’t necessarily match with people’s fears and concerns.
But this is not business as usual and, if having the Army on patrol in Gisborne and Hawkes Bay makes the people there feel just that little bit more secure (and it would), then the Commissioner needs to stop telling us what he knows and needs to start showing us that he cares.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There’s that old line about people not caring what you know, until they know that you care.
And if you’ve heard or seen Police Commissioner Andrew Coster over the past 24 hours, you will have picked up that he knows a lot - the caring bit, though, isn’t so obvious.
Because, despite what people on the ground in cyclone-ravaged areas of the North Island are saying about criminal activity going nuts since the big storm, Commissioner Coster is sticking to the lines about reported crime being less than normal.
If anything’s increased, he says, it’s family harm offences.
He does acknowledge, though, that with all the communication challenges —with phones and electricity out— perhaps the reported stuff isn’t a reflection of everything that’s going on. But he’s got his stats and he’s sticking to them.
What’s more, you may have heard the Prime Minister saying on Newstalk ZB that some of the things people have been talking about —like the apparent cases of guns being pointed at people running checkpoints— have been third or fourth hand. And, according to the Prime Minister anyway, no one’s actually reported it to the Police.
Either way, that doesn’t diminish my view that the Police Commissioner is completely missing the point here. We’ve got opposition politicians —and others— saying bring in the Army to help the Police deal with the lawlessness.
And we’ve got the Commissioner responding with a whole lot of numbers which, on the face of it, are accurate. But it is a classic example of why it is so important to show that you care, before banging on about what you know.
We’ve got people saying they feel unsafe and we’ve got the Police Commissioner saying they shouldn’t feel unsafe because the stats don’t back that up. Really comforting.
And I think if you were in Canterbury during the earthquakes, you’ll be able to relate to all this.
Like me, you’ll remember the gun carriers and trucks rolling into town from Burnham every morning. And you’ll remember the soldiers being on duty at all the entry points into the CBD.
I’ll never forget going to Pak n Save one night on Moorhouse Avenue, and coming out of the car park onto Manchester Street and seeing the soldiers on duty and seeing that giant area of darkness over their shoulders that was the CBD.
And I remember whenever I saw them rolling in and out of town, it just made things feel more secure for some reason. That these men and women were here for us.
Don’t ask me to tell you what I thought they were here for or what they were here to do. Sure, they had the roadblocks to take care of but just seeing them coming in and out of town from Burnham made things feel just that little bit more secure.
Which is why I think the Police Commissioner is completely missing the point. He’s telling people in the cyclone areas what he knows (all the stats about crime being down etc), but he’s not showing them that he cares.
He’s not acknowledging that when people’s lives are turned upside down, of course they’re going to be suspicious of things like people taking photos. But in the past 24 hours he’s been saying where that’s been happening, it’s just been people taking photos of all the devastation. “Disaster tourism” as he puts it.
Do you think anyone in Hawkes Bay finds that one bit reassuring? Of course not. Because when you’ve been through a disaster, you’re on heightened alert.
Back in 2011 after the big earthquake, a rumour started doing the rounds that an old volcano in Christchurch was about to go off. Completely wrong. But there were smart people who gave it credence simply because they were traumatised and on alert for every possible threat to their safety.
That will be what’s happening in Hawkes bay and Gisborne. Yes, there will be some crims doing what they know best. Yes, it’ll be business as usual for the gangs. And yes Commissioner, I know the stats don’t necessarily match with people’s fears and concerns.
But this is not business as usual and, if having the Army on patrol in Gisborne and Hawkes Bay makes the people there feel just that little bit more secure (and it would), then the Commissioner needs to stop telling us what he knows and needs to start showing us that he cares.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Another earthquake anniversary approaching. And it’s not as if those who lost friends and family in the quake or who lost their home in the quake need an anniversary to remind them of their loss - but February 22nd is always a time when we all think about how things have changed here in Canterbury.
This Wednesday will be no different and, even after all this time, one of the starkest reminders of that change is still the residential red zones.
The one most people probably think of is the area that extends out to East Christchurch. It still gets called the red zone but, officially, it’s known as the Ōtākaro Avon-River Corridor.
It’s where the plan is for a 30-year programme of work to bring the area back to life with a variety of things from walkways, wetlands, tourism activities - plus some more mundane, but actually more critical stuff, like flood protection.
The plan was all done a few years ago but it’s going to be up to the city council to put the finding in over the next few decades to make it all happen.
Probably the second most well-known red zone is the one in Waimakariri. There’s a plan for this area too - with new parks and reserves, walking and cycling tracks, business areas etc.
It seems now too, that some form of residential housing is going to be on the cards with news that the Crown has gifted red-zoned land near Kaiapoi to a local trust, which is going to lease 47 sections to people so they can live there.
The Te Kohaka o Tuhaitara Trust expects the housing will be relocatable and anticipates some people could be living there as soon as June this year.
It is talking about the houses on the red zone land being light, modular or tiny home structures. Things that could be packed up and moved, at some stage.
It’s not clear, from what I’ve read, how or why the red-zone land was gifted to the trust. But, irrespective of that, it is an interesting twist when pretty much since the earthquakes we’ve been told that the red zone areas in Christchurch and Waimakariri won’t be used for residential purposes. Despite some people wanting to.
I know the tiny home people were keen a few years back to get set up in the Ōtākaro Avon-River Corridor. There was talk of a camping ground somewhere in there too, I think.
But there has always been a range of views from people who actually lived there before the earthquakes. Some would love to be back living there - and some have been of the view that if they can’t live there, then no one should.
It’s the same with the red zone near Kaiapoi. Which is where these sites are going to be leased-out for people to live.
A person I know grew up in the Kaiapoi red zone and she hates the idea of this trust leasing out sections when people who were living there before the quakes have consistently been told that residential would never be an option there.
She says there are plenty of people who offered to remediate their sections at their own cost and do whatever was needed to make it a place they could live in again. But it’s always been 'no, no, no'.
It’s been the same with the residential red zone in Christchurch. There were some, of course, who didn’t budge when the government and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) started paying people out for the properties they lost.
I’m pretty sure there’s still one living there - at Kerrs Reach.
But it is interesting how things change with time, and it seems that some form of residential housing is going to happen, at least in the Kaiapoi red zone.
Personally, I think relocatable housing is the way of the future. Because, with climate change, why wouldn’t we want to make retreating away from coastline areas far more possible and less complex than it is at the moment?
But, in this case, I think it’s a bad idea. Because, while relocatable housing gets the big tick from me, why on earth would you let anyone set-up home (relocatable or otherwise) out near a beach and - in the case of Pines Beach - right by a river as well. That would be nutbar.
Because, as we’ve seen up north, if things can change so quickly during a weather event - so quickly - it won’t matter one bit whether your house is relocatable or not.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I didn’t grow up in Christchurch but, by the time I was old enough to be hanging around in pubs, the Dux de Lux was one of the places I’d go to whenever I was in town.
I know a lot of people remember it for being Christchurch’s first vegetarian restaurant and for the beer that was made on site at the micro-brewery.
But, for me, it was the live music. I remember seeing all sorts of bands there. Original bands, of course. And that room where the bands would play was pretty small, when you think about it. And it would be pretty loud. But you can’t deny that so many bands cut their teeth at the Dux de Lux.
In Dunedin, where I grew up, we had the Empire Tavern and the Oriental. They were the pubs where all the original bands would go. There were others - but they were the main ones.
And in Christchurch, it was the Dux de Lux. When you think about it, the Dux started in 1978 - which was perfect timing really, when you consider all the bands that came out of Christchurch around that time and into the 1980s.
All the Flying Nun bands from Christchurch and Dunedin. And still in the late 1990s and into the 2000s, which was when I first settled in Christchurch, the Dux was still going strong and I went to some great gigs there.
I remember seeing Lawrence Arabia there. It was a real strip-backed gig and there were just a couple of them making massive sounds with loop pedals. This was years before the likes of Ed Sheeran got on that bandwagon. I remember seeing The Bats there. Whole lot of bands.
So, why am I telling you all this? I’m telling you all this because I know there are a truckload of people in Christchurch who will have their own memories of great nights out at the Dux de Lux.
People in bands, people who went to the gigs, people who worked their back in the day when it was breaking new ground with the vegetarian menu, people who would finish their nights out in Christchurch at that pool bar they opened upstairs in later years.
The Dux de Lux was all part of that whole Arts Centre scene in Christchurch pre-earthquakes.
And then, in February 2011, the Dux de Lux went silent. And it’s been silent ever since. And if you’ve been past there recently, you’ll know how decrepit it’s looking.
But that’s not stopping some people from seeing a future for the old Dux de Lux at the Arts Centre.
They include a group of people such as Richard Sinke - who started the whole thing back in the day. And property developer Shaun Stockman - who I think has shown an incredible commitment to post-earthquake Christchurch and who has done some amazing restorations of buildings in the central city.
And they’re the guys - among others - who went to the Arts Centre offering to bring the original Dux de Lux back to life, on the proviso that the Arts Centre gave them free rent of the site for 50 years.
The Arts Centre wasn’t interested because it wants to earn money from the site and so, today, the Dux is still derelict and looking like a bit of a bomb site amongst all the other restoration work that has been done.
Enter Christchurch mayor Phil Mauger who has met with the Arts Centre bosses and is saying in the news today that he thinks the Dux is part of the city’s “cultural heritage” and thinks the council should be putting money into its restoration.
He says funding for the restoration of the Dux could be part of the council’s long-term plan, which sets the budget over a 10-year-period.
“We have got to see where we can find some money,” says the mayor. Which is not the first time Phil Mauger has said this sort of thing. I remember before last year’s election that he was all-for public funding going into the Dux.
Which I thought was a bad idea then, and I still think is a bad idea now. Actually, it’s an even worse idea now. Because what Phil Mauger is proposing here, is pouring public money into nothing more than sentimentality.
Sure, I’m the first person to admit, that the old Dux de Lux played a key role in giving young bands the breakthrough they needed. And yes, I agree that it is part of our cultural heritage.
But, on the most part, the idea of bringing the Dux back to life is nothing more than sentimental. Just like I think pouring money into the Cathedral restoration is based more on sentimentality than anything else.
And if Phil Mauger thinks putting council money into a pub is a good idea, is a priority for his council, then can someone in his office please tell him he’s dreaming.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by MPs Megan Woods and Gerry Brownlee to discuss the tragic situation in the North Island following Cyclone Gabrielle. What lesson will we take away from this? What needs to change?
Also, are retailers going to get support in the Christchurch CBD with the amount of crime and violence they are facing on a daily basis? And should online voting be introduced to encourage more people to vote?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What have we come to when retailers and businesses have to launch a petition to try and get the Police and local council to sit-up and listen to their concerns about violence, intimidation, homelessness and crime in the central city?
We’ve come to it, and that is exactly what one retail manager in downtown Christchurch is doing today. He's taking action after one of his staff members was at work, doing their job and - without any warning at all - found themselves being attacked by someone who just walked in off the street and punched him in the face.
What made it all the more random is that another staff member had been outside on their break and had been talking to one of the homeless people outside.
When they went back into the shop and went out back to put their things away and get back to work, the homeless person followed them into the store and, I don’t know whether it was mistaken identity or what, but the homeless person punched a different staff member in the face and walked out again.
The retailer called the Police when it happened, but the cops were a no-show.
And that wasn’t just a one-off, this retailer tells us that the Police regularly don’t turn up if there’s trouble.
It’s not the first time we’ve heard this sort of thing. I remember speaking to another retailer who said he could throw a tennis ball from his business to the central police station but, whenever he’s called up for police assistance, it’s been a wasted effort. Because what he’s called about hasn’t been a priority for the Police.
As the online petition launched today says: “Business owners, shoppers and tourists alike are put at risk on a daily basis from the crime that runs rampant down Colombo Street and Cashel Street.
“Working in the city centre, we witness physical assaults, drugs dealt in daylight, indecent exposure and verbal harassment on a daily, if not weekly basis. And when police are called about this crime taking place, little to no action is made.
“We feel unsafe working, shopping and exploring in the heart of our city. We urge the council to allocate funding towards security measures and for the Government to intervene by helping provide more support from police.”
And I’m very glad that this petition isn’t just targeted at the Police. It’s also pointing the finger at the Christchurch City Council which I think has been woeful in its support for central city businesses that are so desperate, that they’re still pouring money into their own security patrols in the CBD. That is shameful.
Remember this is a council led by mayor Phil Mauger who banged on before the election last year that he wanted Christchurch to be “the best place to live, work, invest and play in New Zealand”.
When are you going to put your money where your mouth is, Phil?
Because the people who put their money on the line every day - the retailers and business owners in downtown Christchurch - are crying out for help. And Phil, your council’s treatment of them has been shameful.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
At home, we’ve just got rid of the landline. And, just like that, we’re saving about $60 a month.
But after everything that’s been going on around the country over the last few days and weeks, I could be forgiven for thinking that the landline is the last thing we should be ditching.
Because it seems to me, after watching all the reports from up north, that our infrastructure in New Zealand is no more reliable than it was back in the days of the Canterbury earthquakes.
Power out, roads impassable, stormwater systems inundated. But, since I mentioned the landline, let’s start with phones and the internet.
There have been outages all across the North Island this week - with some people saying that, because of it, it’s been hard to get a clear picture of the impact and damage the cyclone has caused in some parts.
Which does seem incredible in modern-day New Zealand, doesn’t it? It’s the sort of thing we’re used to hearing when there’s a natural disaster in places like the Pacific Islands. But not here in New Zealand.
But, given the fact that the telecommunication companies have done their absolute best in recent years to get us off the landline and onto our mobiles, maybe we shouldn’t be so surprised.
Want to save $60 a month? You do? Easy - just get rid of your landline.
The thing is, though, I remember when the earthquakes happened how vital that landline was.
While the cellphones were pinging night and day with text messages sent hours or days earlier, we just plugged in the old phone to the copper line in the wall.
Not now though. The old phone’s still sitting in the emergency box but it won’t be much use with the landline disconnected.
And if we’re ever in a situation again like we were back in 2010 and 2011 - or even when we’re hit by the likes of the cyclone which is battering the North Island - most of us will be at the mercy of the cellphone networks.
Which, as we’re seeing this week, certainly have their weak points.
But, when it comes to New Zealand’s infrastructure, the phone and internet networks are just the start. Roads are another thing.
Even when the sun is shining, our roads are falling apart. I don’t need to tell you about the potholes that seem to be left, right and centre all over the place.
Can you imagine what the roads are going to look like once all the water goes? Our broken roads are going to continue being a topic of conversation for a long time to come.
But they are another symptom of how we, as a country, seem to have been more than happy to cut as many corners as possible over the past 10 or 20 years.
Copper landlines are really expensive to maintain. Let’s get everyone on mobiles and then we won’t need it.
Roads - they’re expensive too. Let’s spend less on them too and just keep fixing them up when they fall apart.
These are two prime examples of how we have allowed corners to be cut and how we are now being bitten on the backside.
And then there’s our electricity and stormwater networks. This is where we bring in our old friend Max Bradford. Remember him?
1997 was the year and he stood up on TV and said his de-regulation of the energy sector was going to mean one thing - cheaper electricity. I can remember him saying that as clear as day.
What a load of old nonsense that was. The other thing about his de-regulation, is that we have a complicated web of electricity generators, distributors and retailers who have to nut out where the problems are and work out who’s responsible for fixing them.
So add all that up - more and more people on cellphones and not using landlines anymore, roads that fall apart even when it’s not raining and when there are no cyclones, and a complicated electricity system which is, largely, reliant on technologies from the 1950s and 60s - then no wonder we can’t cope with the worst storm to hit New Zealand this century.
Which, might I point out, is only the last 22-and-a-bit years.
Which all tells me that our infrastructure is so not up to the job of keeping us connected and moving - in the good times and the not-so-good times.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I remember watching the TV news late last year and seeing a story about the organisers of the Sail GP yacht racing event having a meeting with residents in Lyttelton to talk about planning for the big event, which is now just a few weeks away.
Sail GP, of course, being the international yacht racing event which Sir Russell Coutts is involved with - it’s one of these sporting events that travels around the world, a bit like the Formula 1.
And on March 18 and 19, the boats and crews will be in town racing on Lyttelton Harbour.
And I remember seeing this TV news story and there was a resident on the telly saying he wanted to know how he was going to be able to park his car with all the people flooding into town for the two-day event.
And I remember thinking “oh here we go, we finally manage to get an international sporting event to Canterbury and the locals are going to start banging on about car parking”.
Well, luckily for that chap and others living in Lyttelton, it’s all been sorted and - unless you’re a resident - it’s pretty much going to be impossible to drive into Lyttelton during the two days the Sail GP racing is happening next month.
So when I heard this morning about some Lyttelton residents getting all upset on it about the disruption cruise ship visits are causing for them, it would have been very easy for me to react the same way I did when I saw the guy going on about the impact Sail GP was going to have on his ability to park his car.
The difference, though, is that the Sail GP “disruption” - if you want to call it that - is just for two days. Cruise ship visits, though, they’re happening all summer. Already, about a hundred visits are planned for Lyttelton next summer.
Local community board member Reuben Davidson says some Lyttelton residents are feeling overwhelmed by all the visitors.
It’s being reported today that some feel their sleepy little town is being over-run by thousands of visitors - or "floaters", as they call them; with one resident saying that she has marked the last day of the cruise season on her calendar as a “celebration day”.
And the gist of what some people in Lyttelton are saying, is that the huge number of people turning up on these cruise ships is changing the nature of the place they call home.
They’re saying that if they want to catch a bus to town, they have to leave home earlier than usual because the public transport is being overrun.
That’s because the buses put on for the cruise ship passengers to get into Christchurch costs $35 a head. Nevertheless, as you would expect, the cruisers pretty quickly realise that it’s much cheaper to take the public transport, which costs $2.10. Which is meaning full buses and local people struggling to get a bus when they want it.
And I can well understand their frustration. As one resident is saying today: "A sleepy little town feels overrun and overwhelmed - especially with the very large ships”.
If you’ve driven from town through the Lyttelton Tunnel recently, you will have got towards the Lyttelton end some days and - instead of light - all you can see at the end is cruise ship.
It can be quite breathtaking after all the COVID years and the lack of visitors and their spending power.
Which is why businesses - retail, hospitality - love the cruise ships. Especially retail and hospitality on the other side of the hill in Christchurch.
But if you actually live in Lyttelton, I reckon that excitement and enthusiasm would wane pretty quickly.
Which is why I’m not going to join the likely masses and say that Lyttelton people need to pull their heads in. I’m not going to say they need to suck it up. I’m not going to say they have to take one for the Christchurch and Canterbury teams.
I’m sure there will be ship-loads of people thinking that Lyttelton people complaining about the cruise ships don’t know what side their bread is buttered. But I’m not going to be one of them.
Because, as far as I’m concerned, Lyttelton has been let down big-time by the city council, ChristchurchNZ, the cruise companies and everyone else who has failed to plan properly for this huge influx of people.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it is brilliant having international visitors back after the devastating financial impacts of COVID. And, if I was running a retail or hospo business in Christchurch, I’d be cashing in on it big time. Of course I would.
But I’m not going to bag the people of Lyttelton who, for some reason, are just being expected to take it on the chin for the rest of us.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This week the Government is going to announce that it’s getting tough on kids not turning up to school.
And for all the talk about truancy being a “complex issue” —which, to be fair, it is— the Government is going to try and tackle it with a bit of the good old fashioned enforcement.
Which will mean the return of state truancy officers. We haven’t had government or state truancy officers for more than 10 years in New Zealand. Schools themselves have truancy officers but this is, generally, someone who has keeping tabs on school attendance as part of their main job.
But come whenever, the Government is going to hire its own truancy officers. Or “attendance officers” as they will be known.
But whatever they call themselves, it'll be their job to suss out the kids not turning up at school on a regular basis and do what it takes to get these kids back in class.
In some respects, the term “truancy” is a bit one-size-fits-all because you can be truant if you’re just wagging school and hanging out with your mates, and you can be truant if you’re in a family that’s really struggling financially and —if you’re old enough— you might be out of school working a job to bring money into the household.
This became a real issue during COVID —especially in areas like South Auckland— where the adults who normally earned the money found themselves out of a job and so, once the lockdowns ended, some kids just didn’t go back to school because they needed to work to support the family.
Which isn’t all that different from years back when some kids had to leave school to get a job so they could make a contribution. I’ve heard a lot of stories where that happened.
But back to 2023, and the Government has decided it’s going to try to do something about truancy and is bringing back the truancy officers.
But, unlike the old days when kids might have wagged school for a day or so to go fishing or might have given up school altogether because of their family’s financial situation, truancy in 2023 can be put down to all sorts of reasons.
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said on Newstalk ZB this morning that 40 percent of New Zealand parents think it's acceptable for children to be out of school for one week per term.
Or, as he put it, away from school for a total of 52 weeks during the whole time they’re at school.
Some of them will be the parents that really brass-off teachers and principals and take their kids away on overseas holidays during term time. Schools love those parents, don’t they?
But also among those parents who think kids being away from school is fine, will be the ones who don’t actually rate school and education all that highly.
They might have had a pretty bad school experience themselves, or they’ve become lost in drug and alcohol addictions and don’t really care what their kids get up to. Or they’re involved in gangs and think the kids are far more useful out committing crimes than going to class.
And it’s these parents that get all the attention, don’t they? Attention in terms of the public going nuts about kids not turning up at school.
Although, the outcome is the same, isn’t it? Whether you’re off on a six-week holiday overseas or off breaking into cars and houses - the outcome is the same. You’re not at school.
But it’ll be the so-called “hopeless ones” who probably end up getting all the attention and support from the new truancy officers once the Government has them up and running. Which I’ve got no problem with.
Our kids are all out of school now but I can remember, when they were in high school especially, getting text messages from the office pretty quickly if they were away from class. Generally, this happened if we’d forgotten to call or email saying they weren’t going to be in.
And I really had the impression that school was on top of the whole absentee thing.
But, of course, there would have been and will still be parents who don’t bother even replying to the text messages about their kids not being at school, and these are the ones that the Government or the Ministry of Education will have in its sights.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Remember how much we loved the Christchurch City Council flipping the bird at the Government last year over housing intensification?
It all started when the Government and the National Party joined forces to try and sort out the housing supply issues and came up with their one-size-fits-all idea of squeezing more people onto every block of land.
And so they went to the Christchurch council - and every other council - and said ‘you have to start letting people build three, three-storey properties on one site’.
And to its credit, before the local body elections last year, the Christchurch council told the Government and the National Party where to go, and said it wouldn’t be implementing these new housing density rules.
So there was a bit of a stand-off - with Wellington telling the council to give the go-ahead for people to build three, three-storey properties on a single section; and Christchurch saying ‘you can forget that idea, because we don’t have the same need for intensification and we need to be treated as a special case because of it’.
Of course, the Government didn’t take no for an answer and brought in the “mediator” to work through the issues. That was back in November and you may remember at the time I thought the mediator would be more of an “enforcer”.
And the enforcer seems to have lived up to that title because today we’ve got the council crowing about coming up with an alternative plan which councillors will consider and vote on in a few weeks.
The guts of the new alternative plan is housing intensification being restricted to the central city, shopping centres and what's being called "walkable distances" from core public transport routes.
The council is yet to determine what a walkable distance from core public transport actually is or what it means. But with shopping centres all over the city, is this really a scaling back or is it intensification in sheep's clothing?
Because if they’re saying they want to allow intensification to happen in the central city, around shopping malls, and in areas on core public transport routes - then that’s pretty much everywhere, isn’t it?
I don’t think there’d be too much noise about the central city - because post-earthquakes, especially, we’ve become accustomed to apartments and the like popping up in the centre of town.
But when you consider the shopping mall part of it - this is where this fantastic alternative starts to unravel, as far as I’m concerned. And just tells me that the “enforcer” has got his way and the council is just trying to get itself out of a corner.
And as far as shopping malls in Christchurch go, I can think of The Hub Hornby, Riccarton Mall, Bush Inn, The Tannery, Barrington Mall, Tower Junction, Eastgate Mall, Merivale Mall, Northlands Mall, Fendalton Mall, The Palms, Homebase and The Colombo.
Under this so-called brilliant alternative plan city council staff have come up with, intensification would get the green light in Hornby, Riccarton, Opawa, Barrington, Linwood, Merivale all the way up to Northlands, Fendalton, Shirley, Sydenham and Beckenham.
If you live in those areas, how would you feel about three, three-storey properties on the section next door? You’d be delighted, I’m sure.
Intensification would also get the green light in areas within walkable distance of core public transport routes which, just like the shopping malls, are pretty much anywhere and everywhere in Christchurch.
Which is why I’m thinking that the Government’s enforcer has got his way, the Christchurch City Council has given up, and has come up with a so-called alternative plan that is nothing short of intensification in sheep’s clothing.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by Sarah Pallett and Gerry Brownlee for Politics Friday.
They discussed housing intensification in Christchurch, is it really needed here and why do they support it? What do they think about the Government's policy re set, what happens now with hate speech?
And Three Waters, is it time to just walk away from it for good?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Money will not buy you happiness.
We’ve probably all said that at some point. Mostly to try and convince ourselves that the fact we didn’t win Lotto is no biggie.
"Ahh, all those millions - would’ve been more trouble than they were worth."
And ironically, that’s what Harvard University has been saying this week after crunching the numbers on its Study of Adult Development, which has been the world’s longest research project looking into what makes people happy.
Since 1938, Harvard has tracked a whole lot of people to find out what makes life satisfying and what doesn’t.
And this week they’ve been saying that one thing that doesn’t make people happy is money.
“Money can’t buy us happiness” - that’s a direct quote from one of the big brains who’ve been crunching all the intel Harvard’s gathered since 1938.
I say it’s ironic that they’re talking about this now, because it coincides with the Government’s announcement yesterday that the minimum wage is going to increase on the first of April by $1.50 to take it to $22.70 per hour.
Which, of course, will make everyone on the minimum wage happy. And if they work 40 hours a week, it’ll mean their annual earnings go up to $47,000.
This will be the latest in a line of minimum wage increases in recent years. In fact, by the time April 1 rolls around, the minimum wage will be nearly 30 percent higher than it was four years ago.
So, if you’re on the minimum wage, the last few years have been quite good for you in terms of earning more than you did a while back.
And let me get one thing clear. If you are someone on the minimum wage, I don’t in the least bit begrudge you for getting a few more bucks. Remember too that minimum wage earners are most likely to be the people everyone’s been paying a lot of lip service too - particularly since COVID.
The supermarket workers. The cleaners. Petrol station staff. People working in dairies. No working from home for them. No Zoom meetings. So I have no qualm about these people getting a little bit more in the pay packet.
The problem I do have, though, is that because of these incremental increases in the minimum wage over the last few years, we have actually de-valued other people’s work.
People who are recognised as being skilled workers. People who have invested time and money in their careers. People who, now, don’t earn all that much more than the minimum wage - especially when you consider the responsibilities their jobs have.
Here are some numbers to show I’m getting at.
From April 1, when the increase announced by the Government yesterday takes effect, someone on the minimum wage who works 40 hours a week will be paid about $47,000. And remember we’re talking about supermarket workers here. Cleaners. Petrol station staff. Dairy workers. If they work full-time, $47,000.
Compare that to other people who, I think it’s safe to say, are skilled workers.
Let’s start with teachers. What do they earn? The average teacher earns $54,000 a year. Or $28 an hour. Minimum wage $22.70 from April 1 - or $47,000 annually. Your average teacher gets $5.30 more per hour, or $7,000 more per year.
What about an entry-level nurse, after years of study and on-the job training? $60,000. Paramedics? $61,000.
Firefighters? Their base salary is $69,000. So $47,000 to work in a supermarket - just an extra $22,000 to put your life on the line day-in day out as a firefighter. It’s exactly the same too if you’re just out of Police College.
So while I think it’s brilliant that someone on the minimum wage is going to have a bit more in their pocket. I think it is absolutely nuts that people like teachers, nurses, firefighters and young police officers are paid ridiculously low in comparison.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch's Mayor accepts the city's new water charges are unfair.
High water users will now pay a fixed $1.35 for every 1000 litres used over the daily 700 litre limit.
But that only applies to properties with an individual water meter and about 25,000 households won't be affected.
Mayor Phil Mauger told Newstalk ZB's Canterbury Mornings he'll do what he can to fix the inequity.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
For me, this is a case of wanting to believe something - but not actually believing it.
I suppose if I was the Prime Minister or if I was the Assistant Police Commissioner I’d say the same things they said on Newstalk ZB this morning. Because, if I didn’t, then I’d pretty much be saying ‘guilty-as-charged’ to the National Party’s view that the Government has failed to reduce retail crime.
But, as far as I’m concerned, I think the PM and the Assistant Commissioner are going to be pushing it uphill convincing us that anyone and everyone who walks into a shop and helps themselves to whatever they want does and will face consequences.
Let’s start with the stats. On average last year, there were 8,500 retail crime incidents every month. About 280 every day. In October, it was as high as 10,000, or about 330 per day.
Go back four years - and the monthly average was about half what it was last year.
Pretty hard stats to argue with. Although Megan Woods did try when she was on the radio this morning.
She wasn’t convincing, saying that we need to try and suss out why people are stealing from shops in the first place, suggesting that this is a social issue.
Which won’t go down well with the likes of Retail NZ which has been saying recently that the spike in retail crime has nothing to do with social deprivation - and it’s all about catering to the re-sale market. With thieves stealing on demand and selling goods on.
Then there’s the lower-level offending that retailers have no hope in hell of the Police doing anything about it.
This is what Retail NZ chief executive Greg Harford has been saying: "This is driven essentially by the fact that people think if they steal stuff they won't get caught and that they can then sell those products on to generate a profit for themselves.
"The increases that we're seeing, the bulk of it is very organised. These are gangs of people out there who are stealing to order; it is not people who are stealing to feed themselves."
So Megan Woods might want to dial things down on the old ‘let’s find out why these people are doing this’ approach. Because my pick is the retailers who are getting hit hundreds of times a day by these daylight robbers won’t fall for that.
Just like I’m not falling for all these reassurances we’ve been hearing from the Prime Minister and Assistant Police Commissioner that people aren’t and won’t get away with nicking stuff from shops.
I want to believe them because I can only imagine what it must be like trying to run a retail business and staying afloat - and having self-entitled crims walking in and helping themselves.
But, on the basis of what I hear from retailers, I don’t believe them. Not for a minute.
I’ve seen this sort of thing with my own eyes. You probably have too. And how brazen these people can be.
Not that long ago, I was in the bus interchange in Christchurch and saw this guy blatantly walking in and out of the little convenience shop there and taking stuff off shelves.
He wasn’t the sort of person I’d try to take on. You know what it’s like - you don’t even want eye contact with these people. Because you know they’re trouble.
But I remember going in to the shop when I'd seen what was happening and the woman behind the counter telling me that it happened all the time but there’s nothing they can do because they don’t want to risk getting attacked and the police aren’t around and have a truckload of other stuff to deal with.
So this is not me saying I don’t believe the Prime Minister and the Police just for the sake of it. I’m saying I don’t believe them because I haven’t seen evidence of people facing consequences for retail crime. I haven’t seen it - and I haven’t had any retailers tell me they've seen evidence of these turkeys facing consequences.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John spoke to National Party Deputy Leader, Nicola Willis. They discussed the rising retail crime rate and the Government's comments about consequences being given to those who steal from stores. Also Christchurch's water meter charges, does she think it's fair and what would she do about it if National were in power?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I watched a fair bit of TV when I was growing up. And, probably in my teenage years, one of the shows that was on the box quite a bit was called Night Court.
You remember that show? It was American, of course, as pretty much everything on TV in New Zealand back then was. The original series ran from 1984 ‘til 1992. But I think it might just have been revived.
But the series I’m thinking of and the one you’ll be thinking of - if you can remember it - was set in a criminal court in Manhattan, in New York, where the presiding judge was known as Harry T. Stone.
And I remember thinking at the time how novel it was having court cases at night time.
Now the reason I’m mentioning this TV show from way-back, is that night courts are being suggested today as one way of dealing with the backlog of court cases and hearings in New Zealand at the moment.
Criminal cases, family court cases, coronial cases - they’re all a bit stuck. Or, more importantly, the people involved in all of these processes are stuck.
Delays are across the board throughout the courts system but, to give you an idea, it’s taking as long as two years for criminal trials and family court hearings.
Some of it’s being put down to COVID, of course. Here are some stats for you: Since March 2020 around 144-thousand District Court events and just on 15-hundred High Court events have been adjourned or rescheduled because of the pandemic.
During the first lockdown, 68 percent of appearances couldn't go ahead.
Victims advocate Ruth Money was on Newstalk ZB this morning saying that one of her concerns is that the backlog is actually putting victims off staying in the courts system. Some of them are being told that it’s going to be next year before any court action and for people who have been waiting since 2020 - or even earlier - it’s just too much and so they’re pulling the plug.
And let’s not forget that this sort of situation isn’t great for those accused of committing criminal offending, either.
There are people in prison waiting for court appearances who end up spending more time behind bars than their final sentence time. Which means, if they’re innocent, they’re waiting a very long time to clear their names.
The other part of that, too, is that getting Legal Aid can be tricky for these people because of the backlog and the number of cases the Legal Aid lawyers already have on their books.
And that’s just the criminal court side of things.
There are people waiting as long as five years for a Coroner’s hearing. Which must seem like an eternity and then, when it eventually happens, it must just bring the loss back all over again.
The Family Court is caught up in this mess, as well. Can you imagine waiting two years for a family dispute to make it to court?
And I’m not just thinking about the adults in these cases - I’m thinking about the kids too. In fact, the kids must be the most affected by these Family Court delays, mustn’t they?
So we can agree it’s a hell of a mess. And we can blame COVID or blame governments or blame certain lawyers for making an art form out of dragging things on forever.
Maybe judges too carry a bit of the blame as well - because I've covered a truckload of court hearings and cases and it always seemed to me that judges operate in their own time zone.
Although, if you’ve ever been at a trial you’ll know that judges have a fair bit of information and detail to deal with, and they can have a very hard job keeping things on track during, but maybe they need to change things up a bit given the backlog of cases.
Which takes me back to the Night Court TV show. Perhaps the time has come here in New Zealand for the courts system to drag itself out of the 1950s and, as they say in the retail game, extend its hours.
Because it would seem that the situation isn’t going to improve if the courts keep on running the way they are. And maybe the Night Court TV show isn’t so far-fetched, after all, and extending their hours of operating might help.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It is going to be a stinking hot few days in Canterbury, which is perfect timing for the long weekend.
I see the Metservice is warning that temperatures are going to be higher than normal for our neck of the woods, which may or may not be perfect timing for the long weekend - depending on what you’re going to be getting up to.
But when things get hot, chances are we all use a bit more water. If you’ve got little kids, the paddling pool is always a winner - same with the sprinkler. Kids just love running through the sprinkler, don’t they? Not just kids, actually.
And I’ve heard all sorts of stories coming through over summer about keen gardeners in Christchurch doing things like gathering rainwater and using that so they can keep the plants hydrated without getting a hefty excess water bill from the council.
Because this month, the council’s going to be sending out its first excess water invoices.
It’s spent a while getting organised, including spending a lot more than it originally anticipated on the technology it needs to do things like read the meters and send out the invoices.
It originally budgeted $1 million. But we’re finding out today that, so far, it has spent $5 million and expects to spend another $1 million on top of that. So, by the time it’s done, one million will have become six million.
The council is bringing in the excess water use charges because it wants us to use less water. There are environmental factors there - but it also thinks that if we use less water, it may not have to spend truckloads of money over the next 10-or-so- years on water infrastructure.
It’s also been saying over the last few months that, where this sort of thing has been done elsewhere in the country, water use has dropped by 20-to-30 percent.
Which all sounds fine. But the beef I’ve still got with this new regime, is that it doesn’t treat everyone equally.
You’re probably aware of this, but in case you’re not - these charges aren’t going to apply to every household. They’re only going to apply to properties that have their own water meters.
So if you share a water meter with some of the houses around you, you can use as much water as you want and you won’t be stung for it.
And how many properties are going to be off the hook because they share a water meter? 25,000.
25,000 properties where people can use as much water as they want, with no consequences. Water the garden. As many baths and showers as they want. They can run through the sprinkler day and night.
25,000 properties out of a total of just over 110-thousand residential connections in the Christchurch City Council area. So that’s about 22 percent of places connected to the city council water supply where they won’t have to think twice about how much water they’re using.
And that, as far as I’m concerned, is where this whole thing is a complete sham.
Because, why should I pay more for my water just because my property happens to have its own water meter? When thousands of others are going to get off scot-free, simply because they share a water meter with another property. You might be one of the lucky ones.
Either way, there is no way the council should be going ahead with this until it can treat everyone the same way. And what that means - as far as I’m concerned - is ditching the whole excess water charge thing until water use at every property in the city can be measured.
Because I can’t think of any other user-pays system that is so inequitable as this one.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
MPs Duncan Webb and Gerry Brownlee joined John MacDonald on Canterbury Mornings to discuss the murder of Juliana Herrera and whether the public should be notified when violent offenders move into their neighbour hood. Also on the agenda was recession fears, the Cabinet reshuffle and measurement of elective surgeries.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I have found it so sickening reading and hearing the reports on the sentencing of the psychopath who sexually assaulted and murdered Juliana Herrera in her Christchurch home last January.
I’m not using the term “psychopath” loosely, either. Because, as it's being reported today, he was described in one of the reports prepared for the sentencing judge as having “anti-social and psychopathic personality features”.
And yesterday, this person was sentenced to preventive detention - meaning he will never be released from prison unless the Parole Board can be satisfied that he is no longer a danger to the community.
But the Board won’t have to worry about that for at least, 23 years, because that’s the minimum non-parole period that Justice Jonathan Eaton applied when he handed down the sentence.
If you could even come close to saying there was at least some good to come out of this, it would have to be the fact that this monster is probably likely to spend the rest of his life behind bars.
Which will be of little to no comfort for Juliana’s family. Although, they did say in their statement yesterday that they hope history doesn’t repeat itself and with this guy locked up for good he, at least, won’t be able to do what he did that night last January ever again.
Like I say, I’ve found the details of what happened to Juliana in the last moments of her life harrowing and sickening. And, for that very reason, I won’t go into detail here.
But, essentially, what happened was that he broke into her house sometime after midnight on January 22 last year. Juliana had been using a sleep app that recorded night-time noises, which meant that the police and the court heard exactly what happened in the 10 minutes after she became aware there was someone in her bedroom.
It only recorded for 10 minutes because it was programmed to switch off after that amount of time.
Nevertheless, what was recorded was absolutely horrific.
Now we will never know this, because Juliana isn’t here to tell us. But it’s possible that even in those moments of terror, what happened wasn’t outside the realms of possibility for Juliana because, before she was brutally attacked and murdered, she had bad feelings about this guy.
He had moved in next door. And Juliana just didn’t like the look of him.
On the night she died she’d been out with a friend and, when she got a lift home, she noticed he was sitting outside his place next door and she got her friend to drive her up to her door and wait until she got inside.
As one of her friends told police, Juliana felt threatened by this guy.
Here’s what one of them said: “He gave her a bad feeling and she felt like she was being watched.”
Another friend said: “She was deeply concerned for her safety. She did not feel safe because of the neighbour.”
And she was right, of course. She wasn’t safe at all. She was in grave danger. And just a few hours after being driven to the door by her friend, Juliana’s fears were realised.
One of the tragedies in all this, is that Juliana’s fears and concerns were only based on her hunches about the guy. How she felt when she’d arrive home and find him watching her. Can you imagine living with that?
And I would guess that if she knew this guy who she thought was a bit of a weirdo had actually served seven years for a violent kidnapping and rape, chances are she’d find somewhere else to live or do something to protect herself more.
But she didn’t know. And just 72 days after getting out of prison, this monster of a person broke into her home, sexually assaulted her and murdered her.
At the same time as he was effectively sent to prison for the rest of his life, Corrections released its report into the case and pretty much said it did what it could.
Which may be the case. But it doesn’t change the fact that Juliana should have known about this guy’s past and had the opportunity to better protect herself.
But she didn’t. And the way things currently stand, the next Juliana out there won’t know either. And that, as far as I’m concerned, is shameful.
Yes, I get that if someone has done the crime and done the time, they deserve the opportunity to make a new life for themselves. But that should never come at the expense of someone else’s life. Never.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you can, put yourself in the hooves of a cattle beast. In fact, put yourself in the hooves of two types of cattle beast.
The first type is the kind we’re all generally familiar with. The one we see in paddocks up and down the country. The one that gets to eat as much grass as it wants day-in, day out.
The one that certainly gets rained on and snowed on, in certain parts of the country anyway. But the one who also gets to bask in the sun, the one who gets fresh air through those big nostrils and is only held back by a fence or two.
It’s not always a long gig. Because, as we know, cattle beasts on farms are generally on a one-way trip to the supermarket, the butcher’s shop or your barbeque.
But I think we can all agree - meatlover, vegetarian or whatever - that if you had to be a cattle beast, this is how you’d want to spend your days.
It’s also how we, as a country, have liked or wanted the rest of the world to think of us when it comes to agriculture.
Grass, lucerne, sunshine, fresh air. 100 percent New Zealand Pure. All the cliches.
So that’s the first type of cattle beast that I want you to imagine being. Not a bad life.
The second type that I want you to put yourself in the hooves of is the cattle beast destined to live out its days (and nights) in a massive shed with hundreds of other animals.
All-year round, you eat and drink and sleep - you do all the things that cattle beasts do - except you’re not out in a paddock in the sunshine and the rain and fresh air. You’re stuck under a roof, never really seeing the light of day.
A type of set-up that you’ll never see on an Air New Zealand advert for our 100 percent pure country. But it is the type of set-up that one farm company wants to build on Banks Peninsula.
The company’s called Wongan Hills and it’s got big plans for a site near Lake Ellesmere, which has a lot of the locals in the area upset because they can’t imagine how something like this couldn’t be anything but bad for the environment.
Incredibly, last year the Christchurch City Council gave consent for these massive sheds to be built. But the outfit wanting to build them and house a couple of thousand cattle inside 24/7 also needs resource consent from Environment Canterbury.
And ECAN has decided that, in light of the public interest, it’s going to notify the application and let people have their say. Which has delighted the group set-up to oppose it.
Its spokesperson is saying in the news today that it’s a good thing that it’s being publicly notified because ECAN needs to consider more than just its own intel and modelling to determine whether the thing should get resource consent.
The community group, known as the Little River Eco Collective, says it’s vital that ECAN hears what the locals have to say and hear what other scientists and experts have to say.
Which is the technical end of things. The “hows” and “why” of what impact such a massive development could have on the local environment - with Lake Ellesmere being a particular concern.
Just as an aside, ECAN has put in a truckload of work over the years working with iwi to try and restore Lake Ellesmere because it’s been in an appalling condition.
And that’s what the locals opposed to the development are saying. That sticking these sheds or “feedlots” as they’re known just over three kilometres from Lake Ellesmere won't do the lake any favours.
Which is the technical side of things that all sides will get their experts fighting over when ECAN does public notify the farm’s consent application.
For me, I think it would be appalling having hundreds and hundreds of cattle beasts stuck in massive sheds day and night, all year ‘round.
As you’ll know full well, if you go to the supermarket today, chances are you might struggle to find any eggs. That’s because battery farms aren’t allowed anymore.
So what’s the difference between hens cooped up in a battery farm and these cattle cooped up in a complex nearly the size of the Convention Centre, in Christchurch? That’s how big this thing will be if it gets the go-ahead.
Without doubt, it would be a monstrosity to look at. And I have no doubt that it would have, at least some, negative impacts on the local environment.
And it would definitely, definitely fly completely in the face of what farming in New Zealand is all about. And what farmers in New Zealand have told us they’re all about.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This time last year, I remember the then relatively-new National Party leader Christopher Luxon saying to me: “Give me a chance to prove myself, John. I’ve only been in the job five minutes”. Or words to that effect.
Twelve months on and with a lot of water under the bridge, including the resignation of a Prime Minister, it appears that Christopher Luxon still has work to do to prove himself to voters.
Two political polls came out last night. Both taken in the past week, including the immediate aftermath of the Auckland storm event and flooding.
And both polls showed very similar results. A growth in support for the Labour Party and a dip in support for National. With both polls showing how tight things are at the moment between the two major political parties.
Where things were a bit more clear-cut was in the Newshub poll and the level of trust in the leaders of the two main parties.
In that poll, 53 percent of voters said they trusted Labour leader and Prime Minister Chris Hipkins while just 36 percent said they trusted National’s Christopher Luxon.
Which is an interesting question given the old line that gets trotted out time and time again about politicinas not being worthy of our trust.
But, when it comes to voting - as we will be on October 14 - trust plays a very big part in our decision-making, doesn’t it?
And, when we think about who we trust, it can come down to gut feeling as much as anything.
I’ve found that when someone trots out that old line about not trusting someone as far as they could kick them - when you ask them why, more often than not they can’t exactly tell you.
You’ll get people saying ‘oh, not sure really. I just dont like the look of them. They’ve got shifty eyes. Or, would you trust anyone who says they’ve never broken the speed limit?
And then, rightly or wrongly, there are people in certain lines of work who can have a hard time getting people to trust them.
Again, rightly or wrongly, this can include the likes of car salespeople, journalists, lawyers sometimes. But the ones who score the lowest time and time again when it comes to trust, is politicians.
Two years ago, a survey by Research NZ found only 22 percent of people actually trust politicians. So when people take part in a political poll and they’re asked which politician they trust most, chances are their starting point is very low.
Nevertheless, when it comes to deciding who we want running the country, we do have to ask ourselves which of a bad bunch we trust most.
And according to the Newshub poll out last night, a lot more people trust Labour leader and Prime Minister Chris Hipkins than National leader Christopher Luxon.
Which is interesting because, as many people are pointing out at the moment, Hipkins has been front, left and centre of the current Labour government. The government which, until a couple of weeks ago, was led by Jacinda Ardern whose popularity was nowhere near what it used to be.
But, somehow, more people trust Hipkins than trust Luxon - who has been National leader for more than a year now and has had more than enough time to build voter trust. So why hasn’t he?
My theory, is that most New Zealanders just don’t trust smooth operators. And Luxon is a smooth operator.
He’s been chief executive of a major airline. You’ve got to be a smooth operator to do that. He’s worked high-up in other international companies as well. Got to be a smooth operator. But to be a smooth operator, you have to suppress a bit of yourself too. And that’s where I think Luxon’s problem lies.
He talks the talk but, when it comes down to it, I think people find it difficult to relate to him.
I think the noise about Luxon being the next John Key has died down. But he was never going to be another John Key. Because John Key wasn’t a former chief executive - he was a former trader. And traders love volatility. Traders love risk. Traders don’t have to be smooth operators. Chief executives hate volatility. They hate risk. And they have to be smooth operators.
And if you hate volatility and risk, that’s going to translate into how you present yourself. You play it safe. You might talk the talk - but that’s as far as it goes. And I think until Christopher Luxon lets the guard down a bit and shows a bit more of the real person, then he is going to continue pushing it uphill when it comes to improving his trust rating with voters.
Will the real Christopher Luxon please stand up.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I was starting to think that I might be having second thoughts about the Government’s Three Waters reforms even before the disaster that hit Auckland on Friday night.
It was last week when I was looking at the map online showing which bays in Lyttelton Harbour are considered safe for swimming, on the basis of water quality.
If you’ve looked at it recently, you’ll know that it’s dominated by the red markers - which show that an area is unsuitable.
Nevertheless, the map is a tiny snapshot on water quality here in Canterbury. And when I looked at it last week, I started to think that maybe - just maybe - the Government does have a point.
And maybe we’ve been a bit too quick to start the table thumping over Three Waters - which is the stormwater, drinking water and wastewater services that are currently the responsibility of your local council.
The Government doesn’t think local councils are up to the job of running stormwater, drinking water and wastewater and, like it’s done with the public health system, it wants to centralise the whole thing with four water arthritis around the country making all the decisions.
It’s not just councils not being up to the job - they also don’t have the money that’s needed to get the water infrastructure up to scratch.
Now the aspect of the Three Waters that most of us have been upset about is this hostile takeover the Government wants to do of all the stormwater, drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.
In Christchurch, for example, it’s talked about paying $120 million for about $8 billion dollars worth of infrastructure assets. Which is absolute nuts. I’ve thought it along and I still think it now.
That aspect of Three Waters is like paying an as-is/where-is price for a house that’s had all the earthquake repairs done.
But I’m starting to think that perhaps we’ve been too focussed on the financial and the stripping of local control aspects of Three Waters, when we should really be accepting that our water infrastructure here in Canterbury is not as gold-plated as we like to think it is.
I was starting to think that last week after looking at the map with all the unsafe swimming areas in Lyttelton Harbour. But, since Friday night’s events in Auckland and the impacts we’ve been seeing and hearing about, I reckon we need to take it as a bit of a wake-up call.
If the water infrastructure in our largest city couldn’t cope with that rain on Friday night. What hope does anywhere else have of coping?
Because, like Auckland, our water infrastructure is nowhere near adequate to deal with the more extreme weather we are going to see because of the ocean getting warmer. Which means more moisture lurking around for storms to pick up and dump on us.
Can you imagine what things would be like if we had a rainstorm like Auckland had on Friday night? Nowhere in Canterbury would cope. We’d be sitting ducks. Just like anywhere in the country would. Just like Auckland was on Friday night.
Not that the Three Waters reforms would fix things overnight. If everyone had a change of heart and the Government pressed go tonight, it’d be years before the investment that’s needed to prepare our infrastructure for these sorts of events was made.
This is not me going into bat for the Government and suddenly waving the flag for Three Waters. But what I'm saying that after what we’ve seen happen in Auckland, we need to take the blinkers off and really start to think about how we are going to protect ourselves from these types of extreme weather events - which are happening more often and will continue to happen more often.
And if that means giving Three Waters a second chance, and not writing it off as a government takeover - as I have, and as you possibly have - we need to get real, take the blinkers off, and think about how some aspects of the Three Waters reforms might actually be a good thing.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There’s a surgeon in Christchurch who owns a prime piece of real estate in the central city, right across the road from the five-star George Hotel.
The section is worth about $4 million and the surgeon and his partner had planned to build on it at some point but they changed their minds. And so the section is vacant.
Well, vacant in terms of a permanent structure but not completely vacant - because the surgeon and his partner have allowed a group of about six homeless guys to move in and set-up a makeshift camp.
They cook on a small fire. They get water through a hose connected to a tap next door. They’ve got a vege garden going and they sleep in shelters made from security fences and other bits and pieces. As for going to the toilet, they use the public loos over in Hagley Park.
This is all going on right across the road from the George Hotel and not far from a couple of private schools.
It’s being reported today that the surgeon is allowing this to happen on his piece of land because he feels sorry for these guys. He says he goes there about a couple of times a week to check on things and has told them to keep their heads down and stay out of trouble.
He says these guys haven’t had easy lives and, at least by doing what he’s doing, they’ve got somewhere to go and relax. Because places like homeless shelters aren’t an option for people with drug and alcohol addictions or for people who generally struggle with authority.
Which, on the face of it, is a very admirable and charitable approach, isn’t it?
Here you’ve got one of the city’s top surgeons, who can afford to own a $4 million section and do nothing with it, whose life is a million miles away from the life these homeless guys live - and he is actually doing something to help.
He’s doing far more than I’ve ever done to help the homeless. Probably far more than you’ve ever done too.
So, if you just consider it from that aspect, he is certainly doing the right thing.
The problem is, he doesn’t live there and so he doesn’t have to put up with some of the activity that’s apparently going on around the area where this makeshift camp is.
People living nearby say that at nights and on weekends things go pear-shaped, with people off their heads on drugs, urinating in the streets and spraying graffiti.
They say the camp itself is one thing, but everything that goes on around the place is something else altogether. And they’re not happy that the surgeon is allowing these guys to stay there.
As for the guys living on the site in the makeshift shelters and things, they think the property owner is a great guy and say the main rule is to respect the place and respect others.
What’s more, one of them has said that more people are welcome to move onto the site but they’d have to build their own huts. So even though there are apparently about six people camped there at the moment, it could get bigger. Which is the last thing the residents in the area will be wanting to hear.
It seems the city council is looking into it but, you know, this is the same council that did a very good job of turning a blind eye to the anti-mandate Cranmer Square occupation early last year. So I don’t think the people who are upset about this should hold their breath on that front.
But is the owner of this land doing the right thing or the wrong thing allowing these people to live in this makeshift camp?
On one hand, what he’s doing is actually very charitable. He could be doing all sorts of things with a $4 million plot of land. But he’s not - not now anyway - and so he’s made it available to people with nowhere else to live. So, in that regard, I think he’s doing the right thing.
But he’s not living there, and he’s not having to put up with the people off their nuts on drugs yelling and screaming and scaring people. He’s not having his place graffitied. And he’s not going into this weekend wondering what the people living there and all the others who show up day and night are going to get up to.
So, in that respect, I think he’s doing the wrong thing. Which means I’m torn - I think he’s doing the right thing and the wrong thing.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald kicked off Politics Friday for 2023 with Poto Williams and Gerry Brownlee live in the studio.
Discussed was the situation in Christchurch city with homeless people now camping with permission in a $4 million section, the new Prime Minister's appointment and Williams' emotional reaction to Jacinda Ardern's resignation. Will cost of living be a big focus for the Government as they review their work going forward?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by Kiwi singer/songwriter Don McGlashan discuss his music career, early inspirations and performing music to live audiences post Covid.
Famous for his role in The Mutton Birds, Don will be performing with Blam Blam Blam at Selwyn Sounds this March.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The artist who created the White Chair memorial for the 185 victims of the Christchurch earthquake has suggested that the new stadium might incorporate white seats amongst the red in the new stadium.
This follows news that the current plot of the chair memorial is now for sale.
Peter Majendie joined John MacDonald to discuss why he feels it would be a fitting tribute.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I thought Christopher Luxon looked like a fish out of water yesterday at Rātana, where hundreds of people and politicians from across the political divide go every January.
It’s the home of the Rātana Church and the annual gathering is considered to be the start of the political year.
When I say politicians from across the political divide go there, there was one exception yesterday. The ACT party didn’t bother going because David Seymour thinks it’s nothing more than a Labour Party lovefest.
Nevertheless, the other parties were there. And it was, of course, Jacinda Ardern’s last official engagement as Prime Minister.
When I say Christopher Luxon looked like a fish out of water - I say that knowing full well that I would probably look like a fish out of water if I went, as well.
But I’m not wanting or trying to be Prime Minister. And I thought for someone who does want to be PM, and is trying very hard to be Prime Minister, he looked like someone who was turning up and ticking a box.
Rātana. Done. What’s next on the diary?
As others have said, it was clear that Christopher Luxon’s main objective when he turned up was to make it loud and clear that Maori can forget about co-governance if National forms the next government.
I thought it was interesting that, after he spoke yesterday, he told reporters that people are opposed to co-governance because the Government hasn’t communicated it properly and hasn’t got people on board with the idea.
Another thing that hasn’t helped is the National Party’s best mate in Parliament - the ACT Party - re-branding co-governance as “co-government”. You might have seen this on the ACT Party billboards.
I thought it was a typo but David Seymour confirmed to me that that was what it meant to say - because he doesn’t think there’s any difference between co-governance and co-government.
Which is plain stupid, because there’s a world of difference. But back to Luxon’s comments yesterday and his message to the Rātana community that they can forget about co-governance if he becomes Prime Minister.
On one hand, it was somewhat refreshing hearing this from the National Party leader because I think most of us would agree that Christopher Luxon has been very good at saying a lot but not much at the same time.
So that was a nice change. But did he really have to do it there and then? I don’t think so.
If you were cynical, you could be forgiven for thinking that he probably said what he did because he didn’t want Jacinda Ardern getting all the coverage because it was her last official engagement in the top job.
And if you were cynical, you’d probably think he was doing it because he was still brassed off that on the day he was announcing his line-up, the old kindness merchant stole his thunder by announcing she was standing down. The nerve of it all!
When it comes to co-governance, I have mixed views. Generally, I have no problem with it - but I don’t think it’s a one-size-fits-all kind of thing.
For example, the non-elected Ngāi Tahu representatives at the Canterbury Regional Council (ECAN). I don’t think that arrangement is necessary because ECAN pretty much doesn’t do anything without talking to Ngāi Tahu first.
But, generally, I’m a supporter of the concept of co-governance. For the simple reason, that I can’t think why I should be terrified of it or opposed to it. I just can’t.
But there are people who are. And they are the people Christopher Luxon was talking to yesterday. He was talking to them - and he was lecturing to the people directly in front of him.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings John was joined for the first time in 2023 by National Party Leader, Christopher Luxon.
John asked about his speech yesterday at Ratana, and his statements on co-governance. Why is National against it?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What’s the chance, do you think, of New Zealand taking a long-term view and coming up with a 50-year plan for roads?
I’d say it’d be something close to diddly squat, going by the level of commitment and foresight that seems to be going into roading at the moment.
Not that it’s stopped the outfit representing trucking firms, the National Road Carriers Association, from dreaming the dream and coming out today and saying it wants two things from the Government.
First, an annual commitment to spend whatever it takes to repair every piece of roading that needs fixing. We’re talking potholes and all the other hazards out there.
And second, it wants to see a 50-year plan for roading in New Zealand. On that one, I think 50 years is a bit much because who knows what the roading needs are going to be in 50 years time.
But, generally, I’m right behind them. Because for too long now, the approach to roading in New Zealand has been pretty haphazard with what appears to be cosmetic repairs and not much more.
I know we’ve had some new highways and things - in some places, anyway. But that’s often been dependent on the government of the day and its enthusiasm for big roading projects.
Which is why the Road Carriers Association wants a plan. So that governments of the day know there is a long-term commitment that can’t be changed because of political ideology.
And it’s no coincidence that it’s come out today and said this because with the changes going on at the Beehive at the moment, every Tom, Dick and Harry is pushing for their area of interest to be prioritised.
Where the trucking firms have a very good case, though, is the link they’re highlighting between the state of the roads and the financial impact it is having on all of us.
We’re not just talking about those of us who end up with damaged cars because of potholes and other hazards. We’re talking about the fact that 93 percent of goods in this country are delivered by truck.
Which means that, if a truck gets damaged, we all end up paying the price for it.
So, with the new Prime Minister saying he wants to make life cheaper for us, the trucking firms have taken the chance to point out that the appalling state of our roads is hitting pretty much everyone in the pocket. And it’s calling for change.
I think where things get a bit murky, is the fact that roads aren’t just the responsibility of central government.
Local councils are responsible for a lot of the roading network too. So this annual commitment the trucking firms want to ensure all roads that need fixing get fixed, couldn’t just rely on central government. Local government would have to be in on the act, as well.
But, either way, I’m with the trucking companies on this.
As for the long-term roading plan that they’re also calling for, I think something like a 10-year plan would be more realistic, and certainly more likely to get political support.
Because governments come up with 10-year plans for all sorts of things. Cutting the road toll. Getting rid of smoking. Why not a 10-year plan to make sure that the roads we have in the future are what’s needed and, more importantly, up to scratch.
Because, at the moment, they’re not up to scratch. Waka Kotahi has admitted as much recently with its plan to reduce speed limits all around the country.
It says 100 kph isn’t a safe speed for our roads. But what it actually means, is that our roads aren’t safe enough for 100 kph. And there is a difference.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This time last week I reckon even die-hard Labour supporters would have been starting to accept that Labour was looking like being dog tucker in the election later this year.
I don’t know how many times I had to remind myself that the party was only in its second term of government because, for quite a while now, it’s looked like a government nearing the end of its third term. Worn out and overly familiar.
Which was probably inevitable given the last few years we’ve been through and how, for much of that time, the Prime Minister and other ministers were on one of the highest rating TV shows day-in, day-out - the old one o’clock COVID briefings.
And, as it turned out last week, Jacinda Ardern wasn’t just “looking” worn out. She is worn out and is stepping down.
And yesterday, Chris Hipkins was confirmed as the new leader of the Labour Party and will be sworn-in as Prime Minister on Wednesday, with Carmel Sepuloni Deputy Prime Minister.
Straight away, Hipkins was talking about taking what he’s calling a "bread and butter" approach to fighting inflation. Or, as he’s putting it, the “inflation pandemic”. Which is, obviously, going to be Labour’s label for the cost of living crisis.
Which can be interpreted two ways. Either as just another one of these slogans that get thrown around all the time. Or another way of Labour saying that the cost of living crisis isn’t its fault - just like the COVID pandemic wasn’t its fault.
And that’s why I think Hipkins is talking that way. He was on Newstalk ZB this morning saying that inflation is a global thing, just like COVID is a global thing.
“Not our fault - but we’re here to help”. That’s the message that’s been coming through since he was confirmed as leader yesterday afternoon.
Although, if you heard Phil O’Reilly who used to run Business NZ on Newstalk ZB this morning, you will have heard him say that the Government isn’t completely innocent and some its spending is playing a part in inflation going northwards.
Which highlights to me the tricky balancing act Chris Hipkins has to deal with. For starters, he’s saying that he wants to look at policies and reforms that might not be essential to help deal with the inflation issue.
The public media merger and Three Waters are two that people are already saying should be taken off the table. And yes, that would mean less spending by the Government on one side of the ledger.
But, if Hipkins is true to his word, and the Government is going to help those struggling most in the current economic environment - I see that as a neon sign on top of the Beehive saying “more government spending on the way”.
Another thing Phil O’Reilly mentioned this morning was immigration and that if Labour wants to get business back on side it’s going to have to make it easier to get workers here from overseas sooner rather than later.
But with the election just under nine months away - and the time for the Government to make serious policy changes even shorter than that - Hipkins has a serious sell-job on his hands if he’s going to have any hope in hell of making sure he’s Prime Minister after October 14.
But I reckon he’s got a much better chance of doing that than Jacinda Ardern would have if she’d decided to stick around.
The other week, I was passing through Geraldine, in South Canterbury. I saw a ute on the side of the road with a sticker that looked like the old COVID signs.
But when I looked closer at it, I saw that it said “Ardern-23. Stop the virus”. And this is the head of steam that the former Labour leader would’ve been dealing with. Which, until late last week, probably had the most die-hard Labour supporters coming around to the fact that a third term in government for their party was looking very unlikely.
But Hipkins is not Ardern. Yes, as a lot of people have been pointing out, he has been a significant part of the Ardern regime. But he’s also a part of the Ardern regime that people seemed to have had a lot of time for. He’s become known as Mr Fix-It, hasn’t he? And people like that.
He’s also shown that he can laugh at himself a bit. And people love that. They loved that about John Key - and they love that about Chris Hipkins.
Which is why I think that with him as leader, Labour has a much better chance of winning the election than it did this time last week.
It’s not going to be easy for Labour by any means. But I reckon it’s on to a potential winner with Hipkins.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by some of our regular callers to the show, in studio. They discussed the year that has been and what means the most to them.
Listen to Don, Rich, Alby, Anne Marie and Cushla as they farewell 2022.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There's another report today of people being assaulted and having their property stolen after an incident at Christchurch's bus interchange.
Two young women have been struggling to sleep at night after being brutally assaulted by five young people when they were waiting for a bus.
The assault happened at a bus stop near Christchurch Hospital - but it followed an earlier incident at the bus interchange in the centre of town.
What happened, was two friends - an 18-year-old woman and a 20-year-old woman - had been in town last Sunday and were at the interchange waiting to get a bus home just after 9 o’clock in the evening.
This group of young people, who the women reckon would be between the ages of 12 and 17, came over to them and demanded to have a drink of some alcohol the two women had with them.
They said ‘no’, muttered a few things under their breath, some words were exchanged, and a security guard at the interchange saw what was going on and suggested the two women just get on a bus just to get away from the trouble.
They did that but realised pretty quickly that they weren’t on the bus they needed to be on, and so they got off outside Christchurch Hospital to wait for the bus they needed to catch to get home.
Unfortunately, the bunch of kids who had been hassling them at the interchange had walked in the same direction and when they saw the two women at the bus stop outside the hospital they crossed the road and came up to them.
One of the boys in the group started shouting at one of the women and started hitting her. And the girl that had been hassling them at the interchange, and two other boys, started yelling and kicking the other woman.
Long story short, they were both hit in the head and the stomach and it only stopped when an ambulance was going past, and the paramedic on board saw what was going on and intervened.
He checked for things like concussion - all clear on that front. But, as it’s being reported today, there won’t be any ongoing physical injuries but the psychological impact of what happened isn’t going away fast for these two victims.
One of the women has had anxiety attacks when she’s tried to talk about what happened on Sunday night and both women have been staying together at the same place ever since.
Aside from the vicious assaults, these mongrels robbed the two women and have been using an iPhone they nicked from one of them to message them on social media.
They’ve been using the victim’s TikTok account to send her taunting messages, telling her how much money they’ve made from selling her belongings, and telling her that what they haven’t sold - they’ve just dumped.
Here’s a quote from one of the messages these mongrels have sent one of the victims: “We just wanted to make some quick cash. No one was meant to get hurt”.
So I’m being polite calling them mongrels. There are other words I could use, but I’ll leave that to your imagination.
The thing is, this sort of thing - unfortunately - is not unusual. And it seems all year we’ve been talking about why kids these days seem to be getting involved in this kind of behaviour more and more.
When I saw the quote about these kids saying they only did what they did last Sunday night because they wanted to make some quick cash, it got me thinking about the materialistic world we now live in - and how we are all to blame for that.
We all want stuff, don’t we? Those of us who are lucky enough to be able to buy a house do that, and then there’s all the talk about getting a rental property. Then we want the iPhones, we want the holidays, we want the coffees, we want the dinners. We want want want.
So why should we expect the kids to be any different?
Only problem is, the kids don’t have the incomes we have. So what do they do? They help themselves to other people’s stuff. Which is what happened in central Christchurch last Sunday night.
But then I thought more broadly than that, And wondered whether it’s more than just our own materialistic obsessions that are to blame for what's going on.
Is it possible that as a society, in general, we have become so lenient that we are reaping what we’ve sown over the past 15-to-20 years?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Kiwi musician Greg Johnson is now based in LA, but is making his way back to New Zealand to perform at Selwyn Sounds next March, and he joined John MacDonald today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings.
They discussed Greg's various musical genres, his passion for music and why he's looking forward to coming back to the South Island.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Yesterday, the Christchurch City Council agreed to give its chief executive a $16,000 pay rise.
This time last year, she got a $18,000 pay rise.
And why? Because Dawn Baxendale is an asset to the council. That’s what mayor Phil Mauger says.
Let me quote him: “She is an asset to the council and we know everyone has had a tough year so we want to acknowledge her hard work.”
Do me a favour, Phil.
I’ll get back to Dawn Baxendale, but anyone who voted for Phil Mauger thinking spending by the Christchurch City Council was going to be brought under control must be feeling like they’ve been taken for a bit of a ride.
Remember all the talk about cutting the cloth? It seems to me that instead of cutting the cloth, the mayor and the rest of his councillors are more intent on fleecing the ratepayers. Because since this new Council was elected, it’s done nothing but rubber-stamp expenditure.
Cost blow-outs on swimming pools, beautifying the streets around the stadium site. Spend, spend, spend. And this pay increase for the chief executive is another example.
Now, in the grand scheme of things, for someone who earns around $500,000 a year - another $16,000 is a pretty small percentage. Three percent, actually. Just like the $18,000 increase this time last year was a small percentage.
Nevertheless, when you’ve got a mayor who said before the election that he thought inflation was one of the main challenges facing the people of Christchurch - then this extra $16,000 when ratepayers are facing a big hike in rates next year, just makes a mockery of all that talk.
And let’s not forget that Dawn Baxendale is the same council chief executive who said the other week that getting next year’s rates increase down to 5 percent was going to be “impossible”. That’s what she said.
I’ll quote Dawn Baxendale directly. She said: “To get anything at 5 percent would be, in my view, impossible. I’m being honest and upfront about that.”
Now, I don’t want to be completely ungenerous about all this, and I should acknowledge the fact that when the Covid pandemic hit, Dawn Baxendale did take a pay cut. Nevertheless, when the council is obviously struggling to get its costs under control - and is going to be passing those costs on to ratepayers - then it should be doing everything it possibly can to ease the burden.
Giving its chief executive a $16,000 pay increase is not an example of the council doing everything it can to ease the burden.
What’s more, when Dawn Baxendale said the other week that it would be impossible to get next year’s rate increase down to 5 percent, she said one of the things the council was dealing with was increased external costs.
Which is what the mayor talked about the other week when we asked him what had happened to his pre-election pledge to keep increases at around the 4 or 5 percent mark. Increased external costs - supply chain issues, the war in Ukraine - all the things that every organisation and business in the world is dealing with.
So you would think, wouldn’t you, that if you can’t control your external costs, you’d do your best to keep your internal costs down. And you could start at the top, and tell your chief executive that belts need to be tightened and there’ll be no pay increase.
But, oh no, Phil Mauger says Dawn Baxendale is an “asset” and her hard work needs to be acknowledged. And she’s getting a 3 percent increase.
But what about all the other council staff who work just as hard in their jobs? I know we bag council staff sometimes, but that place is full of good people. So what about them? I wonder how they’re feeling today.
If I was working there, I’d be saying if a pay increase is good enough for the chief exec - then it’s good enough for me too. And, really, who could argue with that?
And if that happens, what will our rates look like the year after next?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Do you remember when Parliament packed up shop this time last year and Jacinda Ardern thanked all of us for how we’d dealt with the whole COVID thing?
She wished us a wonderful break, and went on to say “you bloody deserve it”.
Yesterday, she took the language up a notch - calling ACT leader David Seymour “an arrogant prick”.
She said it after she’d been grilled by Seymour. She was taking her seat, made the comment to Grant Robertson and it was picked-up by the microphone on her desk.
So, obviously, it wasn’t something she’d intended Seymour or anyone else apart from Robertson to hear, but a New Zealand Herald journalist picked it up and “prick-gate” became a thing.
Seymour appears to have been quite gracious about it. The Prime Minister too was quick to apologise, sending a text to Seymour saying her mum had always told her if she didn’t have anything nice to say about someone, then she shouldn’t say it.
Advice we’ve all been given at some point in our lives, I’m sure. And advice most of us have probably ignored or forgotten at some point in our lives too.
Nevertheless, the Prime Minister wouldn’t have said it if Seymour hadn’t got under her skin - as he obviously did yesterday.
He’d been asking a series of questions on a range of issues from hate speech to school truancy. But it seems the bit that really got to her, was when Seymour asked the Prime Minister to give an example of her “making a mistake, apologising for it, and fixing it”.
She came back saying there have been a number of occasions where the Government has acknowledged it hasn’t got things perfect. She used MIQ, as an example, saying it would do things differently if it had to deal with another pandemic.
Which wasn’t really an answer to Seymour’s question. But then most answers don’t actually answer the questions in Parliament - unless, of course, they’re one of those patsy questions that politicians put to each other.
You know, the ones where they ask someone in their own party to explain how great they all are.
But they weren’t patsy questions Jacinda Ardern was being asked, and so she danced around Seymour’s question about a time in her life when she’d made a mistake, apologised for it, and fixed it; and when she’d finished dancing around it, went back to her seat, leaned in to Grant Robertson and said Seymour was “such an arrogant prick”.
When I was talking to people about it last night, they thought it was brilliant. I think mostly because these people agreed with the Prime Minister’s assessment of the ACT Party leader.
And I think too because they thought it showed the Prime Minister was just a normal person and when someone brasses her off, she makes it known.
It wouldn’t have been all that long ago, though, when a Prime Minister saying something like this in Parliament - even if it was an under-the-breath comment - would be considered outrageous.
These days, though, it’s not outrageous.
But the Prime Minister's response to Seymour’s questioning yesterday does raise the question as to whether she was being human like the rest of us - especially at this time of year when we’re all feeling a bit worn out.
Or whether we are starting to see the pressure the Government is under at the moment having an impact - even on the Prime Minister. Because I’m sure there have been plenty of times when she’s made exactly the same assessment of David Seymour’s character but has managed to either keep it to herself or keep it much more private than she did yesterday.
There’s all the stuff with Three Waters, the nutbar public media merger, losing the by-election in Hamilton West at the weekend, crime…truckloads of stuff she and her government are being criticised over.
So did she show that she’s human like the rest of us? Or was it a sign she's really feeling the heat? I think it was both.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
All I want for Christmas is a new Local Government Minister. Because, as far as I’m concerned, Nanaia Mahuta has blown it.
And I don’t think I can believe a word she says anymore. I suspect some of her government colleagues might be starting to feel the same.
It’s all to do with revelations that she continued to consider entrenching part of the Three Waters legislation, despite Cabinet ruling it out back in May. More than six months ago.
Three Waters, of course, being stormwater, wastewater and drinking water which, at the moment, local councils are responsible for.
But the Government thinks they aren’t up to the job and wants to set-up four new water authorities to take over. Which all goes back to 2016 when the water supply in Havelock North got contaminated and four people died and about 5,000 people became unwell.
So the Government is going all one-size-fits-all on it, and is taking control of Three Waters - stormwater, wastewater and drinking water - away from every council in the country.
Last week, the legislation required to establish these new water authorities passed its third reading in Parliament, meaning the coast is clear for the Government to press on with the Three Waters reforms.
There are other bills still to be passed, but the one that went through last week means we are on the way to having four new authorities in charge of stormwater, wastewater and drinking water around the country.
The two other bills yet to go through Parliament are a given because the Government has a majority in the House and can pretty much do what it likes.
So right up until the 11th hour last week, the Water Services Entities Bill included an entrenchment clause which was, apparently, put in at the last minute at the request of the Green Party.
What the entrenchment thing was meant to do was ensure there couldn’t be any privatisation of water services in the future, unless 60 percent of MPs supported it.
But there was a huge outcry from constitution experts because this sort of thing normally only applies to things like the voting age, not government policy.
And so when that all happened, the Government said ‘ooh, that was a mistake, that shouldn’t have been in there. We’ll take it out’.
I remember hearing Aysha Verrell saying on Newstalk ZB that Cabinet was taking collective responsibility and they were all moving on and there was nothing to see here.
Collective responsibility it would seem for what their Cabinet colleague - Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta - has been up to, which has prompted calls for her resignation.
Here's what National's Chris Bishop said on Newstalk ZB this morning: "Nanaia Mahuta has been donkey deep in cahoots with the Greens on this and, of course, that is in complete defiance of what the Cabinet had already agreed."
And Bishop is saying she can't get away with going behind the backs of her Cabinet colleagues for going into cahoots with Green Party MP Eugenie Sage on this entrenchment thing.
The same Eugenie Sage who I had thought, on the basis of what the Government’s been saying over the past week or so, only had this entrenchment idea at the last minute and somehow got it added in to the legislation.
But not so - as we are learning today.
Because it seems that Nanaia Mahuta and Eugenie Sage were looking into the entrenchment thing for about a month before the Bill went through Parliament. Despite Cabinet ruling it out more than six months ago.
Mahiuta even had government officials providing advice on it - she was going the whole nine yards. Which makes you wonder, doesn’t it, what these government officials must have been thinking when they heard the Government banging on about this entrenchment thing being a last minute mistake.
It beggars belief that the Government thought it could get away with such a cock and bull story. Well it got away with it for a few days - but it’s all out in the open now.
Nanaia Mahuta has been found out, and she has to resign. I’ve said previously that I think she’s the worst Foreign Minister we’ve ever had. She can now add Local Government to her list of non-achievements.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I can remember a time when it had to be a really stinking hot day for the seal on the roads to melt.
And those really stinking hot days were pretty much few and far between, which meant melting roads were few and far between too. These days, though, it’s a completely different story isn’t it?
The latest example in a long line of examples of roads falling apart came at the weekend when motorists in the Auckland area were advised to avoid a stretch of State Highway One after the tarseal started peeling and sticking to vehicles.
Tyres were clogged with tar and stones. An absolute shambles. At least 40 vehicles damaged.
I see the National Party is calling for compensation to be paid to people who got caught up in it all - through no fault of their own. And I actually think National’s on the money because, from the photos I’ve seen, these cars have been left in a real shambles.
Then we had Nick Leggett from the Road Transport Forum on Newstalk ZB this morning saying that the trucking industry has been putting up with this for quite a long time. With increased maintenance costs and all that because of the state of our roads.
But, of course, it’s not just truckies who are affected. And not just in terms of maintenance and cost, but safety-wise as well.
I don’t know how many times I’ve either hit a pothole, for example, or seen a pothole just in time and come away thinking how badly things could have gone.
Nick Leggett says some of the blame sits with Waka Kotahi - and he really questions whether the transport agency has the internal expertise to select the right people to do road building and road maintenance in New Zealand.
He’s also pointing the finger at the current government and previous governments for what he describes as “chronic underfunding of roads over a long period of time”.
Which is fine to say when we’re talking about state highways - which is what Waka Kotahi and central government is responsible for. But I think local councils are just as guilty. Because it’s our local councils that are responsible for roading and maintenance in their geographical areas.
I can remember talking with someone about the roads in Canterbury and the state they’re in, then later that same day jumping in the car and heading to Dunedin for a long weekend.
And all the way down to Dunedin on State Highway One - potholes, sides of the road falling away. Our main trunk line for cars, trucks and motorbikes and just a real shambles.
Then, when I got to Dunedin, I remember driving down George Street and it looked like the road was falling to bits left, right and centre. In fact, it didn’t just look like it. The road was falling to bits left, right and centre.
So, yes, Waka Kotahi and successive governments do carry some of the blame, but local authorities are just as much to blame.
And I know people bang on about climate change and roads being under a lot more pressure because of extreme weather and all of that. Which Nick Leggett acknowledged this morning. But does that mean they’re going to keep doing what they’re doing and hope that the roads hold up?
Because that would be insanity, wouldn’t it? If the conditions have changed - then change the roads accordingly. You would think that’d be the plan, wouldn’t you?
But no - we’ll just keep on doing things the way we’re doing them and just hope for the best. And, as long as we do that, we’ll see more of what we saw at the weekend with tarseal peeling away and causing all sorts of damage to tyres and undercarriages.
We’ll see more roads crumbling under the weight of all the heavy vehicles on our roads. And those of us in urban areas will still - at best - be avoiding potholes or dealing with the consequences of ending up in one.
And making our way through all the other hazards out there caused by what looks more and more like a broken roading system.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
So there’ll be no entrenchment, but the Government’s Three Waters reforms are still a dog’s breakfast.
Three Waters being stormwater, wastewater and drinking water which, at the moment, local councils are responsible for.
But the Government thinks they aren’t up to the job and wants to set-up four new water authorities to take over.
And yesterday, Labour MPs had the numbers in Parliament to get the first legislation required to establish these new authorities through its third reading without the Greens and without the Maori Party. The Greens pulled the plug because they don’t think the legislation goes far enough to prevent privatisation of water supplies.
Which means Three Waters is a done deal and we are on the way to having four new water authorities in charge of stormwater, wastewater and drinking water around the country.
There are two other bills yet to go through - but this is the one that had to pass first for everything else to happen. So, as far as the Government is concerned, with the water authorities happening, the whole thing’s happening. Because, as we saw yesterday, Labour’s got the numbers in Parliament - it’s got the majority - and it can do what it likes.
And yesterday, the Labour MPs all followed instructions and voted en-masse and Three Waters is a goer.
You may have heard Waimakariri mayor Dan Gordon on Newstalk ZB. He, of course, was one of three mayors who banded together last month to present an alternative Three Waters model to the Government. The other two were Christchurch mayor Phil Mauger and Auckland mayor Wayne Brown.
They said at the time that it wasn’t about them working against the Government - but wanting to work with it.
But it’s obvious, isn’t it, that the Government just said “yeah nah” - despite the Prime Minister saying at the time that the Government was “open to change”.
Dan Gordon said the Government doesn’t have a mandate for what it’s doing because it won the last election on the back of the Covid pandemic. He said it didn’t win the election because people were in love with its water reforms.
And even though the bill got through yesterday, Dan Gordon says the fact that it was only Labour MPs who voted for it shows how much opposition there is to it. And he’s not giving up.
Listening to Dan, it seems that his attention is now going to be away from the Government and on to National and ACT. Because he wants to make sure they don’t stray from their commitments to repeal and replace the Three Waters legislation if they become government.
And so, on the basis of that, he doesn’t think the fight is over. But it sounded to me like he’s thrown his hands in the air when it comes to dealing with the current government, and who could blame him?
He said: “It’s hugely disappointing that the Government has arrogantly pushed forward with this unpopular reform.
“There’s a better way, one that would have achieved consensus, and we were open and willing to sit down with the Government.”
He says he hears from people every day, who tell him that they are brassed off that the Government thinks locals having control over their assets isn’t the way to go - and that four new water authorities is going to be the gamechanger.
In case you’ve forgotten, by the way, why was it that the Government thought we needed a gamechanger in the first place? It was because of the issue in Hawkes Bay back in 2016 when four people died and 5000 people got crook because the water supply was contaminated.
That, as far as Labour is concerned, was enough of a reason to throw everything into the air. Although, over time it has come up with other excuses as well. Some of which have some credence.
Such as the struggle some really small councils have to keep on top of things with their water infrastructure, because they don’t have the population to generate the rates revenue that’s needed to run wastewater, stormwater and drinking water services.
But that’s not the case everywhere. In fact, in most parts of the country, it’s not the case. And despite huge opposition, the Government still wants to completely change the way wastewater, stormwater and drinking water services are run in this country. And it appears that nothing is going to stop it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Can you imagine how it must feel to be the parents who were told by the High Court that decisions regarding their son’s life-saving heart surgery are now out of their hands?
This is the wee boy who needs urgent surgery because he has a condition where one of the valves in his heart isn’t working properly, which means pressure and blood could back up and put pressure on his heart.
These parents will be absolutely gutted. So too will the people who have supported them since this all became public knowledge just over a week ago.
Which was when we learned that Health New Zealand was going to court because this wee boy's parents didn’t want him to receive blood during the operation donated by people who have had the Covid-19 vaccination.
So there were the medical people who wanted the go-ahead from the parents. And there were the parents, saying they’d only give the go-ahead as long as any blood transfusions done as part of the surgical process didn’t involve blood from people vaccinated against Covid.
This sort of thing is not a complete first. There have been issues over blood transfusions between doctors and people who follow the Jehovah’s Witness faith.
But, as far as we know anyway, this is the first case of issues arising in relation to people receiving blood taken from others who have had the Covid vaccination.
You’ll remember that the parents weren’t refusing outright to give permission for the surgery to proceed, they just didn’t want their son receiving blood from vaccinated people.
And they had told the doctors that they had 20 unvaccinated people they could call on - who were all prepared to donate blood - but the health authorities weren’t up for that. And they felt they had no option but to get the courts to intervene to see if that would get things moving and enable the operation to go ahead.
That’s all happened and the judge has ruled in the favour of Health New Zealand - which means the Court now has guardianship of the four-month-old and the operation will proceed.
This means any blood transfusions needed as part of the surgical process will be with blood donated through the New Zealand Blood Service - not the 20 non-vaccinated volunteers that the boy’s parents had said were ready and willing to donate.
When this all blew up just over a week ago, I was torn big time. I found it really easy to put myself in the parents’ position - not because I’m anti-vax or anything, also not because I’ve been through an experience anything like what they’re going through. Thankfully.
But who on earth would want to be forced into something being done to their child that they didn’t agree with?
This couple obviously have concerns about the Covid vaccine - whether it be based on science or ideology, who knows.
And it's being reported that medical people meeting with the parents were harangued by one of their supporters, who was trotting out the usual conspiracy theories. That certainly won’t have done them any good, in terms of trying to get the medical people on their side.
But, when it came down to it, they could have all the conspiracy theories in the world but things were left to the High Court. And the court has ruled on the side of the medical professionals.
And, even though I’ve got a huge amount of compassion for the parents in this situation; and, even though I know that they will be devastated by the court’s decision, I agree with it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you’re a Christchurch ratepayer, how do you fancy the idea of your rates going up by 70 percent over the next nine years?
That’s what the city council is grappling with and it’s just been advised that it should think about selling off some of its assets - because a 70 percent increase just isn’t sustainable.
That’s in a report that’s been done for the Council by an outfit called Northington Partners - which is an independent investment bank which gives advice to organisations like the council.
Not that you need to be a big financial brain to come to the conclusion that rates going up 70 percent over nine years isn’t sustainable - we could all tell the council that. But that’s what it’s been told by the big brains at Northingtons.
And so they’ve said to the council, you need to do something - you’re sitting on a truckload of assets with six trading companies, which Christchurch City Holdings looks after on behalf of the Council.
Yes, that Christchurch City Holdings that’s had all the issues recently with its short-serving chief executive. My understanding, though, is that this piece of advice from Northingtons has nothing to do with the chief executive debacle, but is more of a long-term view as to how the council might make better use of its assets.
And those assets are Christchurch International Airport, Lyttelton Port Company, Orion Energy, Citycare, Enable Broadband and Eco-Central Recycling.
It doesn’t own all of them outright. It’s got a 75 percent stake in the airport and 89 percent of Orion. But the rest, it owns the lot.
You might remember the council tried to sell CityCare back in 2016 and went to the market, but then decided not to sell. Which was the council’s politely pulling the plug after it didn’t get the offer it wanted.
It thought about selling assets earlier than that too when it was dealing with the insurance debacle after the earthquakes, when the penny dropped that it was woefully underinsured and needed some cash.
That didn’t go anywhere - but it’s why Deputy Mayor Pauline Cotter is saying today that she’s feeling a bit of deja vu with this latest idea that the council sell some of its assets to raise some cash and avoid hitting us ratepayers with huge rates increases.
And I think it’s fair to describe a 70 percent increase over nine years pretty huge, don’t you?
Pauline Cotter is one councillor who’s saying that she needs convincing on this one - pointing out that the city council has weathered storms before without selling assets.
Not that this is going to happen overnight. Tomorrow, councillors will meet to consider the recommendation and decide whether they want to take it further. If they say yes, let’s look into it, it’s likely to be another 18 months before any of its companies would actually go on the market.
And I gather we wouldn’t be looking at complete sell-offs. Partial sell-offs are more likely. And, as it’s being reported today for example, if the Council decided to keep just a 51 percent stake in each of the companies - it could expect to gain about $1.2 billion to reduce debt and invest in other assets.
My understanding, in relation to investing in other assets, is that the Christchurch City Council could, for example, invest in another port somewhere else around New Zealand that it thinks would be a good bet.
Another example would be Auckland Airport. Mayor Wayne Brown is talking about selling $2 billion worth of council shares in Auckland Airport, isn’t he? So if the Christchurch City Council sold some of its stakes in our airport, it could put money into Auckland Airport.
Which I actually think is an idea well worth considering.
The problem I have with asset sales, though - particularly if you do it to avoid rates increases, is that once the asset or the stake in the asset is sold, that’s it. The council could probably buy it back at some stage, but you’d end up paying more than you sold it for. And who knows what future pressures there are going to be that will push rates further north?
But I’d be a big fan of the Council being a bit more strategic with its investments. It’s a numbers thing. Over the past 10 years, its companies have provided a capital return of 7.8 percent. Which the people at Northington who have done this report describe as a “reasonable return” - that’s because the 7.8 is a bit less than the 8.6 percent capital return that the stock exchange has delivered over that time.
The more important figure for me, though, is projected future dividends - and it’s being reported today that the Council could expect a return of investment of less than 2 percent. Which kind of makes you wonder whether there might be any takers if the Council does decide to sell.
But for me - I think a partial sell-off definitely needs to happen. For several reasons. For starters, something has to be done to avoid rates going up 70 percent over the next nine years. If they’re looking at a 2 percent return on investment - there have to be better options out there to put our money into; and we have to get over this parochial, old hat idea that we must own a hundred percent of everything.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
So, five o’clock on Friday afternoon, it was announced that the big new Metro Sports Facility in Christchurch isn’t going to be finished anytime soon.
This is the massive building which, at the moment, looks like a stage at an outdoor rock concert. It’s looked like that for a while, actually.
So much so, that - to me anyway - it’s looked like not much progress has been made for quite some time.
And, as it turns out, not much has been happening and the completion date has been pushed out another two years. Originally, it was going to be finished by the end of last year - but it’s now expected to be finished in late 2024 and open to the public in early 2025. By that time, it will be 14 years since the February 2011 earthquake.
Which is worth noting because the Metro Sports Facility is one of the big anchor projects that Gerry Brownlee had in his blueprint for the city’s earthquake recovery back in the day.
There was also the Te Pae convention centre, which opened a year ago. Late. The bus interchange - which was one of the first cabs off the rank. So too was the Margaret Mahy Playground and the Justice Precinct.
The stadium is the other big one - and who knows when we’ll be rocking up to watch games there. In fact, I try not to even think about that because, then, you just start to think about all the other things that have been delivered way-later than first anticipated.
And the Metro Sports facility - or the Parakiore Recreation and Sport Centre, as it’s also known - is on the list. And as we now know, as of 5pm on Friday, it’ll be more than two years before anyone’s jumping in the pools, riding the hydroslides and using all the other facilities.
When it is done, it will be magnificent. But I do wonder whether there are so many other new pools either built or yet-to-be built in Christchurch, that it’ll be a bit like the central city and people will really need to be encouraged to come into town to use the big new facility.
But we don’t need to worry about that, just yet. Because that battle is more than two years away.
The outfit building the Metro Sports Facility is Otakaro - the government agency that delivered the convention centre.
I thought its explanation for the reason behind this latest delay was pretty telling. This was in the media release that came out at 4:59 on Friday afternoon.
Here’s what its chief executive John Bridgman said: “With its high water table, this site was always going to be a geographically perfect but geologically tough location to put a 5-metre
diving pool down into, and there has been a small amount of subsidence around one of the dewatering wells.”
Which means it’s a great part of town to have a facility like this one, but the land there isn’t so great. Which, in some respects, was always going to happen when the only reason it’s being built where it is, is because the Government back in 2011 was all about a blueprint design for the central city as part of the earthquake recovery.
And we had Gerry Brownlee and the rest of them wanting pretty pictures and a vision for what the new Christchurch would look like.
Which, of course, made sense back then - because we all needed a vision to hold onto and give us hope, didn’t we? But, as John Bridgman from Otakaro is saying, maybe the site chosen for the Metro Sports Facility wasn’t the best because when you start digging down five metres to put in a diving pool, you strike problems.
And the problem here, as we heard on Friday, is subsidence.
The other thing in Otakaro’s statement that caught my eye was John Bridgman’s comment about what this all means for costs and the budget.
He says while construction will take longer to complete, they have a fixed-price contract with the contractor and “any variations beyond the $317m already allocated will be worked through and agreed on with the contractor at a later date".
Now, look, I’m no construction expert - but how can you say you’ve got a fixed-price contract with the contractor in one breath, but then say any variations will be worked through with the contractor at a later date.
That doesn't sound like a fixed-price to me.
At this stage, $317 million is due to be spent on the facility. The Government’s putting in money, so too is the Christchurch City Council. The council’s contribution is capped - but let’s not hold our breath on that one.
In fact, let’s not hold our breath on the whole thing. But it raises the question, doesn’t it, as to whether or not we are any good here in New Zealand at delivering big infrastructure projects.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Whenever a child is murdered and I see their photo online or in the paper, I always find myself staring at it thinking ‘you poor little thing, how the hell did things go so wrong’.
And today there’s yet another little face I’ve been looking at, thinking exactly the same thing.
Today’s “poor little thing” is Malachi Subecz, who was five years old when he died in hospital in November last year after what’s being described as prolonged abuse by his caregiver. I’m hesitant about using that term “caregiver”, because it couldn’t be further from the truth.
But technically, Michaela Barriball was Malachi Subecz’s caregiver and she had been since the wee boy’s mother went to prison. His mother was jailed earlier in 2021 and he died in November 2021.
Barriball herself is now in prison, serving a 17-year sentence for murdering Malachi.
Now before Malachi died, his wider family had made multiple complaints to Oranga Tamariki because they were concerned for his safety. They were worried about Barriball.
But somehow, this so-called “caregiver” managed to pull the wool over Oranga Tamariki’s eyes and keep the wee guy living with her. She also resisted multiple efforts by his family to get custody of him.
So a report by an independent panel that looked into this tragedy came out yesterday, and here’s what the report said about how this so-called “caregiver’ stonewalled everything.
"At no time was the system able to penetrate and defeat Ms Barriball's consistent efforts to hide the repeated harm she was causing to Malachi that culminated in his murder."
One of the amazing things about that is that Oranga Tamariki normally falls over itself trying to get kids who need care living with members of their family.
But that enthusiasm wasn’t quite there in Malachi’s case and so Oranga Tamariki let him stay with the person who turned out to be his murderer. She wasn’t a caregiver, at all.
And so, this morning, Kelvin Davis was on Newstalk ZB. Kelvin Davis is the Minister for Children and so, when it comes to Oranga Tamariki and the care and protection of kids in this country, the buck stops with him.
There was a lot of stuff talked about and the Minister banged on about how many reports of concern Oranga Tamariki has to deal with every year - it’s about 70,000. And he banged on about no social worker going to work each day wanting to do a bad job. And he went on about how Oranga Tamariki has to get better at telling us its success stories, and how it’s committed to changing and doing things better. All the stuff you would expect him to say.
And he talked about the 14 recommendations the independent panel has made after reviewing the case, and how the Government is giving the green light to nine of them straight away and thinking about the other five.
And there was one, in particular, that really stood out to me. This is one of the recommendations that the Government hasn’t agreed straight away to implement. And it’s to do with police vetting.
The independent panel, in its report that it released yesterday, says it was ridiculous that Malachi’s so-called caregiver was never vetted by the Police and it’s saying this needs to change. And that when a sole parent is arrested or taken into custody, and their child needs to be looked after, the caregiver should be vetted by the Police.
Can you believe that, at the moment, that doesn’t happen? No police checks. Nothing. What an absolute disgrace.
But if I want to go on a school camp or coach a sports team, I have to go through a police check. It is just nuts.
Now I’m not saying that I don’t think police checks should be done on people like you and me if we want to get involved in something at school or with a sports club - anything where kids are involved.
But I’ve had police checks done on me before when I’ve been applying for a job that’s involved sitting in an office eight hours a day. No involvement with kids. None of that. But still needed a police check.
But, at the same time, if I’ve got a friend who can’t look after their child because they go to prison or they get crook - any situation where they can’t be around - if that happens and I want to put my hand up and become their child’s caregiver, there is no check done. No police vetting.
And when I heard Kelvin Davis talking about it this morning, I realised that our approach to police checks or police vetting is Mickey Mouse.
Because when you have a situation where we require someone who wants to work in an office or coach a sports team needing to go through a police check, but we don’t require the same for someone who wants to be the caregiver of a child - then there is no other way to describe it but, Mickey Mouse.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How often do you go into the central city in Christchurch?
I did a few things in town yesterday afternoon and, I’ve got to be honest with you, there were parts of it that were just dead.
There was a cruise ship in town yesterday and I saw a few of those people walking around the place but, as someone in one of the shops told me, even with the cruise ship here - the place was really quiet.
And it’s not just yesterday afternoon. I notice it a lot of the time.
Which fits in with the message the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce is sending the Government today about crime and anti-social behaviour here.
It’s written an open letter to the Government - signed by about 80 business people - saying ‘we’ve got a problem here’, just like Auckland and Hamilton, which seem to be getting all the attention, at the moment when it comes to crime.
And the Chamber of Commerce is saying that one of the consequences of what’s happening, is that the central city is suffering.
When Chamber of Commerce chief executive Liann Watson spoke on Newstalk ZB this morning, the thing that really stuck out to me was when she said people aren’t coming into the centre of town because they’re intimidated and scared of what goes on, on a daily basis. And we’re not just talking Friday and Saturday nights. It’s day and night - day in, day out.
As I say, I stuck around town for a bit yesterday and, one example I can give, is this guy I saw on Colombo Street - obviously off his nut on something - who was just screaming his head off.
Walking up and down the footpath. F-this. F-that. And I just thought, ‘man alive, I’m not gonna hang around - I’m gonna get my stuff done and get out of here’.
Because, just as much as I have compassion and feel so sorry for those poor sods who live and sleep on the streets, even I feel the sense of intimidation these people can create and I fully understand why that would put some people off. In fact, not just some people - a lot of people.
But I think we’d be dreaming if we thought the Government is going to solve this one for us.
Because, as far as I’m concerned, I think a key part of the problem is that with not enough people coming into town - those of us who do, feel outnumbered by the anti-social ones and the troublemakers.
I bet when you walk or drive down Colombo Street by Ballantynes, you very easily get the impression that there are more street people there than anyone else.
That’s what it feels like to me quite often. And I honestly think this is part of the problem as to why some people just don’t want to go into the central city in Christchurch. It’s a numbers game, as much as anything.
And if that spiral continues, then the Chamber of Commerce will be writing another open letter to the Government this time next year, saying exactly the same thing. People aren’t coming into town because they’re intimidated and scared - and, just like they are now, they’ll be asking the Government what it’s going to do about it?
Which is why I think the ball is in our court too. And it’s going to be up to us to be part of the solution which, for me, has to be doing whatever it takes to get more people to come into the centre of town on a regular basis.
Because if we can make that happen, then the prevalence of criminals and anti-social people will not be as obvious and - by virtue of that - not as threatening.
It’s your classic ‘safety in numbers’. Because, of course, if you come into town at the moment and you feel like you're in a bit of a ghost town - it’s natural that you feel outnumbered and unsafe.
And that’s why I think the solution to people not wanting to come into the central city because they feel it’s unsafe, doesn’t lie in just writing to the Government. We need some local solutions too
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This one is a real conundrum.
Health New Zealand is going to court today to get guardianship of a 4-month-old baby boy who needs open-heart heart surgery, but whose parents are refusing to give permission for him to receive blood during the operation that’s been donated by people who have had the COVID-19 vaccination.
And so the health authority wants guardianship so it can give the permission that’s required, which will allow the operation to go ahead.
So we’ve got the medical people wanting the go-ahead from the parents. And we’ve got the parents saying they’ll only give the go-ahead as long as any blood transfusions done as part of the surgical process doesn’t involve blood from people vaccinated against COVID.
This sort of thing is not a complete first, because we’ve seen before how the health system grapples with the likes of Jehovah’s Witness followers who do not support blood donations and transfusions.
But, as far as I’m aware anyway, this is the first time we’ve had parents denying a child medical treatment on the grounds that they don't want blood transfusions with blood donated by someone vaccinated against COVID.
And, if you’re a parent- like I am - you may feel some compassion for these people. Because we all like to think, don’t we, that we are the best people to make critical decisions for our kids.
And these parents must be feeling absolutely gutted that their anti-vax stance is being ridden roughshod over by Health New Zealand.
You imagine it, you’ve got this beautiful four-month-old baby boy that you’ve brought into the world. A baby you hope will, one day, share your values in life. But your values - no matter how extreme others might consider them to be - are rejected when it comes to what you think is best for your child.
So those parents today know that the health system is going to court to get guardianship of their child because the system thinks it knows what’s best.
Reports I’ve seen say the New Zealand Blood Service doesn’t keep blood donated by people who have been vaccinated separate from blood donated by people who haven’t been vaccinated.
Although, someone here at work who is a regular blood donor tells me that you are asked whether you’ve had any vaccinations in the past 12 months when you turn up to donate blood.
What’s more, this couple say they’ve got 20 potential people lined up ready to donate, who are COVID vaccine-free.
But Health New Zealand has said ‘no thanks’ and is heading to court today to start the process of trying to get guardianship of the baby so it can decide what’s in the child’s best interests. Which, if the court rules in its favour, will mean the parents wishes being overridden.
So we’ve got parents of a four-month-old baby who, obviously, have very strong views. And, while they think they are making the best decision for their child, they’re being told that they aren’t - and may lose guardianship of their baby because of it.
Now if you think I’m sounding like I’m supporting the parents’ position on this one. I’m not.
I’m just sympathetic to the position they’re in, with their baby boy thought to be in Starship Hospital needing surgery because he has a condition where one of the valves in his heart isn’t working properly - which means pressure and blood could back up and put pressure on his heart.
Which is likely to mean, doesn’t it, that this family is dealing with one of those situations we talk about where life-or-death decisions have to be made.
It’s also one of those terrible situations where the rights of parents have to be weighed against the rights of a child to receive urgent medical treatment.
And when I consider it in that way - even though I have huge sympathy for the parents who must feel like their whole world is being turned upside down - I think, on this occasion, the rights of the child to receive medical treatment has to come first.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There’s a saying I refer to when someone tries to deny there’s a problem by putting up a whole lot of stats as some sort of defence or excuse.
And that is exactly what we’ve got happening in relation to crime in Christchurch.
The saying goes like this: “People don’t care what you know, until they know that you care.”
Which is the message I’m giving to Canterbury area police commander Superintendent Lane Todd.
Now Lane is a good guy. I don’t know him personally or socially, but I had quite a bit to do with him quite a few years ago when he and I were working in the same town.
Nevertheless, he has well and truly fallen into the trap of minimising our concerns about crime here in Christchurch - and not just in Christchurch, the whole Canterbury area - by trotting out statistics.
His take on crime here is at complete odds with the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce which is saying that the city’s reputation and economy is at-risk because of the criminal activity that’s happening.
What they’re saying is that criminal and anti-social behaviour is being left uncontrolled and that could have a lasting impact on Christchurch’s reputation.
And saying that people are telling them they don’t want to walk through the city because they think it’s too dangerous.
Lane Todd from the police, meanwhile, is saying the data tells a different story. He’s saying that the level of crime in the city is on a par with what it was before the pandemic.
He’s also saying that the population of Christchurch has increased by 20,000 in the past four years and so, of course, with more people - there’ll be more crime.
But statistics don't tell the whole story. Because they only reflect the things that are actually reported to and investigated by the Police, don't they?
The stats that lane Todd is throwing around don’t reflect the fact that people just don’t feel as safe as they used to. And that’s not just me saying that - the Chamber of Commerce is saying that too.
The stats that Lane Todd is throwing around don’t reflect the fact that a lot of people just don’t bother reporting things to the Police because they know the backlog of jobs is so long, that it’s just not worth it.
Another thing the stats don’t represent, are the truckloads of people that you hear about who contact the Police about something happening and are told that, because there’s no actual crime being committed, they can’t do anything.
An example of that would be the business owner we spoke to a few weeks back who has this known sex offender standing outside his shop just down the road from the central police station on a regular basis.
This guy freaks out the female staff who work at the shop, but the business owner rings the Police and they're either a no-show or they say they can’t do anything because the guy’s not breaking any law when he stands on the street staring at them.
Which is all very well but, surely, if we had more regular patrols on the streets this kind of anti-social behaviour could either be shut down or would certainly happen less often.
And that’s where the Canterbury area police commander is way off the mark. Because anti-social behaviour can be just as harmful as criminal behaviour, can’t it?
And yes, the stats might back up his claim that crime hasn’t spiked. But the stats are only part of it.
And I’m with the Chamber of Commerce on this one and I think if the Police are just going to trot out statistics as a reason why we shouldn’t feel unsafe walking through town, then we’re going to know a hell of a lot about what the Police know - we’re also going to start to think that they don’t care.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch mayor Phil Mauger has some answering to do.
The first question he has to answer, is how does he think he’s going to get away with his statement over the weekend that keeping rates increases to four percent or less next year is going to be a challenge?
Because this is the guy who said before the local body elections last month that he would be the man to keep rates increases down. At various times during the election campaign he talked about rates increases no higher than three percent, four percent, or something in line with the rate of inflation.
None of these are looking likely, with Phil Mauger saying - now that he’s mayor - that it’s going to be very difficult to deliver what he promised voters, which was to keep rates increases to an absolute minimum.
Which some people believed. Or probably, more correctly, wanted to believe. While everyone else knew he was either dreaming or talking absolute nonsense.
And so now, with the city council beginning work on next year’s budget, we’ve got the new mayor saying: 'er, actually, about that four percent rates increase…ah, no can do, sorry'.
A report over the weekend said city councillors have been given an “indicative range” for next year’s rate increase, understood to be between 12 percent and 14 percent.
And so here’s what the mayor had to say about his promise to keep rates down: “It is going to be challenging, that’s going to be very challenging because of what’s happening globally.”
I mean, do me a favour. Because what he’s talking about there are all the problems caused by COVID and the war in Ukraine. The old “supply chain issues”.
But hello, these supply chain issues were a thing well before Phil Mauger became mayor. The war in Ukraine was happening well before the election last month.
It was all happening when he was running around town promising to keep rates increases at between three and four percent. Running around town, when he knew full well that what he was promising was impossible.
So that’s the first thing he’s going to front up on.
The second thing, is this U-turn he’s doing on the $33 million being spent on roads around the site of the new stadium, Te Kaha.
Over the weekend, we had some of the biggest names behind the revival of Christchurch’s central city coming out and condemning the city council for this ludicrous piece of work. Property developers who have poured truckloads into new developments in town. The Central City Business Association is involved, as well.
Now previously, the mayor said he opposed it and claimed that he’d stopped it. Not the case, and the council plans to press on.
Granted, Phil was probably blind-sided by this one a bit given the council launched its consultation process on day one of his mayoralty. But it seems he’s been talked around by the council planners.
So what does he have to say to the central city business people and the developers who have come out fighting against this nutbar idea of the council’s?
Then there are some of his other election promises. The temporary hospital car park in Hagley Park. That was going to be done before Christmas.
And what about the roving pothole maintenance crew? They were going to have carte blanche permission to just fix things when they saw things that needed fixing. No permission required. Because they were going to be all about getting stuff done.
You may be one of the 53,000 people who voted for Phil Mauger, and you may have done so on the basis of his commitment to keep rates increases as low as three or four percent.
So how do you feel about him saying over the weekend that that’s unlikely, and that double-digit rates increases are actually more likely next year?
And, more broadly - whether you’re a Christchurch resident or not - how would you rate your trust in politicians full-stop?
Because it’s not just the mayor of Christchurch saying one thing and doing another.
Also over the weekend, we learned that the Labour Party and the Green Party used last week’s urgency in Parliament to tweak the Three Waters legislation to make it as difficult as possible for any future government to pull the plug on it.
This was all done on-the-fly and without any public announcements or discussion. Despite all the talk and reassurances from the Government that it is the most open and transparent government we’ve ever had.
Again, do me a favour.
LISTEN TO THE FULL INTERVIEW ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
So, after failing miserably with Kiwibuild, the Government thinks the solution is to let people squeeze more places onto single sections.
Which is why it wants councils around the country to start letting people build three, three-storey properties on one site.
Which is something the last Christchurch City Council - before the recent local body elections - flipped the bird at, and told the Government it would not be approving and implementing the new housing density rules.
Not surprisingly, the Government hasn’t taken “no” for an answer and has brought in what it’s calling a “mediator” to work through the issues. But we all know, don’t we, that when a government says it’s working through the issues, it actually means it’s doing what it needs to do to get what it wants.
So we’ve got something of a stand-off. The Government wants people to be able to build three, three-storey properties on a single section and the Christchurch City Council doesn’t. It thinks Christchurch is a special case and needs to be treated like one.
And the mediator - or the enforcer - has been brought in by the Government to bang some heads together and get its way. And we are learning a bit more about the enforcer’s terms of reference.
As part of his “investigation” (as the Government’s calling it), the Enforcer is only being required by the Government to speak to three groups of people: city council staff, city councillors and Ngāi Tahu.
But residents - or, in particular, residents groups, appear to have been left out.
More than 20 residents’ associations wrote to the city council a while back, calling on it to reject the Government’s intensification plan. And, to its credit, the council did just that.
But it appears the Government isn’t quite as interested as the council was in what the residents’ associations have to say because they’re not included in the terms of reference for the investigator or “the enforcer’s” work.
Which I think is wrong. On several fronts. Firstly, because the Council that said “no” to housing intensification just over two months ago isn’t the same council today.
There are six new councillors around the council table following the recent local body elections and we have no idea what these six new councillors think about intensification.
They’re going to be able to tell the Enforcer where they stand, but we will be none the wiser.
Secondly, if it wasn’t for the residents’ associations banding together and lobbying the city council, we possibly wouldn't be in the situation we’re in at the moment because it’s quite possible that the Council wouldn’t have told the Government where to go if it hadn’t had a rev up from residents groups.
And, therefore, it’s only right that these groups have their chance to have some sort of input into the Government’s investigation process.
Tony Simons from the Riccarton Bush-Kilmarnock Residents’ Association is in the news today saying he doesn’t expect the Government’s investigator to consult every resident but thinks at least a group representing residents’ groups should be included. And I couldn’t agree with him more.
The other reason why I think residents need to have input, is that I’m not seeing any evidence of this new open and transparent council we were promised ahead of the local body elections.
Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger is saying he thinks there should be some form of public participation, but he doesn’t want to do widespread consultation.
Let me quote the Mayor: “If you open it up, the next thing you’ve got 300 residents coming forward to you. You would be an old man before you ever got anything finished.”
Well, I’m sorry Phil, you saying there “should be” some form of public consultation isn’t enough of a reassurance for me. Because we’ve seen before, haven’t we, how good the Government is at getting well ahead of itself - even when everyone else thinks it’s still in a consultation phase.
Three Waters is a prime example. Remember former Christchurch mayor Lianne Dalziel being blindsided by the Government pressing on with Three Waters when she thought it was still considering the views of the advisory group she’d been a part of?
And that is exactly what will happen here, if we’re not careful. It’s all very well the mayor saying there “should be” public consultation, but what he needs to be doing is demanding that the Government include it in its terms of reference for its Enforcer.
Because, at the moment, it’s only requiring that council staff, city councillors and Ngāi Tahu be spoken to. There’s a line in the terms of reference about the Enforcer talking to other stakeholders - if relevant. Which is just weasel words, isn’t it?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
After a 20-year battle, New Zealand band Tadpole has finally gained access to its recordings and today is releasing a special four-album compilation.
Best known for hits such as ‘Alright’, ‘Better Days’, ‘Blind’ and ‘Backdoor’, lead singer Renee Brennan joined John MacDonald on the show today to talk about looking back at Tadpole's days of rock, and the impact the music had on her and the band.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to Gerry Brownlee and Poto Williams for Politics Friday about housing density and mediation, Three Waters by Christmas being a possibility and who is going to fix our rising crime rate?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Yesterday, Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr announced another hike in the official cash rate, taking it to the highest level since 2008.
So, in technical terms, it’s now at 4.25 percent - up 75 basis points from what it was this time yesterday.
And when you hear economists talking about it and getting all breathless about numbers, it can start to get a bit blah, blah, blah on it, can’t it.
That’s until you think about the realities behind the numbers - and there were two that came crashing home to me yesterday.
The first was to do with mortgage rates and my initial relief that we’re still on fixed term for quite a few months yet. But when that fixed-term ends, there’s going to be quite a shift upwards.
That day of reckoning will be coming sooner rather than later for a lot of people. You might be in that boat yourself.
The other thing that came crashing home, was how stupid one of Adrian Orr’s comments were.
This is a chap who has just been signed up for another five years as Reserve Bank Governor, and who will earn truckloads for each of those years.
Now I’m not begrudging him that - because Governor of the Reserve Bank is a big job and, if you heard him on Newstalk ZB this morning, you would have heard his thinly-veiled comments about the impact government policy has had over the last few years on his ability to control inflation.
Remember the days when the Reserve Bank’s job was to keep inflation at zero-to-two percent? That seems a long time ago, doesn’t it?
So a tough job being Reserve Bank governor but I couldn’t believe it yesterday when he stood up, announced the cash rate hike and then told us we need to stop spending and start saving.
Now, I know the stats are saying that a lot of us are rushing out on a regular basis and buying stuff. TVs, holidays, renovations - all of those things.
But, at the same time, I don’t think I can recall a time when there’s been so much concern about what it’s costing just to live day-to-day in this country.
Yes, I know there were times when people were paying massive mortgage rates - not just double digits, people even talk about mortgage rates up around the 20 percent mark, don’t they?
But life is just so expensive these days and I couldn’t believe it when Adrian Orr stood on the Reserve Bank pulpit yesterday and said we must stop spending money and start saving.
Because, really, who saves money these days?
Or, should I say, who can afford to save money these days? You’ve got the mortgage - or rent, if you don’t own your house - you’ve got grocery bills. The list goes on: fuel, cellphone bills, school donations, childcare costs .
And now we’ve got the prospect of mortgage rates going up and - not just that - the prospect of the country going into a recession sometime next year.
So all of this is happening, and Mr Reserve Bank stands up yesterday, announces things are going to get even worse, and then tells us we need to stop spending and start saving.
Personally, I can probably think of things that we could choose to stop spending money on. But they wouldn’t be gamechangers.
Because, like you, I've got no choice over what I pay for fuel. No choice over what I pay for groceries. No choice over what I pay for electricity and gas. No choice over how much I pay to go to the doctor.
Which is why I think the 'stop spending, start saving' message we got from Adrian Orr shows how out of touch with reality the Reserve Bank is.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Yesterday, health authorities announced a delay in the decision whether to close an in-patient mental health unit at Hillmorton Hospital, in Christchurch.
There are 15 beds at the Tupuna ward and there’s a proposal to close it because Hillmorton only has about half the number of staff needed to run it.
Tupuna is what’s called an “extended care unit”, and is for people with mental health issues who need care longer than people who can be looked after at the acute inpatient unit.
It provides 24-hour care - but it’s facing closure because of staff shortages. The plan, at this stage anyway, is to shut it down and move patients into community placements or other in-patient units.
About 13 staff are affected but they will all be offered other roles if the closure goes ahead.
Not surprisingly, a lot of staff at Hillmorton have made submissions on the proposal and so the Health Authority says it needs more time to consider what staff have said in their submissions and to then decide whether to go ahead with the closure or not.
All this is happening at the same time as we learn today that, despite investing $1.9 billion into mental services in the 2019 Budget, the Government has failed to deliver any new beds for acute mental health services.
On Newstalk ZB this morning, Health Minister Andrew Little was explaining it away, saying that the most demand is coming from people with low to mid-range mental health issues and he reckons the Government is delivering on that front.
But is it really? I mean, how many times do we hear people saying they have to wait months to get an appointment with a mental health specialist? You may have been in that boat yourself. Or someone you know and love might be in that situation.
And so, because of that, I didn’t find Andrew Little’s reassurances all that comforting or believable.
Where I did believe him, was when he said that the hold-up in delivering these promised mental health beds was due to projects for new facilities getting bogged down by bureaucracy.
I know a bit about this, because I’ve had first-hand experience of how these projects - especially in the public sector - get snowed under by every Tom, Dick and Harry poking their oar in and pouring over charts and multiple business cases and consultation. And, in health, it seems particularly bad.
So, yes Minister, I believe you when you say delivery of these projects has been a dog’s breakfast.
But what these faceless people who are responsible for these beds not being delivered, who go into the flash offices everyday sipping on the flat whites, who sit through endless planning meetings - what they need to realise, is they have blood on their hands.
So too does the Government. Because Finance Minister Grant Robertson made all the right noises when he delivered the Budget back in 2019, and banged on about putting mental health front and centre of the health system, not keeping it on the edges but front and centre.
And not just that, he said “to every mother, father, brother, sister or friend who has seen their nearest and dearest suffer, the Government has heard the call and has responded”.
But, in the time since he trotted all that out, how many people have we lost in this country because their mental health issues have become too much for them?
How many people’s lives have been turned completely upside down, because of what their family has had to deal with - either through the loss of someone or just trying to get help for someone.
Not to mention the people themselves who, through no fault of their own, find themselves suffering from mental health issues and just don’t know where to go or what to do.
Which is why, when I consider whether the Government has failed us when it comes to mental health, I have to answer yes.
Because if it wasn’t failing us, we wouldn’t have this situation where $1.9 billion was promised but - three years down the track - the number of acute mental health beds is exactly the same.
If the answer wasn’t yes, we wouldn’t have Hillmorton Hospital looking at closing down its 24-hour extended care unit.
And if the answer wasn’t yes, we wouldn’t have experts telling us that we have a mental health crisis in this country.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I love it how when a 16-year-old does something like ram-raiding a shop or stealing a car, people bang on about them being old enough to know that what they did was wrong and how they made the decision to do whatever they did.
But then if we talk about voting, suddenly 16-year-olds have got no idea. Not capable of making decisions on their own, too young, no life experience.
And that’s exactly what we’ve been hearing from some people since the Supreme Court announced its view that not letting 16 and 17-year-olds vote here in New Zealand breaches the Bill of Rights.
And quick smart, following on from that, the Government has announced that legislation to reduce the voting age from 18 to 16 will be drawn up and considered by Parliament.
In some respects, it’ll be something of an academic exercise because, already, the National and ACT parties have made it clear they won’t support any change and so there won’t be the 75 percent support in Parliament that’s required to change the voting age. For parliamentary elections, anyway.
But it’s not so academic when it comes to local body elections. Because only 50 percent support is needed in Parliament for that to happen and, as the numbers stand at the moment, Labour could get that one across the line.
And I think they should do it.
I’m not the only one who thinks that. You may remember that, not that long ago, the organisation that represents local councils all around the country - Local Government New Zealand - came out after the recent local body elections and said it thought the voting age in council elections should be changed from 18 to 16.
And one of the main concerns people expressed back then, was that 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds are all a bunch of woke lefties and if they were allowed to vote they’d all vote for the Greens and Labour and we’d all be off to hell in a handbasket.
Funny thing is, I was talking to the teenagers at home last night and they were saying how a lot of kids have apparently been saying they’d support ACT if they were allowed to vote, because they like the videos David Seymour does on Tik Tok.
Which just goes to show, doesn’t it, that whatever age you are - your decision to vote for a particular person or party can be made on the shallowest basis.
And that, in no way, is limited to 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds.
In some ways, those of us who are a bit long in the tooth are potentially the worst offenders when it comes to shallow voting decisions. Because, unlike 16 year-olds and 17-year-olds, we are focused on the here and now. What’s in it for me.
Potentially, the younger you are, the more likely you are to support candidates who are prepared to take the long view and not just dish out lollies for gullible voters to suck on.
In my experience, the 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds of today are so much more advanced in their ability to think more broadly about the world around them than I ever was at their age.
Which is where I think the problem lies in terms of convincing a lot of people that someone who is 16 has the capacity to choose who to vote for. Because, naturally, we think back to what we were like when we were their age, and a lot of us probably think we wouldn’t have had a clue back then and assume the teenagers of today are no different.
But is that really a good reason to oppose changing the voting age? Because of our memories of what we were like and how we thought about things when we were young? I don’t think it’s a good reason at all.
What’s more, people in prison serving sentences of less than three years are allowed to vote. That’s been happening for a couple of years now in New Zealand. And you could say, couldn’t you, that someone convicted of a crime has shown they are incapable of making good decisions. Yet, we let them vote.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It was a shocking weekend on the roads, wasn’t it?
Lives ended and other lives changed forever. And, yet again, we’ve got the police saying - as they have time and time again - that their road safety messages just aren’t getting through.
These are the messages we’ve been told for years now: don’t drink and drive, drive to the conditions, slow down, wear your seatbelt. All the usuals.
And we’ve been told these in all sorts of ways from the gruesome TV adverts which experts then said don’t work because people just switch off; to a more softly softly approach; to the Road to Zero adverts we’ve got now with all of those people climbing out of the car.
If there’s one ad that does, at least, get my attention - it’s the one with the guy pulling up to the road toll booth and asking the creepy guy inside what’s going on, and he says it’s a road toll and when the driver asks how much - the creepy guy says something along the lines of “just the little one today”.
It gets my attention. But I can honestly say that it never enters my mind when I’m out on the road. Nor does the other one with all the people climbing out of the car. Nor does the Road to Zero slogan, actually.
Of course, I like to think that I’m a careful driver. But how much I can put that down to all the road safety advertising I’ve been hit with over the years, I don’t know. Probably not a lot, actually.
I think just wanting to keep myself and anyone else travelling with me safe, is why I do what I can to avoid trouble.
But, of course, not everyone is like that and so, for years, the Government and its agencies have been pouring truckloads of money into advertising to ram home some pretty basic road safety messages.
But after the seven tragedies over the last tewo days, we’ve got the police saying today that those messages just aren’t getting through.
Sadly, though, this won’t be the last time that we hear this from the police. Because the Government and Waka Kotahi will continue to pour truckloads of money into its advertising campaigns - even though we’ve got the police today pretty much saying that they don’t work.
If they did work, we wouldn’t be talking about seven people dying on the roads in just a couple of days.
Which is why I’m more than convinced that the Government and Waka Kotahi need to come up with something different. Stop wasting money on ads that don’t work, and spend it in a way that’s likely to have much greater impact.
If you need convincing that the Government has got things way out of kilter, consider this. It’s spending $2 billion on its Three Waters project, because 45 people were hospitalised and four people are thought to have died because of contaminated water supplies up in Hastings. $2 billion. And we all know, it’ll be a lot more than that.
So 45 people end up in hospital and four people are thought to have died, and the Government spends $2 billion.
Nearly twice as many people die on the roads in just a couple of days and, overall, the road toll this year is looking set to be one of the worst in years. Yet what does the Government do? Pour money into advertising that isn’t working and hasn’t worked for years.
Which is why I’m saying that the Government and Waka Kotahi need to pull the plug on the ads and put some decent money into making our roads safer.
For me, the best thing they could do is spend money on median barriers. Not just on the highways, either. I reckon median barriers on some of the busiest urban streets as well would be a gamechanger.
If there were median barriers in these areas, you wouldn’t get these idiots racing out of the intersections and doing those stupid right-hand turns that put them and others in danger.
So that’s one thing that I think the Government should be doing, instead of wasting money on advertising that the Police are saying today isn’t working.
Because after seven deaths in just a couple of days, it is time to do things differently - way differently - if this Road to Zero thing is going to be anything more than just a bonanza for the advertising agencies.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
At the same time the National Party was announcing its plan for boot camps and ankle bracelets for young offenders from the age of 10, a 14-year-old Christchurch boy was in the Youth Court admitting 48 criminal charges after a spate of car thefts and assaults in the city last month.
You’ll remember all the stuff that was going on. Some this kid was involved in, some he wasn’t. And the stuff he was in court admitting to yesterday was over-and-above other charges from earlier in the year.
So, for all intents and purposes, he is a kid out of control, isn’t he?
And he’s the type of kid the National Party has in its sights with its boot camp and ankle bracelet policy.
Because he’s 14, this guy would be too young to go to boot camp but he would probably end up wearing an ankle bracelet. We got in touch with the National Party to confirm that but they said they don’t comment on specific cases.
But I think it’s safe to assume that this boy would be at home with a bracelet around the ankle if National policy was in place.
Now, is it just me, or have the photos of Christopher Luxon that the media have used in the past 24 hours made him look like a bit of an enforcer? No coincidence - but then, I don’t imagine he will be too upset.
After all, he and Mark Mitchell want to look tough on this one because they know people have had a gutsful of crime.
Not surprisingly, National’s political opponents and others are saying that boot camps and ankle bracelets aren’t the answer, and they’re accusing National of living in the past and not just rehashing old policy, but repeating a policy or an approach they say hasn’t worked previously.
But, of course, the people who don’t like what Luxon and Mark Mitchell have come up with don’t seem to be able to come up with an alternative of their own.
And they’re pointing to statistics that suggest previous attempts at this sort of thing haven’t stopped young people from offending again - and so National’s opponents are saying ‘case closed’ - it hasn’t worked before, so it won’t work this time around either.
But my view is that sometimes you just have to give things a go. And when it comes to criminal offenders, you’re never going to come up with the perfect solution.
I know people talk about wraparound services and holistic approaches, but when you’ve got businesses being done over night-after-night, people’s cars being stolen night-after-night, houses being broken into every day and every night, teenagers at the malls getting hidings, people being knocked of their bike by idiots in stolen cars - when you’ve got all that happening, surely it’s worth giving things a go.
Because, at the moment, we have a youth justice system that could quite reasonably be called a dismal failure. That’s because the majority of kids that go through the Youth Justice system re-offend.
So, obviously, we cannot claim that sticking the really bad ones in these facilities has been a huge success, so why not try something else?
Chances are not even boot camps and ankle bracelets will get them some of these kids on the straight and narrow. Because some of them are so damaged and desperate, that they are beyond help.
But, surely, even if the idea of a boot camp sounds old-school, or like something out of the 1950s, or not liberal enough for the 21st Century, what’s the harm in giving it a go?
And sure, the idea of an ankle bracelet on a 10-year-old does sound extreme - but the kids that would be wearing these things would be extreme cases.
Again, why not give it a go? Because even if it stops one kid from re-offending and avoiding a lifetime of crime, it’s worth a shot, isn’t it?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by Megan Woods and Gerry Brownlee for Politics Friday.
They discussed National's policy to deal with youth offenders, and if Labour has any other ideas on how to deal with our rising youth crime. Are there more police on the beat in the CBD now after the Prime Minister's promise last year, and the Government has appointed a mediator to work with the City Council around housing intensification plans.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When it comes to having a view or an opinion it can, sometimes, come down to what you really think versus what you think you should think.
I suppose a better way of putting it is ‘head versus heart’ or ‘logic versus gut instinct’.
And this is how I’m feeling after reading an opinion piece on nzherald.co.nz written by Cheryl Adamson, who is general manager of the Parnell Business Association, in Auckland.
She’s calling out the Government, saying that it needs to start weighing-up the cost of not locking-up repeat criminal offenders against the cost that’s being placed on businesses and the wider community, as a result.
As she says in her article, the average cost of housing a prisoner is nothing compared to the financial burden being placed on communities affected by crime.
Retail crime, for example, is estimated to cost the country about $1 billion a year. Or, more specifically, costs retailers about a billion dollars a year.
Then there is the cost of policing all these people who, Cheryl Adamson thinks, should be either locked up in a prison facility or housed in some sort of mental health facility.
She talks in her article about the cost of running the justice system and how repeat offenders just add to that cost. And she talks about the emotional cost of crime on the community.
She also talks in her article about kids not feeling safe, and depression and anxiety that people can suffer because of criminal activity going on around them.
The final point she makes is that crime in this country is starting to have an impact on our international reputation, which will have a negative flow-on effect for our tourism and education sectors.
And do you know what? I don’t think I can argue with anything she says. And this is where I get to the ‘head versus heart’ or ‘logic versus gut instinct’ thing.
Because, like you, I’ve heard all the theories about prison needing to be the absolute last resort if we want to steer someone away from a life of crime.
And I fully get the argument which says ‘why would you want to send someone - especially a young person - somewhere where they’re just going to be hanging out with criminals night and day?’
And yes, in my head, that all makes perfect sense. So my head tells me that if that argument all makes perfect sense, then I should be shouting down the likes of Cheryl Adamson from the Parnell Business Association.
My head tells me that what she’s saying is just knee-jerk and playing into the rhetoric of the likes of David Seymour from ACT and Mark Mitchell from National and the Sensible Sentencing Trust - and all those people who bang on about locking people up and throwing away the key.
But, after reading this opinion article, my logic is taking a back seat to my gut instinct. My heart is telling my head to move out of the way.
Because even though I get the argument against locking people up, I just think that when you consider the financial burden and the devastating social impact criminal activity is having on our businesses and our communities, then I can’t argue with the views in this article on the Herald website.
Of course, I don’t think locking-up more people is going to be the silver bullet.
Of course, I don’t think crime is going to disappear if every repeat offender is put away for a while. Of course, someone who goes inside for a while could very well come out worse than when they went in.
But, when you consider what the behaviour and activities of these criminals is doing to our society - the financial cost and the social implications - I’m going to go with my gut instinct.
That is to say that Cheryl Adamson from the Parnell Business is right when she says that the burden is falling way too heavily on those of us who aren’t criminals.
And as she says in her article today: “We need a brave leader who is willing to count the cost and invest in systems and facilities to curb crime".
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Gin Wigmore is part of the star-studded line up at Selwyn Sounds next March, and spoke about how the death of her father impacted her music career and helped her to win an international music competition.
They discussed how her path has led her to the United States, and how much she is looking forward to performing in Canterbury next year.
Legendary Kiwi singer-songwriter Gin Wigmore joined John MacDonald.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Did you know there is a Vaping Regulatory Authority?
Well, there is. And, in my view, it has shown itself to be a nutbar organisation.
I’ve come to that view after reading its response to Christchurch woman Jane Gardiner’s concerns about her local dairy building a small kiosk or pantry inside the premises, and running it as a separate vape shop.
The Thorrington Dairy on Colombo St is just down the road from Thorrington School, and the owners have decided to cash in on the vaping craze and have built what I would describe as a booth or a pantry inside the shop, and they’re running it as a vape shop.
There’s still the one doorway into the place. And signs outside and on the door say “Cashmere Clouds Vape Shop” and “Vape Shop Open”.
Jane Gardiner, who lives in the area, sees what’s happening and gets in touch with this Vaping Regulatory Authority, asking how on earth a dairy can get away with selling vapes so close to a primary school; a dairy being a place, of course, where people of all ages go. Not just those over the age of 18.
And so she gets a response from the Vaping Regulatory Authority, saying there’s no ban on selling vapes near schools. But it’s what this person from the vaping authority says next that is really nutbar.
Now bear in mind that, in this particular shop, the Thorrington Dairy, they’ve put up what I would describe as a small pantry - there’s no door on it - and it’s got the drinks chiller on one side, and chocolate bars and other things on the other side.
They’ve stuck a laminated sign saying “Cashmere Cloud Vape Shop” on the outside of this pantry thing. They’ve also stuck one of those LED “Open” signs to it.
So picture this, a small pantry between the drinks chiller and chocolate bars and things - and how does this person from the Vaping Regulatory Authority describe it in his letter?
“The specialist vape retailer is a separate retail premise (booth) from the dairy with its own point of sale separate to the dairy. Therefore, this approved vaping premises complies with the requirements outlined in the Act.”
The Act, by the way, is the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990. Did you hear that? 1990. Thirty-two years ago. Had vapes even been invented in 1990? I don’t think so.
So Mr Vaping Authority thinks it’s all fine and nothing to see here.
Well Mr Vaping Authority, I think you’re wrong. And I’m with Jane Gardiner on this one.
It is ludicrous to suggest that a piddly pantry built inside a dairy is a “separate retail premises” as Mr Vaping Authority describes it.
I detest vapes and vaping.
I detest it because I think we’ve all been taken for a ride by the vape industry, which told us, didn’t it, that it was all about the wellbeing of people wanting to quit cigarettes.
What a load of old nonsense that’s turned out to be, with shiny vape shops all over the place and school principals telling us there is a vaping crisis out there with truckloads of kids and teenagers sucking on the blimmin’ things. Kids and teenagers who have never touched a cigarette.
So the old line about vapes supporting healthy lifestyle choices has just turned out to be a real con, hasn’t it?
And it is ludicrous that we’ve now reached a point where we’ve got the likes of Mr Vaping Authority saying that nothing more than a pantry inside a dairy constitutes a separate retail outlet.
Absolutely ludicrous.
Now if we have to have vapes, they should only be sold in dedicated retail outlets, not in dairies, next to the cold drinks and chocolate bars and $1 mixtures.
Just like vapes, alcohol can’t be sold to people younger than 18, and do you think dairies would get away with selling grog? Of course not! And vapes should be treated exactly the same way.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If we can be thankful for anything today, it’s the fact that Waka Kotahi isn’t in charge of aviation.
If it was - and a plane fell out of the sky - it wouldn’t do anything about the plane, it would just make it compulsory for plane passengers to put on lifejackets before they take off from the airport.
Because that is exactly what it’s doing with its latest announcement that it wants speed limits reduced on our state highways.
I’ll refer to the statement it put out yesterday saying it wants lower speed limits because “speed limits were first set before we knew what was safe and appropriate for our roads”.
Which is why I’m saying that if they were in charge of things in the sky, they wouldn’t try to make the planes safer - they’d just make us wear lifejackets.
Because claiming that current speed limits were set before we knew what was safe, is code for saying the speed limits were set when our roads in this country were in a much better condition and it was safer for us to drive faster.
To claim anything otherwise is nonsense. Over the past decade, we have allowed our roads to become so rundown and unsafe that it seems the only answer is to make us all drive slower.
For Waka Kotahi to claim that this is just a correction, that when we set the speed limits we didn’t really know what the safest speeds were for our roads in New Zealand, is a load of nonsense.
Just like this expectation that making us all drive slower will somehow turn us all into safer drivers. It won’t.
Because the speed limit can be whatever you want it to be, but it won’t stop idiots overtaking on corners; it won’t stop people failing to indicate or indicating and just going straight ahead anyway; or doing risky u-turns, especially on the highways.
Lowering the speed limits won’t stop idiots texting while they go through intersections. It won’t stop them wearing earpods while driving or riding. And it certainly won’t make people any less likely to drive drunk or stoned.
What Waka Kotahi is doing is letting the Government and councils away with under-investing in roading and road maintenance to the point - where it seems - the only option is to drive slower.
I think if you really want to get an idea of how bad a road is, in terms of its condition, you just need to tow a trailer around for a bit.
I was doing that yesterday. Our daughter bought a bed and so we hooked up a trailer and, as we were heading down the road, that trailer was bouncing all over the place. And when I actually paid attention to the state of the road, I could see why.
That was in town. As you will know, the roads on our highways are not much better in many areas. They are in a shocking condition and, if Waka Kotahi was really serious about getting anywhere close to zero road deaths; it wouldn’t be tinkering with speed limits.
It would be calling out councils and the Government and telling them that they are the problem, not us, and they need to spend the money that desperately needs to be spent to get our roads up to scratch.
The conditions of our roads and the brainless way some people behave when they’re driving are the problem. Reducing speed limits is a cop-out.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What an amazing game the New Zealand Women's Rugby Team played on Saturday night - beating England 34-31 in the World Cup final.
Did you notice, then, that I didn’t call them the Black Ferns? That’s because I don’t think they should be called that anymore.
I think they have well-and-truly earned the right to be known as the Women's All Blacks.
We’ve had the Men's All Blacks since the early 1900s. Since 2012, we’ve had the Maori All Blacks (originally known as the New Zealand Maori team) and, more recently, we’ve had the All Blacks Sevens.
So I think it would make perfect sense for the women's national team to be re-named the Women's All Blacks.
I tested my idea at home yesterday and it, pretty much, got the thumbs down. Which surprised me, actually.
“Why would the Black Ferns want to be associated with the All Blacks?” is how I would summarise the response.
And, yes, give me any game the New Zealand women have played during this World Cup tournament over any All Blacks game in recent memory. This morning’s game against Scotland is a case in point.
How refreshing was it on Saturday night - and throughout the World Cup tournament - to see the women passing the ball around the back row when it seems all the All Blacks can do is kick it into touch time and time and time again.
It just highlights, doesn’t it, how boring they’ve become. So I see what my focus group yesterday was getting at, asking why the women would want to be lumped in with the All Blacks.
When I was watching that game on Saturday night, I remembered how the All Blacks used to play like the Black Ferns. Taking all sorts of risks.
Carlos Spencer, for example, almost throwing the ball away behind him - hoping there was someone there to catch it. And most times, there was. The All Blacks are nothing like that these days.
Nevertheless, rugby honchos still bang on about the All Blacks being the number one rugby brand in the world, don’t they?
Which might have stacked up a few years back when the All Blacks were genuinely exciting to watch. And when they pretty much smashed any team that took them on. I remember watching them play Scotland at Carisbrook in Dunedin back in the 90s, and the scoreline getting so ridiculously in favour of the All Blacks that I just wanted them to let Scotland get a few points on the board.
But they’re not exciting anymore. And they are certainly not dominant. They’re just boring to watch - and, at best, they scrape through games that - not all that long ago - they would’ve won convincingly.
And not only do I think that the women's team deserve to be part of the All Blacks brand, I think they could actually be its saviour.
Because they’re the ones on top of the rugby world at the moment - unlike their male counterparts.
So this isn’t just about recognising the women. It’s about utilising their magic to bring some much-needed shine back to the All Blacks brand. Supposedly, the greatest rugby brand in the world.
And, surely, if it’s good enough to have the Sevens team known as the All Blacks and the Maori team known as the All Blacks - then it’s more than good enough to have the women's team known as the All Blacks too.
As I’ve said to my kids time and time again, women's sport is the future - particularly when it comes to attracting sponsorship money.
And I can see a day coming when the women's team will be the golden ticket for New Zealand Rugby, as corporate sponsors fall over themselves to support women's sport.
That is the future. Which is why I’m convinced that, if New Zealand Rugby wants to make the most of that spectacular win on Saturday night, it needs to ditch the Black Ferns brand and make the women's team part of the All Blacks stable.
The Men's All Blacks. The Maori All Blacks. The Sevens All Blacks. And the Women's All Blacks.
But we can’t stop at a name-change. New Zealand Rugby also needs to start pouring a lot more money into women’s rugby. Investing in the national women’s team AND investing in girls rugby too. Because how many times do we get girls playing ripper rugby but then, as they get older, they find there are issues getting coaches for girls’ rugby and they get disillusioned and move on to other sports.
So I think New Zealand Rugby needs to pay a lot more than just lip service to women' s rugby. And, for me, that would be changing the Black Ferns name to the Women’s All Blacks. And ring-fencing funding specifically for girls’ and women’s rugby.
Both of those things make perfect sense. Well, they do to me.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I can’t believe the Christchurch City Council.
Just weeks after causing a huge outcry with its announcement that it wants to spend $33 million upgrading the streets around the site of the new stadium, Te Kaha, it’s decided behind closed doors to press on.
Let me remind you exactly how nuts this whole thing is.
It wants to take away dozens of car parks. 49 car parks to be precise. There are currently 72, it wants to get rid of 49 and keep 23. But that’s not all.
The council also wants to widen footpaths on some streets in the area to nearly six metres, put in more cycleways and lower the speed limit to as low as 10 kilometres per hour.
When the council first announced this daft plan, businesses in the area weren’t happy about it - especially the idea of getting rid of dozens of car parks.
Annabel Turley from the Central City Business Association said people still come into town in cars and they need to be catered for.
Something else the town planners at the council don’t seem to have thought about is Christchurch’s famous Easterly, because they’ve got this nutbar idea of taking away car parks on Lichfield Street so the footpath can be widened to nearly six metres for outdoor dining.
But as Annabel Turley from the Business Association says, that’s the last place you’d want to sit outside and eat, because of the easterly wind which does its thing more often than not. Pretty much everywhere.
But the thing I’m probably most confused about, is I thought Mayor Phil Mauger had managed to get this whole thing stopped. That’s what was reported a few weeks back.
And I thought that was great and I congratulated Phil at the time. As he’s been saying, this work should only be done when the city can afford it and when it is actually a real priority.
And Phil Mauger is bang on when he says that if the Council wants to spend $33 million, it should be going into the stadium itself first. Because let’s not forget the massive funding shortfall that the council is still trying to get its head around.
This money shouldn’t be going into beautifying the area when the stadium is still years away. April 2026 is when it’s due to be completed.
But, oh no, we have a behind-closed-doors briefing for city councillors on Tuesday and today the council has come out and said ‘it’s all back on folks’.
Spending $33 million beautifying the area when, at the moment, the stadium site itself is still pretty much a piece of dirt. It’s all back on!
Pouring money into widening footpaths, taking away car parks and slowing traffic down to 10 km/h. It’s all back on!
The Council thinks that by getting on with this work sooner rather than later, it won’t have to spend money on expensive traffic management plans when big events are held at the stadium.
That’ll be because - if the council gets its way - there’ll be no car parks and traffic will be crawling along at 10 km/h.
But let’s not forget how often that’s going to happen.
As it stands, there’s probably going to be about one major event per month at the stadium. The rest of the time we’ll be having an even harder time trying to find somewhere to park in town and we’ll be crawling around the place at 10 km/h.
But the council, in its wisdom, wants to blow $33 million under the guise that it will save money in the long-run. I don’t buy that for a minute.
And, not that long ago, Mayor Phil Mauger wasn’t buying it either and was saying that the Council needed to cut its cloth to suit its budget.
But, despite all that, it seems that Council staff have done a brilliant job convincing councillors otherwise and, as a result, the Council has decided not to pull the plug - and the consultation process is up and running again.
That will run until the end of the month, then the matter will go to a Hearings Panel in February.
As I say, it beggars belief. It beggared belief when they first announced it and it beggars belief even more when you’ve got the mayor against it, you’ve got the Business Association against it and you’ve got ratepayers against it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Last night, we were driving into town. It wasn’t late - there was still plenty of light. And so we were heading down the road and there was a cyclist ahead of us on the left side of the lane we were travelling in.
One of the teenagers was driving and thank goodness they had their wits about them because, before we knew it, this cyclist had veered right in front of us as we headed towards an intersection.
They were wanting to turn right - but the first we knew of it was when they were suddenly right in front of us, very close to the front of our car.
We all shared a few colourful words and, as we went through the intersection, I looked to see if this cyclist had any idea what they had just done.
And my assessment would be “no idea at all”. And I realised why. Earpods.
Those little wireless earphone things that some people seem to spend most of their day wearing. Which would drive me nuts. But, obviously, it doesn’t bother some people having those things in their ears all the time.
And so, as we continued into town, I couldn’t help thinking how different things could have been if that cyclist had veered in front of someone else who might have been a bit distracted or not so quick to react.
Just as frightening, was the fact that this cyclist was sailing-on down the road completely oblivious to the danger they’d just been in.
And it got me thinking about how the Police are all over people using mobile phones when they’re driving, but nothing seems to be done about people driving vehicles or riding bikes with all sounds around them blocked out by music, or whatever they’re listening to through the earpods and headphones.
I’m the sort of driver who needs to be able to hear what’s going on around me - and I find it hard to imagine why other drivers and cyclists aren’t the same.
Take emergency vehicles. The fire crews, and police officers and paramedics must get frustrated as hell when they’re screaming off to a job and people can’t hear them approaching because they’ve got their ears blocked.
I think it is so dangerous when people can’t hear other vehicles approaching.
Especially if they’re on two wheels - as our lot saw last night with this cyclist sailing across the lane right in front of us, completely oblivious to the traffic around them because they had the earpods in and the volume turned up.
We’ve checked on what the rules say and, technically, there are three main things you’re not allowed to do when driving. You can’t make or receive phone calls. You can’t send or read text messages and emails. And you’re not allowed to create, send or watch videos
But nothing about wearing earpods and headphones. And I think there needs to be.
January 1994. That was when cycle helmets became compulsory in New Zealand and remember the fuss there was, initially, because people thought helmets were over-the-top and not needed.
These days, generally, it’s only people who steal bikes who don’t wear helmets.
You can tell them a mile off. But what I’m getting at is that even though people thought back in 1994 that helmets weren’t necessary, we now all accept that they are.
And it’s the same with earpods and headphones. Sure, there’d be a fuss from some people if we made it illegal to use them when riding a bike. The same too if we made it illegal for people to use them when driving a vehicle.
But people would get over it and get used to it, and I’m in no doubt it would make things a whole lot safer.
And I’m not just saying this because we nearly collected a cyclist last night.
I’ve thought it for a long time - riding a bike and driving a car, you need your ears turned on when you’re doing these things. I see too many examples of people prioritising the music or the podcasts over the safety of themselves and other road users.
This is something they’ve dealt with in California where it’s been illegal to wear earpods in both ears while cycling or driving since 2016. And, for the past five years, road safety commentator Clive Matthew-Wilson has been saying that electronic distractions are becoming one of the biggest factors in our road toll.
Here’s what he said back in 2017: "Multiple people are dying because they can't hear the approach of a train or motor vehicle."
And all I can say is thank goodness that cyclist we nearly hit last night didn’t become another one of these statistics.
But you can’t rely on good luck, which is why I think it’s high time for change.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I was talking to someone yesterday who was asking what’s going to happen at his place with the Christchurch City Council’s new excess water charges because he doesn’t have his own water meter.
He’s got a meter that he shares with other neighbouring properties.
And I was able to tell him that he’s in the clear. Because, if you don’t have your own water meter, there’s no way the council can work out how much water you’re using.
Which, I think, is a good reason why these excess charges shouldn’t have been introduced until every household in the city has its own water meter.
Since yesterday, the Christchurch City Council has released numbers that show exactly how many properties won’t be stung for excess water.
You’ll remember that the charging regime came into force on October 1. And the first invoices for excess water use will go out from the Council in late January.
Which is why people have been reminded to check for leaks on their properties because, if there’s water disappearing into the ground, they’ll be stung for using too much.
There was that recent case in Avonhead, wasn’t there, where a person discovered they had two leaks on their property, got them fixed and reduced their water consumption by 42,000 litres a day.
Which is lucky for them because, under the new rules, they’d be charged an extra $55 a day.
Now that’s probably an extreme case, but that is a real example of a household here in Christchurch that would’ve had to pay an extra $1600 a month to the council if it hadn’t got the leaks fixed.
So the Council says we can use 700 litres per day. Anything over that, there’ll be a charge.
Unless, of course, you live at one of the 25,000 properties that don’t have their own water meter - and share one with neighbouring properties.
25,000 properties where people can use as much water as they want, with no consequences. Water the garden. As many baths and showers as you want. Free reign. Water, water everywhere.
25,000 properties out of a total of just over 110,000 residential connections in the Christchurch City Council area. So that’s about 22 per cent of places connected to the city council water supply where they won’t have to think twice about how much water they’re using.
One Christchurch resident is speaking out today saying that’s wrong. And they’re saying that the city council shouldn’t be charging anyone until it has the ability to charge everyone for going over their daily limit. And I fully agree.
The way it is at the moment, with nearly a quarter of households getting off scot-free, is a bit like a stall at Riccarton Market or somewhere like that having one of those mobile eftpos set-ups and only making people with money cards pay, and letting anyone else with cash get stuff for free.
That would never happen. That wouldn’t be fair, would it?
So why the Christchurch City Council thinks it’s fair to penalise people just because they happen to have an individual water meter at their property, I’ll never know.
Well, I kind of know. Because the council will say it has to start somewhere. And who knows how long it will take to get individual water meters everywhere. Because, as we now know, there are 9600 shared meters in Christchurch. So that’s a lot of replacement meters that need to be sorted.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that nearly a quarter of Christchurch households will be able to water the garden as much as they want this summer, let the kids run the sprinkler whenever they want and how often they want, and take as many showers or baths as they want, and they won’t pay a cent for the extra water they use.
Meanwhile, the rest of us with individual meters, will either be keeping a check on how much water we’re using or resigning ourselves to the fact that, come late January, we’ll be getting an extra invoice from the city council.
Until every property in Christchurch has its own individual water meter, the city council should pull the plug on its excess water charges because the way it’s running things at the moment is grossly unfair.
We all pay power companies for the electricity we use because we all have power meters. It should be exactly the same with water - but only when the council is in a position and organised to know how much water everyone is using. Not just three-quarters of us.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It’s the biggest harness race in Australasia, and today’s IRT New Zealand Cup at Addington Raceway has been labelled the most even race in recent years.
Arna Donnelly is the trainer of Cambridge-based horse, Kango, who won the final lead up race to the Cup when successful in the Kaikoura Cup last week. Arna spoke to John MacDonald on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings about what it means to have a horse in the Cup and this year back in front of a crowd. And what has the horse been doing today to prepare?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you have teenage children, or if you don’t have kids, or if you’re on a pension - chances are you’ll be feeling a bit left out of the Government’s cost-of-living rescue package.
Yesterday, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said childcare is one of the most significant costs facing families and said the Government is here to help, and is going to spend an extra $189 million on childcare subsidies.
It won’t happen overnight - it’ll be spread over four years. Which means, of course, that if you want it - you need to vote for Labour at next year’s election.
So ‘we’re coming to your rescue, but only if you vote for us’. Which doesn’t sound like a genuine response to the current crisis does it? Especially when the crisis isn’t something out there on the horizon, it’s happening right now and it’s real for pretty much everyone.
Which is why I’m saying that if you have teenage children, or if you don’t have kids, or if you’re on a pension - you won’t be feeling much love from the Government right now.
But if even you are someone who stands to benefit from this new spending - if you’re one of the people the Prime Minister talked about yesterday and you can’t work simply because childcare is so expensive, well don’t expect things to change too quickly.
And, for me, it’s the drawn-out nature of the spending announced yesterday that makes it look like anything but something designed to help with immediate challenges - not to mention the fact that it leaves a whole lot of people no better off.
Prior to yesterday’s announcement, Jacinda Ardern said the cost-of-living was (quote) “top of our agenda”, which had commentators speculating that another cost-of-living payment might be on the cards.
You know, the cost-of-living payments - which went to people living overseas and people no longer with us.
So Jacinda Ardern said: "I anticipate that the cost of living and the economy will likely be on everyone's agenda for the next 12 months." And she said it would be at the top of the Government’s agenda.
That was the talk before yesterday’s announcement and so, when I compare the talk to what was actually announced, I’ve got to say that I’m not impressed. For several reasons.
First up - as a parent with three kids, two of whom are still teenagers - there’s nothing in this announcement for people at my stage in life.
I know childcare is expensive but life is really expensive for families with teenagers. The food bills are huge. The sporting and cultural activities are that much bigger and that much more expensive.
And then what about the people who don’t have kids at all? Especially those who are single - life’s pretty expensive for them too. Nothing in this announcement for them.
And then there are our older people. Those on pensions and really struggling to make ends meet, but also the older people who might still be working and still having to support their families - financially or otherwise.
Nothing in this announcement for these people either.
Which is why I think that what the Government announced yesterday is anything but a rescue package to address the current cost-of-living crisis.
Because it’ll be dragged out over three years. It will be dependent on Labour winning next year’s election. And because so many people are left out and don’t stand to benefit in any way.
If this is the Government doing what the Prime Minister said it was going to do and put the cost-of-living at the top of its agenda, then I’d hate to be at the bottom of the agenda if it thinks this is what’s needed most.
It’s fine for an election policy. But it fails miserably as a boost for all of the New Zealanders struggling right now to deal with the cost of living.
And I actually think the Government today will be regretting not coming out with something bigger and better, considering that disastrous poll result which came after yesterday afternoon’s announcement.
I see National leader Christopher Luxon is describing what the Government came out with yesterday as “band-aid economics”. I actually think he’s being generous because if it was a band-aid, it would be putting money in people’s pockets right now - not dragged out over four years and dependent on Labour winning next year’s election.
I think “bribe” is a better description. And not a very generous bribe, at that.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Sometimes I look at security guards and think ‘the only difference between you and me, is that you’re the one wearing the uniform’.
No disrespect to security guards, but you do wonder sometimes what they would actually do if there was trouble.
Because it seems when it comes to security guards there are two types: the ones who look like the real deal who you wouldn’t take on, and the others, who have no more of a threatening presence than I do.
But it doesn’t really matter, because security guards pretty much have no powers and they’re just a bit of window dressing to try and put people off doing bad things.
You may have heard Gary Morrison from the Security Association on Newstalk ZB. I was very surprised to hear him say that security guards aren’t even allowed to detain shoplifters and he’s calling for change.
And I’m with him on this.
Because you think of those poor retailers who are dealing with those shoplifters day-in/day-out. So frustrated with the Police being next to invisible that they’ve gone out and hired security guards to try and deal with the problem.
But it seems those security guards - because of the limited powers they have - aren’t much more use than a cardboard cut-out of a police officer that you sometimes see in retail stores. Because it turns out they pretty much have no more powers than you and me.
They can make a citizen’s arrest but, as Gary Morrison from the Security Association said on the radio, there are some ridiculous rules around it that limit what they can do.
They can only make a citizen’s arrest if it’s night time, or if a police officer tells them to, and only once they’ve worked out in their head whether the creep stealing the stuff could be sent to prison for three years or more.
Talk about nuts. Because most of these retailers operate during the day; and do you really think a security guard has time to get on the blower to the cops to get permission to detain the shoplifter, plus work out what sort of sentence might be likely?
That, in itself, is crazy because you’re not going to be sent away for stealing chocolate bars and a can of coke and can you imagine a security guard thinking to themselves: ‘OK, I can see what that guy’s doing. I should intervene here but if he goes to court, is he going to get three years?
I’ll need a report first on what things were like for him as a child and he could get diversion or he might even get off. Hmmmm, not quite sure what I should do. Ooops, he’s gone now anyway’.
See what I mean? No wonder the Security Association is calling for change.
And no wonder retailers and businesses are pleading for more police patrols.
Because, the way things are at the moment, they can hire as many security guards as they want but if the security guards don’t have the powers to make a difference, don’t have the powers to actually step-in and do something, then it’s just a waste of time and money.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by National's Gerry Brownlee and Labour's Dan Rosewarne. They talked about the big topics of the week, including the Pegasus fire - does this mean a ban on fireworks?
What was their reaction to the Mayors Proposal for Three Waters, and should security guards have more power to make arrests to help deal with the rising crime issue in the CBD and stores?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Fireworks are thought to have set-off the big fire in North Canterbury and I think the time has come for us to get rid of them.
It’s also time we stopped this ridiculous celebration of Guy Fawkes Day because it has absolutely no relevance to us here in New Zealand.
What is relevant to New Zealand, is the fact that climate change is causing more extreme weather and letting any Tom, Dick or Harry get their hands on explosives and set them off wherever and whenever they want (in what can be tinder dry conditions, even this early in summer) is a recipe for disaster.
Now if you’re like me, the first thing you probably thought when you heard about the North Canterbury fire was whether fireworks might have been involved.
Unlike the old days when fireworks were on sale weeks before Guy Fawkes Day, these days it’s different and they can only be sold over a four-day period. And that four-day period started yesterday.
Granted, it was blimmin’ hot yesterday and windy too - so the risk of fire would’ve been greater anyway. But I’m taking it as a bit of a wake-up call.
We live on the south side of town and when I walked out the door first thing this morning, all I could smell was smoke.
In fact, it was so strong I wondered if there might be a fire somewhere closer than Pegasus and Woodend.
I could even see smoke drifting over the houses in some parts.
But as I headed into town, I could see the line of smoke running down the coast. I could smell it too, of course.
And if you’re one of the 130-odd people who evacuated from the fire area last night, you will have had a hell of a fright.
A colleague of ours here at Newstalk ZB was at the Woodend Beach Holiday Park and ended-up helping a family rushing to leave. They were packing up the caravan and getting out of there. And the orange glow from the flames was almost right over them with flames going six metres into the air.
The fire has gone through about 200 hectares and stretches about five kilometres.
Fire and Emergency have had about 70 firefighters fighting the fire.
Gusty norwesters are forecast - which is the last thing you need when you’re dealing with a fire. And wind is always something I’ve been very mindful of when it comes to fireworks.
In the past, if we’ve headed down to a beach to let off fireworks and there are trees in the area, the minute the wind picks up that’s been it. I’ll assume you’re just as careful.
But, at the same time, there are truckloads of idiots who don’t give a damn and who will let off fireworks whatever the conditions. A bit windy? ‘Oh, it’ll be sweet mate’. Whish!
A few trees around? ‘Yeah, nah - all good. Got a lighter on ya?’
They’re the same idiots who think it’s perfectly fine to let-off fireworks whatever time of the night it is. They were at it, at about 11 o’clock last night on our side of town.
These people just can’t help themselves, which is why I think we need to do them and us a favour, and just ban the sale of fireworks full-stop. Don’t limit sales to four days a year - make it zero days a year.
Because, whether you choose to believe it or not, climate change is going to mean our environment is going to get drier and drier and drier. At the same time as we’re planting more and more trees to suck up carbon from the atmosphere.
And we still think it’s a great idea to sell explosives to any turkey, so they can do what they want with them? It is just nuts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Fireworks are thought to have set-off the big fire in North Canterbury and I think the time has come for us to get rid of them.
It’s also time we stopped this ridiculous celebration of Guy Fawkes Day because it has absolutely no relevance to us here in New Zealand.
What is relevant to New Zealand, is the fact that climate change is causing more extreme weather and letting any Tom, Dick or Harry get their hands on explosives and set them off wherever and whenever they want (in what can be tinder dry conditions, even this early in summer) is a recipe for disaster.
Now if you’re like me, the first thing you probably thought when you heard about the North Canterbury fire was whether fireworks might have been involved.
Unlike the old days when fireworks were on sale weeks before Guy Fawkes Day, these days it’s different and they can only be sold over a four-day period. And that four-day period started yesterday.
Granted, it was blimmin’ hot yesterday and windy too - so the risk of fire would’ve been greater anyway. But I’m taking it as a bit of a wake-up call.
We live on the south side of town and when I walked out the door first thing this morning, all I could smell was smoke.
In fact, it was so strong I wondered if there might be a fire somewhere closer than Pegasus and Woodend.
I could even see smoke drifting over the houses in some parts.
But as I headed into town, I could see the line of smoke running down the coast. I could smell it too, of course.
And if you’re one of the 130-odd people who evacuated from the fire area last night, you will have had a hell of a fright.
A colleague of ours here at Newstalk ZB was at the Woodend Beach Holiday Park and ended-up helping a family rushing to leave. They were packing up the caravan and getting out of there. And the orange glow from the flames was almost right over them with flames going six metres into the air.
The fire has gone through about 200 hectares and stretches about five kilometres.
Fire and Emergency have had about 70 firefighters fighting the fire.
Gusty norwesters are forecast - which is the last thing you need when you’re dealing with a fire. And wind is always something I’ve been very mindful of when it comes to fireworks.
In the past, if we’ve headed down to a beach to let off fireworks and there are trees in the area, the minute the wind picks up that’s been it. I’ll assume you’re just as careful.
But, at the same time, there are truckloads of idiots who don’t give a damn and who will let off fireworks whatever the conditions. A bit windy? ‘Oh, it’ll be sweet mate’. Whish!
A few trees around? ‘Yeah, nah - all good. Got a lighter on ya?’
They’re the same idiots who think it’s perfectly fine to let-off fireworks whatever time of the night it is. They were at it, at about 11 o’clock last night on our side of town.
These people just can’t help themselves, which is why I think we need to do them and us a favour, and just ban the sale of fireworks full-stop. Don’t limit sales to four days a year - make it zero days a year.
Because, whether you choose to believe it or not, climate change is going to mean our environment is going to get drier and drier and drier. At the same time as we’re planting more and more trees to suck up carbon from the atmosphere.
And we still think it’s a great idea to sell explosives to any turkey, so they can do what they want with them? It is just nuts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The line about never looking a gift horse in the mouth has never been more appropriate than it is today.
Because that is exactly what Starship Hospital has done, missing out on a $570,000 donation from a New Zealand horse breeder because it doesn't want to accept money associated with horseracing or gambling.
And so, because it’s been so choosy, the money has gone to a charity in Australia, instead.
How it all played out, is that horse breeder Mark Chittick had a horse running at the weekend in the $10 million Golden Eagle race at Rosehill in Sydney. It’s a race that not only comes with big prize money, there’s also money for the owner of the winning horse to donate to a charity of their choice.
So, ahead of the race, Mark Chittick looked into it and found out that - even though the event is in Australia - if the winning horse is owned by a New Zealander, then the donation part of the prize can go to a charity in New Zealand.
And when he heard that, he thought immediately of Starship Hospital because it does amazing things for kids from all around New Zealand. Chances are you, at the very least, know someone who’s had a child at Starship. You may even have had a child of your own treated there.
So he had a chat to a few people at Starship and told them that he wasn't sure how much it would be but, if his horse ended up winning, there’d be money available for a donation.
He left it at that and the Starship people had a think about it, and they got back to him and said “thanks but no thanks”.
They were very polite about it, by all accounts, but said they didn’t want to take money associated with horseracing or gambling.
As he said himself: “I couldn’t believe it and now that is $520,000 Australian dollars which will never come to New Zealand and help Kiwi kids.” $AUS520,000. $NZ570,000.
This was last week, the race was on Saturday, and so Mark didn’t have time to muck around and he ended up nominating a charity in Australia. Which is the Muscular Dystrophy Foundation of New South Wales.
He told Newstalk ZB that the people from that outfit were at the race on Saturday and were beside themselves with excitement when his horse won. Which, of course, meant they were getting a donation of more than $500,000.
There will be some red faces at Starship today. Because, ironically, it has just put out an email today saying it needs to raise $1.5 million for its air ambulance service - which flies kids to Auckland from all around the country.
Although, maybe there won’t be any red faces and maybe Starship is quite comfortable turning-down offers of money if they come from activities it doesn’t approve of. In this case, it’s horseracing and gambling that it doesn’t approve of.
But honestly, in times like these - when we’re being told everyday that the health system is in crisis - can places like Starship really afford to be so choosy? I wouldn’t have thought so.
And it’s not like I haven’t grappled with this kind of judgement call myself - although on a much, much smaller scale.
Anyone involved in raising funds for schools and sports clubs will know that one of the biggest sources of money comes from gambling. Generally, through pokie machines.
Personally, I hate pokie machines. But, over the last year or so, when I’ve helped out the teenagers’ school with raising money, I’ve put my thing about pokie machines aside and I’ve done everything I can to get a slice of the pie.
Because, when it comes to fundraising, you do everything you can and you take pretty much every opportunity in front of you.
Which is why I think Starship Hospital has really misfired here. Anyone with a sick child at the moment, or anyone who has had a sick child, will really be scratching their head over this one. Because horse racing isn’t illegal. Gambling isn’t illegal.
Yes, gambling causes harm. But does that really mean that charity money that comes from gambling should be off-limits? I certainly don’t think so.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Yesterday, two of the three mayors in the Greater Christchurch area joined forces with their Auckland counterpart and announced that they have come up with what they think is a much better version of the Government’s Three Waters reforms.
These are the reforms that some of us have described as a government takeover of water services - which I think is a very fair description - because the Government wants to take all water assets from local councils and pay a pitiful amount of money in exchange for them.
In Christchurch, for example, it would pay the council $120 million for $6.9 billion dollars worth of council water infrastructure assets. Daylight robbery.
But it doesn’t stop there. It wants to set-up four new water authorities to run drinkwater, wastewater and stormwater services around the country.
For us here in Canterbury, we’d be part of a water authority that would be responsible for most of the South Island. Pretty much all the areas that are Ngāi Tahu - that would be the area covered by the one water authority that we here in Canterbury would be part of.
Under the Government’s proposal, councils would somehow be represented on each of the four water authorities around the country - but half of the people on each authority would be iwi representatives. Co-governance, as it’s called.
So Christchurch’s Phil Mauger, Waimakariri’s Dan Gordon and Auckland’s Wayne Brown - who have all said before that they oppose the Three Waters reforms - they’ve got their heads together and have put forward an alternative for the Government to consider.
A bit of a counter-offer.
Instead of the Government taking over all of the water infrastructure - all the pipes and other things - they want councils to hold on to the ownership of their water assets and not have them taken over by the Government.
Instead of being told by the Government which water authority they’re going to belong to, they want councils to be able to decide for themselves how they’re going to work together on water services. So the three councils in the Greater Christchurch area wouldn’t be swallowed-up into this huge South Island water authority - and councils would have a say in how big the water authority they’re part of is going to be.
And instead of half the people on each water authority being iwi representatives, Phil Mauger, Dan Gordon and Wayne Brown want councils to be free to decide for themselves how they involve Maori in the decision-making. So, no compulsory co-governance.
Those three things are the gist of what these three mayors have put on the table for the Government to consider.
Just on the co-governance thing, Phil Mauger and Waimakarir’s Dan Gordon both said yesterday they’re not opposed to co-governance. Wayne Brown, though, was a bit more tight-lipped on that front.
Dan Gordon said on Newstalk ZB this morning that most councils already have great relations with Maori - which was him saying ‘we don’t need the government to tell us how to get on with mana whenua’.
But I think Dan Gordon is in la-la land. Because there is no question that Ngāi Tahu will be livid after what happened yesterday.
Only six or seven weeks ago, it said that Christchurch and Waimakariri councils are failing big time when it comes to engaging with mana whenua. In fact, they didn’t just say it, they wrote to the Government about it. They were so brassed off they even threatened to pull out of a committee planning for the future for the Greater Christchurch area. It’s called the Greater Christchurch Partnership.
Which is why the Christchurch City Council suddenly pulled out of the anti-Three Waters group - Communities 4 Local Democracy. It got really spooked.
So Phil Mauger’s going to have a fight on his hands with Ngāi Tahu after what happened yesterday. He’s also going to have a fight on his hands with some of his city councillors who didn’t know anything about this proposal until they got an email giving them a heads-up just before it was announced.
If I was a Christchurch city councillor, I’d be really brassed off today. All this talk after the election about getting everyone around the table moving in the same direction; what a load of nonsense that’s turned out to be.
Ironically, Dan Gordon was saying on the radio this morning that this counter-proposal is about solving the water issues the country faces without dividing people. Again, he’s in la-la land.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Is a 16-year-old or a 17-year-old capable of deciding who they think should be on their local council? Of course they are. Just like I think they’re capable of deciding who runs the country.
But this is about local government, because the outfit that represents councils - Local Government New Zealand - has come out and said that it thinks the voting age in local body elections should be 16. And I couldn’t agree more. I’m right behind it.
Local Government New Zealand also thinks we should be extending council terms to four years, instead of three years. And it’s on the money there too, as far as I’m concerned. And, again, I think that should be the case for central government too.
But let’s focus on whether or not 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote in their local elections.The 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds who are going to live with the big decisions our local councils make.
Because it’s one of the things to come out of Local Government New Zealand’s review of the local government system, which has identified a need for major change.
It’s no surprise that it thinks major change is needed. My take on why it thinks that, is that local government is responsible for so much in our daily lives, but so many people either don’t trust their local council or aren’t interested in their local council.
There’s a huge gap between the influence local councils have on people’s lives, and how much people trust their councils.
And Local Government New Zealand thinks part of the problem is that young people feel excluded from some of the big decisions that local councils make.
Which, when you think about it, is only going to mean less and less people voting in the local elections because if you don’t feel like you’re being listened to when you’re 16, chances are you’re not going to have much confidence that you’ll be listened to when you’re 18.
Which is why I’m fully behind the idea of letting 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds vote.
Now I know some people will be thinking ‘why on earth would we want those awful kids causing some of the problems around town at the moment to vote?’.
But do you really think they’re the ones who would be remotely interested in voting? Of course they wouldn’t.
The ones who would, would be the 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds who constantly blow me away with how insightful and thoughtful they are.
You can probably think of a 16-year-old or a 17-year-old you know who is a complete bozo. And when you think of them, the idea of giving them the chance to vote might be the last thing you'd want.
But bozos aren’t limited by age. There are bozos of all ages. Just like the people who are legally entitled to vote now - you and me - there are bozos amongst us who, let’s face it, have no idea. But they can still vote.
One of the benefits Local Government New Zealand sees in letting 16 and 17-year-olds vote, is that we’d likely see more 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds voting. In fact, Local Government New Zealand thinks if we’ve got younger people involved, more people of all ages would vote.
Which has to be a good thing, surely, when you consider how low voter turn-out is for local body elections. It’s not just low, it’s pathetic.
In 2007, Austria became the first country in the world to allow 16-and 17-year-olds to vote in the national elections. And, at the time, a study was done and found that they were just as capable as older voters of working out which candidates best represented their values.
What’s more, the study found that the 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds’ knowledge of the political process was pretty much on a par with older voters. And there was also evidence that more people were voting, as a result of the change.
So why wouldn’t we do the same thing here?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Hang your head in shame Christchurch.
Because I am absolutely appalled that the first cruise ship passengers to arrive in Lyttelton in more than a decade are being forced to pay US$30 each, that's NZ$51.30, to ride in a cruddy old ex-public transport bus if they want to travel from Lyttelton to Christchurch.
That's what passengers on the first large cruise ship to visit Lyttelton in more than 10 years had to pay yesterday for return travel from the portside town to Christchurch's CBD.
Another ship carrying 2,600 passengers arrives today. Is this the best way to welcome people to Canterbury? Of course it’s not!
Not surprisingly, some of the nearly 3,000 people on-board the Celebrity Eclipse which docked yesterday morning thought the same, and didn’t bother leaving Lyttelton.
They told Newstalk ZB that they thought $51.30 was too much and so they gave Christchurch a miss.
They left last night. The next ship arrives today. More people to rip off.
If I owned a business in the city and I’d been hanging out for these cruise ships to start arriving again, I would be gutted that this is the way we are welcoming people to Canterbury.
That we aren’t doing everything we possibly can to get people through the Lyttelton tunnel and into town. Instead, we’re expecting these people to pay $51.30 each to travel in an old public transport bus.
You know the ones I’m talking about. The old Red Bus buses that have obviously been sold to a private operator, painted over in random colours, no branding on them - Lord knows what they’re like on the inside.
It’s your classic “loser cruiser’. Except, in this instance, it’s the cruisers who are the losers. The ones who are prepared to pay this ridiculous fee, anyway.
But it’s us who are the bigger losers. Our local businesses, the people who work for those businesses - and everyone else who benefits from a thriving city.
I get that travelling costs money. And if you’ve been anywhere in the world, you’ll know that if you’re a tourist you pretty much have to pay money just to breathe.
But this is different. Very different. Because this is a region - and a country - where the tourism sector is on its knees after nearly three years of COVID.
And Canterbury, in particular, is a region still recovering from the devastation of the earthquakes. Not just the physical and mental devastation - but the economic devastation too.
Because one of the things that came to a grinding halt after the earthquakes, was cruise ship visits to Lyttelton.
So what did we do? We thought big. We spent $67 million building New Zealand’s first-ever purpose-built cruise ship facility at Lyttelton. We backed ourselves.
Just like the businesses that hung in there, as much as they could, with their eye on the day when the ships would come back and we’d welcome thousands of people to Lyttelton and Christchurch and Canterbury once again.
We shared the dream that one day we’d get back to how things were and that we’d have people from all over the world pouring into the city and the region again.
And yesterday, that day arrived. And what did we do? After all that hope and all that investment, we made it as difficult as possible for the people on the ship to get into the city.
We put up a barrier. We thought we’d fleece these people we’ve been waiting years for. People we desperately need to visit and support our shops and our cafes and our other attractions.
And if the Christchurch City Council or its tourism agency ChristchurchNZ tries to tell us that they have no control over what these visitors are being expected to pay to travel on these cruddy old buses from Lyttelton to town and back, and if they say the price was set by the cruise ship companies and it had nothing to do with them - I’ll be telling them that they have missed the boat big time on this one.
Because if they really have the city and region’s best interests at heart, they need to be coming to the party and putting on as many free buses as it takes to get as many of these cruise ship passengers into town.
That’s why I’m saying today that Christchurch needs to hang its head in shame. Because, at this rate, greed is going to be a bigger threat to our tourism sector than COVID ever was.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald had the pleasure of interviewing Hoodoo Gurus frontman, Dave Faulkner.
Hoodoo Gurus are the headline act at Selwyn Sounds in March next year, and Dave discussed the bands background, the sound of the band and how that has evolved, and the messages behind the music over the decades.
A must listen for music fans!
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Yesterday, 33 young people were due to appear in the Youth Court in Christchurch. Of those, two-thirds of them were facing charges of unlawfully taking and/or using cars.
Or, as you and I would say, about 20-or-so of them were accused of breaking into cars and driving off in them, or jumping into a car that one of their mates had stolen and going for a cruise.
And that was just yesterday’s line-up in the Youth Court.
Today, local police are speaking out and saying that because they aren’t allowed to chase these kids anymore, it’s turning into more and more of a problem.
Now, if you’re of the view that the no-pursuits policy is a good thing, then you're probably thinking to yourself that the fact 20-or-so kids were in the Youth Court yesterday proves that the police don’t need to chase them with lights and sirens blazing to catch them.
Which is fine. But what police are saying today, is that because they’re not allowed to chase them - these idiots are doing stupid, stupid things behind the wheel and putting lives at risk.
The police can’t chase them because of the change to the police pursuit policy in December 2020 which means, these days, police will only chase someone if there is an immediate and obvious threat to life. Which would be a situation such as a kidnapping or an active shooter.
Anything else though - no pursuit.
Now I’ll be the first to say that the change in pursuit policy obviously came from a place of good intentions. I was reading this morning that, in the 10 years before the change, four innocent people died after getting caught up in a crash during a police pursuit. Another 59 people died - they were people being chased by the police.
Since the change, no innocent people have died; three drivers who fled police - but were not chased - have died.
So well-intentioned policy and certainly seems to be working in reducing deaths associated with offenders in vehicles.
But today - after that crash over the weekend in Christchurch involving a 15-year-old allegedly driving a stolen car, with a 10-year-old and a 13-year-old in the back, and another 15-year-old in the front being critically injured after being thrown from the vehicle - local police are saying today that the no-pursuits policy is a big part of the problem.
Here’s a quote from one unnamed Police source about the situations they’re finding themselves in with these kids: “Our no-pursuits policy is fuelling this situation because they know if they drive like idiots, we don’t do anything”.
Another police source is saying today that the pursuing driver policy should never have been changed because it has enabled young people to “offend at will”.
Which is why I think the Police need to revisit this pursuit policy, because I’m with the officers who are saying today that you’re at risk, I’m at risk, because these kids know full well that the cops won’t chase them and so they’re menaces and a threat to every other law-abiding person.
And, according to the report I’ve been reading this morning, these kids are actually baiting the police because they know they won’t come after them.
But the police are warning that, because they’re not allowed to pursue them, it’s just a matter of time before they kill themselves in a crash or kill an innocent member of the public.
This kid involved in the crash in Linwood at 3:30 on Saturday morning is lucky not to have been killed. Although, at the time their injuries were described as critical so who knows what shape they’re in.
Police sources are saying today that, in some cases, the kids nicking these cars and screaming around the place in them are deliberately ramming, nudging or cutting-off other motorists. And it’s all about impressing the other turkeys in the cars with them or impressing their mates on social media.
And if these cops are telling me today that I could be at risk of getting caught up in what these kids are doing because they don’t have the powers to chase them as soon as they see them, then I’m backing them 100 percent and saying absolutely this no-pursuits policy needs to be changed.
Because imagine all the noise if things go pear-shaped and these out-of-control kids take some innocent person’s life or changes some innocent person’s life forever, just because they know the cops won’t chase them.
Change is definitely needed.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to Superintendent Lane Todd regarding the spate of crime in Canterbury. Should the police pursuit policy change? Why are there more car thefts by youth at the moment? And should Canterbury bring back the police helicopter?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I saw something terrifying in central Christchurch on Friday night.
We’d been out for dinner and we were heading along Manchester Street, it must’ve been around 10 o’clock. I didn’t pay much attention to the time because I couldn’t believe what I was seeing.
We pulled up to the lights on the corner of Manchester Street and St Asaph Street, and this car came screaming down St Asaph the wrong way. St Asaph is a one-way street remember - so this car came screaming down St Asaph against the flow of traffic, ran a red light, sped along Manchester and then ducked down one of the side streets.
It was a small white car. That’s an important piece of detail.
We couldn’t believe what we’d just seen and we certainly took things just that little bit slower for the rest of the trip.
About five-and-a-half hours later, at about 3:30 on Saturday morning, a car was seen by Police on Bealey Ave and the cops flashed the lights for it to stop because they thought it might have been stolen.
There was a 15-year-old behind the wheel who didn’t stop when they saw the police lights flashing. Instead, the driver took off.
The Police didn’t chase the car but eventually caught up with it after the 15-year-old driver hit another car at the intersection of Stanmore Road and Gloucester Street, then crashed into power poles and a post box.
Thankfully, the innocent person in the other car wasn’t injured, but another 15-year-old in the car the Police were after was thrown out of the vehicle when it crashed and was critically injured.
So two 15-year olds in the front and two other kids in the back - one of them 13, the other one 10. Two 15-year-olds, a 13-year-old and a 10-year-old cruising around town in a car allegedly stolen at 3:30 in the morning.
From what I saw over the weekend, the car that crashed in Linwood was white - the same colour as the car we saw speed down St Asaph Street the wrong way, run a red light at the intersection of St Asaph and Manchester, and disappear down a side-street.
But whether it was the same car or not doesn’t alter the fact that people’s lives were endangered in Christchurch on Friday night by a 15-year-old and his three associates - one of them as young as 10.
After a week when we learned that the Police have no plans to increase foot patrols in the central city and at a time when it seems we’re surrounded by stories of increased criminal activity in Canterbury.
Which is why I think the time has come for Canterbury to have a permanent police helicopter operating.
You’ll remember the Police brought one of their Eagle helicopters down from Auckland for a five-week trial in 2020 and it was also used a few times earlier than that - after the mosque attacks and when Prince William visited Christchurch.
During the trial in 2020, the helicopter was sent to 346 incidents ranging from a water rescue, a robbery attempt and helping a man thought to be having a heart attack in a Christchurch park.
But, despite Canterbury Police themselves giving positive feedback on the trial, the powers-that-be decided it wouldn’t be made permanent.
But I think things have got to the point now where that decision needs to be reviewed.
As one local police officer wrote in a letter to the Police News magazine after the trial: “I know the cost of the Eagle is high, but if you offset it with the amount saved in road trauma, plus fewer victims of crashes, burglaries, etc, it pays for itself.”
And this police officer went on to say that every officer who had worked with the helicopter had found it beneficial in helping to prevent crime, catch offenders and increase safety.
You’ll remember there was a bit of chat about people being woken up at night by the helicopter. But an informal survey of residents found that only 24 percent of people thought the sound or noise from the helicopter was annoying. 60 percent said it didn’t bother them and 16 percent said they hadn’t noticed it.
So the cops loved it. Residents seemed to like it. And my pick would be that support for Canterbury having a dedicated police helicopter would be much higher now than when the trial happened in 2020.
We have kids as young as ten racing around town in stolen cars. We’ve got parents in the news today saying they’re scared to let their kids out of the house because of assaults. We’ve got central city businesses having to pay for security patrols because of some of the behaviour out there.
And we don’t have the police on the ground to deal with it. So is the solution in the sky?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Christchurch City Council is getting a good rev up from me today.
This is because I think it’s appalling that it’s told the Central City Business association that it doesn’t have any money available to pay for security patrols in the central city - and so the association is going to have to cover the costs itself - at least for the rest of the year.
And let’s not beat around the bush. When I say the business association is going to have to pay, it’s the businesses themselves that are going to have to pay - because it’s the businesses that put the money into the business association.
And so, for the last few months they’ve fronted up with the money to trial security patrols in town because businesses are at their wits end with what’s going on.
Just this week, we’ve had a 61-year-old man viciously assaulted outside Ballantynes just after 6 o’clock at night, and he’s in hospital fighting for his life. An 18-year-old is facing charges in relation to that.
And today, there are reports coming through about kids - thought to be as young as eight - terrorising retailers in the central city, nicking stuff from their shops and gangs of them running around the place assaulting and robbing people.
It’s being reported that some of these kids - who range in ages from eight to about 16 - are carrying knives and sharpened sticks.
And a lot of it is centred around the Bus Exchange which, by the way, seems to be turning into just as much of a cesspit as the old Bus Exchange on Lichfield Street. Remember that place before the earthquakes? It was awful.
So the Central City Business Association has trialled these patrols and wants to keep them going because it thinks they’ve made some difference. But it’s going to have to cover the cost for the rest of the year at least because the city council says it doesn't have any money available.
Which, as far as I’m concerned, is absolutely pathetic. If I owned a business in the central city, I would feel abandoned by the city council.
The same city council which likes to bang on about activating the central city and supporting businesses and getting more people into the area blah, blah, blah.
But if it’s going to pull this stunt and tell businesses it hasn’t got the money needed to deal with this problem - which is not only threatening the personal safety of the people who own and work in these businesses, but also threatening their livelihoods - then all the talk about being a business-friendly council is just blah, blah, blah.
Remember, this is the council that wants to spend $33 million beautifying the streets around the new stadium site - before there’s even a stadium there. The council that wants to widen footpaths and slow down traffic. $33 million for that, thank you.
The same council that’s already turning a blind eye to the situation on Hereford Street. I spoke the other week with a guy who runs a business there who has to close early because of the security concerns for his staff.
Which is consistent with the reports coming through today, where one person who works in the central city is saying she’s leaving her retail job because she doesn’t feel safe. As she says, just the sight of someone in a hoodie sends her heart rate “through the roof”.
And here’s how someone else, who manages a vape shop in town, is describing the bus exchange as “a microcosm of all the rotten parts of Christchurch all rolled up into one place”.
It’s consistent too with the latest Quality of Life survey which found more than 50 percent of people don’t feel safe in the central city at night time.
Yet, despite all of this, the Christchurch City Council has the temerity to tell the people running businesses in this environment, that it doesn’t have any money available and - if they want more security patrols - they’re going to have to pay for it them themselves.
It is absolutely shameful.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Life in Christchurch is not as good as it was 12 months ago. That’s according to the findings from the latest Nielsen Quality of Life survey.
It’s a nationwide survey that talks to people in nine cities around the country about all sorts of things that have a bearing on how they feel about life in their neck of the woods.
There are a truckload of different things they ask people about. But, overall, the survey has found that 34 percent of people in Christchurch think their quality of life has got worse over the last 12 months.
So let’s say that’s just over a third of people in the city. And for more than half of those people, the overwhelming reason for their quality of life dropping is all to do with their finances.
53 percent of Christchurch people surveyed by Nielsen say they are not as well off as they were last year. The technical term used in the wellbeing survey report is “reduced financial wellbeing”.
But I think we’d all agree that “reduced financial wellbeing” is a sugar-coated way of saying people are finding life much more of a struggle than they were just 12 months ago.
In fact, if there’s anything I’d dispute in these findings, it’s the 53 percent figure. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say that they’re feeling better-off than they used to.
You might be. But somehow I doubt it.
And I don’t think this is just a Christchurch city thing. I think it’s fairly safe to assume that the findings would be similar anywhere.
Because I’m in no doubt that life is way more expensive than it was - even just 12 months ago. And the official numbers back it up.
That inflation figure that came out yesterday was still pretty close to the record high a month ago and I see, since yesterday, the Government has said it has no plans for any further assistance to make life a bit easier on the financial front.
No more cost of living payments are on the cards, the fuel tax discount is going to be history by early next year. So, you’re on your own. We’re all on our own.
Which means different things for different people.
For me, while life is undoubtedly more expensive, for the grace of God I am in the privileged position where I don’t need foodbanks to help feed the family. I do know, though, that that could change in a heartbeat.
Because I reckon for pretty much all of us, we’d only need one or two things to happen to completely turn our lives upside down. A guy’s wife leaves him, he spirals into depression, loses his job, can't pay the bills and before he knows it he’s living in his car or on the street.
So while I consider myself to be in a very fortunate position, I know there are many, many people whose lives are very different to mine.
And I think the head of Foodbank Canterbury makes a very good point when he says it’s not necessarily easy anymore to tell which people are actually doing it tough.
I saw a quote from him where he said: “It is not just the people on the street who are struggling. It is the people in your street.“
And he goes on to say: “The person standing next to you at the bus stop could be hungry. That woman walking her dog might not have had any food that day. You never know.”
John Milligan is his name, and he says that people fear losing their dignity when they don’t have food - and so many of them don’t ask.
Not that there’s a shortage of people who do ask for help. Who need help.
I remember taking some things to the foodbank just before Christmas last year and they had two queues. One was for people like me dropping stuff off, the other was for people there to pick up a food parcel.
And which queue was longer do you think? It was the queue of people needing help. It didn’t take me very long at all to get in and do the drop-off.
And going by these findings today from the 2022 Quality of Life Survey, the queue of people needing food parcels this Christmas in Christchurch will be even longer.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to National Leader Christopher Luxon about the Quality of Life survey.
How would National help Cantabrians feel more settled financially, and safer on our streets? They discuss inflation, and also the plans for National to repeal and replace Three Waters should they be elected next year.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I never thought I’d say this, but good on Wayne Brown.
The new Auckland mayor has told his council and Auckland’s water company to stop doing any more work on the Government's Three Waters reforms and I think other councils should do the same.
They should all do what Auckland is doing and tell the Government they’re not going to waste anymore time, effort and money on Three Waters.
Wayne Brown is saying that he doesn’t think the reforms will happen, and so why would he want more ratepayer money going into it. He thinks the reforms are “doomed”, and for a couple of reasons:
The reforms haven’t been passed by Parliament and, after the results of the recent local body elections - which are, generally, being portrayed as a shift away from the left - he doesn’t see anything happening with Three Waters before next year’s general election.
So he's written to the head of the council’s water agency, Watercare, telling them to stop all work on Three Waters. He wants any staff at Council headquarters who have been working on Three Waters to be told to stop as well.
As he put it in a statement last night, he went to 300 events during his election campaign and he didn’t see or hear any support for Three Waters - and he promised to stop it happening, and this is first move.
I think it’s a brilliant move. And I think other councils should all do the same.
I was looking at a statement the Christchurch City Council put out last year after the Government announced that despite all the opposition from local councils, it was going to press-on with the reforms anyway.
And I couldn’t help thinking when I was looking at the council statement again that it had a real victim feel to it. “The Government told us lies. We feel betrayed.”
Which is why I think Wayne Brown’s move is exactly the right thing to do.
Because the Government knows it can’t make the Three Waters reforms a reality on its own and it needs the councils to do a lot of its donkey work. And that’s exactly what’s been happening. Council staff up and down the country beavering away.
But in Auckland, Mayor Wayne Brown has called time on it and has said no more.
He’s also said that any money saved by not having staff diverted from their normal jobs and doing all the Three Waters stuff should be passed on to ratepayers.
I asked Phil Mauger on his first day as Christchurch mayor how he was going to make sure Christchurch was front-and-centre in the Government’s thinking when it was obvious that Wayne Brown was going to be telling the Government a thing or two and pushing Auckland’s case big time.
Remember one of Brown’s first and only comments to media after he won the election was that he was going to make sure the Government understood that his council didn’t want things forced on it, and that he’d be making sure the Government didn’t get in the way of what his council wanted to do.
Wellington’s job is to listen and not impose ideological schemes like Three Waters on a city that doesn’t want them. That’s what Wayne Brown said.
And when I asked Phil Mauger about that, he indicated that he was going to be a bit more diplomatic. But I think that would be a major mistake - which is why I think he needs to do what Wayne Brown did yesterday and pull the plug on council staff doing anymore work for the Government on the Three Waters reforms.
Because, as far as I’m concerned, councils can bang on about Three Waters but, as long as they continue to have staff doing the work that needs to be done to make the reforms a reality, they will be guilty of selling their souls.
Wayne Brown’s move is very clever. It’s a noisy move - as we’ve come to expect from Wayne Brown. But, on this occasion, I think the noise is a good thing.
Because if you don’t want Three Waters to happen, why on earth would you continue pouring council staff and time - not to mention ratepayer money - into helping the Government make it a reality? That is just nuts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When it comes to knowing what it should be prioritising, this government is hopeless.
If you want evidence, where would you like me to start? Centralised control of the health system. A priority? No. Centralising all the polytechs around the country. A priority? Wouldn’t of thought so. Restructuring water services up and down the country. A priority? Maybe in some places, but not everywhere.
That’s just a start. And I actually think there are two headlines in the news today that trump all of those examples. Two headlines that, in just a few words, show how way off beam the Government has got when it comes to knowing what its priorities should be.
The first headline: 'The worst we’ve ever seen it’: KidsCan’s support for hungry children grows as food prices hit 13-year high'. And the second headline: "Government expects to spend $6 million on contractors working on public media mega-merger”.
The first headline is about KidsCan saying today that it’s feeding 10,000 more school kids than it was at the start of this year.
The organisation started in 2005 and it’s saying the level of hunger and poverty it’s seeing is like nothing it’s seen before.
Its CEO Julie Chapman says: “Parents are living in deficit every week. For the first time in 17 years, we are having teachers and principals break down on the phone to us because they are seeing the level of deprivation.” And she says the main thing is the kids not having enough to eat.
As for the second headline: the $6 million being spent on contractors is part of the Government's nutbar idea to merge TVNZ and RNZ.
I say nutbar for several reasons. First, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone marching in the streets or standing outside Parliament with megaphones demanding that time, effort and money go into merging two media companies which are doing fine as they are.
I’ve seen plenty of people marching for more cancer drugs. I’ve seen people marching over inadequate sentences for criminals. But never have I seen anyone demanding that truckloads of money be spent on what is nothing more than an ideological nice-to-have.
The $6 million being spent on the contractors, by the way, is a drop in the bucket compared to the $330 million the Government has in the budget for the TVNZ/RNZ merger.
Money it seems quite happy to spend, when there are kids going back to school after the holidays hungry.
As one principal in the news today puts it: “The kids are tired about 20 minutes into class time. They are literally lying on the floor and I’m thinking ‘What on earth is the matter?’ They can’t concentrate because they haven’t got anything in their tummy.”
Now I know as much as anyone that governments always have competing demands. Spending money on one thing means they can’t spend money on something else.
But just these two headlines tell me that the Government has well and truly lost its way when it comes to knowing what really matters and when it comes to knowing what it should be spending money on first.
Mmmmm…a media merger? Or feeding hungry kids? Media merger/hungry kids/media merger/hungry kids. Let’s go with a media merger. Because then we’ll be able to say we’ve created the BBC of the South Pacific. Something this new outfit will never be - but let’s put more money into that and let the kids go to school hungry.
I remember saying the day after Grant Robertson delivered this year’s Budget that I thought it was shameful the Government was planning to blow money on a media merger and not give Pharmac the money it needs to buy all the drugs it wants to buy.
But I think the news today that KidsCan is feeding 10,000 more kids than it was at the start of the year, and this government still thinks it’s a great idea to blow more than $300 million on merging RNZ and TVNZ, makes the whole thing even more shameful.
And just tells me that it has got its priorities all wrong.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Going by the warnings out today from the trucking and transport sector, it may not be long before we get our local councils telling us that rubbish collections can’t happen as often as they do now and getting stuff transported around the country will be more difficult than it is already.
Chris Carr, who runs the Carr and Haslem trucking company, has been flying drivers to the South Island every week because he can’t get enough drivers to cover all the routes.
He’s been doing it for the past three-or-four months and he’s even been out driving trucks himself. That’s how tight things are.
The issue he’s got with the Government is that it’s not letting truck drivers into New Zealand under the immigration settings, because it doesn’t think they’re essential. It doesn’t think they’re skilled workers.
And he’s not the only one concerned. The Waste Management Industry Forum, the Bus and Coach Association, and National Road Carriers - which represents the road transport sector - have all signed a letter and sent it to the Immigration Minister saying more truck drivers need to be allowed into the country ASAP.
I don’t know who’s advising this Minister, but his first response has been to say that the lack of drivers has been caused by the trucking companies themselves who have cut pay and conditions so much that people aren’t interested in working for them.
Which is a stupid thing to say. There might be some validity in that, but tell me an industry or a sector that operates in a competitive environment that hasn’t cut costs just to keep going.
I’ve got zero experience in running a trucking company, but I can quite easily imagine how governments - not just this one, all governments - have made life much more difficult for trucking firms to stay viable.
So the trucking firms and waste management people and bus companies have all written to the Minister saying something needs to be done.
Here are a few quotes from their letter to the Minister:
“The sectors we represent are facing a shortfall of over 9,000 drivers. At least 8,000 for freight vehicles of all sizes and classes; up to 600 bus drivers; and around 400 drivers of waste collection vehicles.” That’s a lot of people.
They go on in their letter to say: “We cannot overstate the degree of strain this is placing on the businesses we represent. It is resulting in unsustainable increases in cost, uncertainty and stress, and businesses are being stretched to breaking point in order to uphold commitments to clients and customers, and to the New Zealand public. We are receiving reports of burnout on an unprecedented scale.”
That’s just a taste of what the Immigration Minister has been told. And he thinks it’s all to do with trucking companies being too tight and not paying drivers what they’re worth.
But then, at the same time as he’s criticising the companies for not recognising truck drivers for what they’re worth, he’s refusing to recognise that driving a truck is a skill.
Which is why you’ve got the likes of Carr and Haslem flying drivers around the country to keep the trucks on the road. Because the Government doesn’t think truck drivers are skilled workers and so we can’t get enough of them into the country.
Most days I see a truck driver getting their vehicle into a position I probably wouldn’t even attempt. Not to mention the way they have to be so alert and ready to respond - especially when us motorists do things like overtaking a truck and thinking we can just squeeze back into the lane right in front of them.
The rubbish truck drivers can be something to behold too, can’t they? Which is why, in my mind, I have no doubt at all that truck driving is a skill and the sooner the Government recognises this, the better.
Because it’s really going to hit the fan, isn’t it, when the councils don’t have enough drivers to do the rubbish and recycling, and when you can’t get that thing you want to buy someone for Christmas because it’s stuck in a warehouse and there’s no way of getting it where you want it to be.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to Matt Doocey and Duncan Webb in the studio about the big topics of the week for Politics Friday.
We have a huge shortage of truck drivers at the moment, so why are they not considered skilled workers with immigration? Should Gloriavale be allowed to operate still given the findings about abuse within the community?
What is happening with maternity care in Canterbury with mothers in labour being turned away, and why are farmers going to have to pay the price for New Zealand 'leading the way' with emissions taxes?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Earlier this year, more than 30,000 people signed a petition calling for the birthing unit at St George’s Hospital in Christchurch to be kept open.
It all happened after the hospital announced it was going to close the unit because it didn’t have enough staff but, subsequently, agreed to keep it running until April next year, when its current contract with what used to be known as the Canterbury District Health Board runs out.
So imagine how those 30,000-plus people who signed the petition must be feeling today with the news that St George's has been sending mothers with newborn babies home early and even turned away a woman who went into labour on Tuesday.
She was told St George's was closed and she would have to go elsewhere. So, with Christchurch Women's Hospital full, she ended up having to go to Rangiora and her midwife missed the birth by five minutes because of the unexpected extra travel time.
Can you imagine how traumatic that must’ve been for this woman? You’re told there’s no room at the inn and then your midwife misses the actual birth because they have to drive to another hospital miles away.
Is this the sort of care we expect in New Zealand’s second-largest city?
I know there are women up and down the country who have to travel long distances when they go into labour. But, generally, these are women who live in locations where facilities aren’t on the doorstep and they know from the outset that some travel is going to be involved.
It’s a bit different if you live in Christchurch - or in the surrounding area - and all along you’ve known that it’s going to either be Christchurch Women’s or St George’s where your baby will be born but then, at the last minute, you’re told ‘sorry, no room, you need to go somewhere else’. As far as I’m concerned, that is completely unacceptable.
And this is not me beating up on St George's. I get they’ve got problems with staff shortages. So I’m not specifically beating up on them. But is this what things have come to?
It’s not just someone in labour being turned away this week. There have also been mothers sent home early.
One woman was sent home on the second night after giving birth. Now, I remember when our kids were born how those three nights in hospital were absolute gold.
And, as Sheena Ross from the College of Midwives is saying, the second night after a birth can be the most difficult night. She says babies often cry a lot on the second night and mums can require essential support with latching and feeding.
But this particular woman was sent home from St George’s at 7 o’clock on her second night. You can only wonder how things went for her. And not just her either - she will most likely have a partner and I don’t think we should forget about partners in this situation.
I know from my experience how the time mum and baby spends in hospital after the birth isn’t just gold for them, it’s gold for the other parent too who - especially if it’s the first time - are not only elated but can feel pretty overwhelmed by it all too.
And you can’t underestimate the value of the chance to get home for a bit of a rest before the whirlwind of having a newborn baby in the house hits.
The unit at St George’s is operating again after two community midwives were called in. I gather the hospital is looking for more too.
Nevertheless, the fact this happened in the first place just shows, doesn’t it, that maternity care in this country is playing second fiddle. I’m not quite sure what it’s playing second fiddle to - because if you can tell me which part of the health system is operating at gold standard, then I’ll be interested to hear about it.
But, from where I’m sitting, it looks to me as if maternity care is running on a wing and a prayer and, as far as I’m concerned, it’s not good enough.
Because this is not just about women who are due to have their babies this week. This is about women who are due to have their babies anytime soon.
Women who, going by what we’ve seen this week, could find themselves in the same situation and either be forced to go somewhere else at the last minute to have their baby, or be sent home early afterwards because there’s not enough staff to look after them.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I can’t help thinking that when it comes to climate change and emissions, New Zealand is like the good guy who does all the right things and when he asks a girl out he doesn’t do it with just one thing in mind - but then loses out to the bad boy who comes from the ‘treat ‘em mean, keep ‘em keen’ approach to life.
So we’ve got James Shaw saying all the right things about how he’s going to look after Mother Nature, and how he’s going to make sure the farmers are good to her - but at the same time Mother Nature’s out on dates with China, the United States, India and Russia. And they’re treating her real bad - and laughing at New Zealand behind our back.
Because they know that, when push comes to shove, it doesn’t matter what New Zealand does because they’re bigger, stronger and carry much more sway than we ever will. And yes, they’ll all talk about cutting emissions - but they won’t, because they can.
This is why I’m not buying the Government’s big sell job on this plan to make farmers pay every time their sheep and cows let out a bit of wind.
According to Climate Change Minister James Shaw and the Prime Minister, the world is watching us because New Zealand is the first country in the world to come up with something like this.
But just because someone’s watching you, it doesn’t necessarily mean they like what they see. This isn’t going to be a Kath & Kim moment for the Government. You know what I mean: “Oi loike what oi see”.
And, mark my words; other countries will be watching this experiment that the Government wants to do with our farmers just as much for reasons not to do it, as reasons to do it.
And, if I was a farmer out in the paddock or in the tractor today, I’d be furious that my livelihood was being used as some sort of ‘look at me, look at me’ act by the Government.
The thing about farming and the impact it has on the environment, is that emissions - as far as I’m concerned anyway - come a distant second compared to the impact nitrates in the soil from farm animals are having on us here in New Zealand. Especially through intensive dairy farming.
When a cow pees in the paddock today, it will take 20 years for the nitrates to work through the soils.
That is covered in this new scheme announced by the Government, but the main goal is to reduce emissions so that New Zealand can say it’s doing something to meet its emissions-reducing commitments.
The same commitments other countries have made but seem to be doing very little about. They’re the ones treating Mother Nature mean to keep her keen, while we play the nice guy and run the risk of getting walked all over.
If the Government was really serious about doing something world-leading, it would be putting time, effort and money into things that really are going to make a genuine difference.
An example I can think of is an outfit in Canterbury that makes plastic out of sheep’s wool. It uses coarse sheep’s wool that normally gets chucked away because it’s not the sort of stuff you can use to make wool products.
But a brilliant young guy in Christchurch has come up with a process that turns it into a plastic-like material that Torpedo 7 is using to make kayaks. And when you’ve finished with the kayak, you can take it back to the shop and they can break it down and re-use the material.
That’s the kind of thing that the world would sit up and pay attention to. Not this scheme that - yet again - uses the big stick and taxes farmers because their animals have the nerve to burp and fart.
And even if James Shaw is right, and the whole world is watching this experiment with intense interest, I don’t think for a minute that we - in particular our farming sector, which so many people say is the backbone of the economy - I don’t think we should be the world’s guinea pigs.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Poor old Phil Mauger.
After winning the Christchurch mayoralty on Saturday and saying on Sunday that he wants a transport plan for the city that is good for everyone - including motorists - yesterday, his council released details of its plan to spend $33 million upgrading the streets around the site of the new stadium, Te Kaha.
And in the process, it wants to take away dozens of car parks. There are currently 72, it wants to get rid of 49 and keep 23.
But that’s not all. The council wants to widen footpaths on some streets in the area to nearly six metres, put in more cycleways and lower the speed limit in the area to as low as 10 kilometres per hour.
Not surprisingly, businesses in the area aren’t happy about it. And no wonder, because it’s nuts. And I’m with Phil Mauger on this one. He’s saying the $33 million should be pumped into the stadium itself, not on taking away car parks, widening footpaths, cycleways and slowing down traffic to 10 kilometres per hour.
Phil Mauger is saying the work should only be done - and the money spent - once people start coming to town to go to the stadium and the city starts to reap the financial benefits that will come.
“You’ve got to cut your cloth to suit the budget”. That’s what the mayor is saying - and I fully agree with him.
Can you imagine when the council eventually gets around to what it should have done years ago, and knocks on the door at Waimakariri and Selwyn and asks them to help out with funding the stadium; can you imagine what they’ll say if they know the council is spending more than $30 million upgrading the streets around the stadium site?
If I was them, I’d say ‘come back when you’ve got your priorities sorted, then we’ll talk’.
Because spending $33 million beautifying the area when, at the moment, the stadium site itself is still pretty much a piece of dirt and when the council is still trying to nut out how it’s going to cover the cost blow-out, makes no sense at all.
I see the council’s transport manager is saying that if the council does this work now, it will mean it doesn’t have to spend money on expensive traffic management plans when big events are held at the stadium.
That will be because - if the council gets its way - there’ll be no car parks and traffic will be crawling along at 10 km/h. But let’s remind ourselves how often that’s going to happen.
As it stands, there’s probably going to be about one major event per month. The rest of the time we’ll be having an even harder time trying to find somewhere to park in town and we’ll be crawling around the place at 10 km/h.
I’m not surprised to see that I’m not the only one who thinks what the council wants to do is ridiculous.
Annabel Turley from the Central City Business Association says people still come into town in cars and they need to be catered for. And the businesses in town aren’t impressed with the council wanting to take away dozens of on-street carparks.
She makes a very good point too about the idea of widening the footpath on Lichfield Street to nearly six metres so there can be outdoor dining and all of that - instead of car parks.
Annabel Turley says that would be the last place you’d want to sit outside and eat, because of our old friend the easterly wind which likes to invite itself to pretty much everything here in Christchurch.
Yet again - an idea that looks brilliant on the urban planner’s computer screen, but totally wrong for the area.
Nevertheless, council staff wants to blow $33 million under the guise that it will save money in the long-run. But I don’t buy that for a minute and, like I say, if the Christchurch council thinks it’s going to get money for the stadium from the other local councils, then it needs to pull the plug on this nonsense and spend the money where it’s needed.
Like Phil Mauger says: “Cut your cloth to suit the budget”.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Prior to the weekend, I was confused about what Phil Mauger’s priorities actually were.
And, since he won the Christchurch mayoralty over the weekend, I’m even more confused.
A few weeks ago, I asked him what he thought the greatest challenges facing Christchurch were.
Top of his list were climate change and inflation. But then, in the next breath, he said he wanted to pull the plug on cycleways.
And he’s gone further than that over the weekend since winning the mayoral race, and he’s said that he wants to rip up the draft transport plan and do away with any idea of congestion charges, road tolls and fining companies that provide car parks for their staff.
Now I think they’re daft ideas too because we don’t have major traffic congestion problems in Christchurch - so a “congestion charge” would be nothing more than a tax in sheep’s clothing - and penalising outfits that provide parking for their employees is typical of the big stick approach that councils seem to love.
You don’t get a lot of carrot, it’s all big stick - especially, it seems, when it comes to climate change-related matters.
So Phil Mauger’s worried about climate change but doesn’t like cycleways and he wants a transport plan that makes “everybody happy”. His words, not mine. Which is a recipe for failure because, as we know, if you try to keep everyone happy - no one is happy.
So big contradictions on how he’s going to address climate change.
The other big challenge Phil Mauger said Christchurch needs to address was inflation. And here comes another contradiction that’s got me scratching my head.
One of the big financial challenges facing the new council is the new stadium, Te Kaha, and how it’s going to be paid for since the cost blow-out earlier this year.
And after all the talk about leveraging council assets and selling-off council-owned land, it seems the new mayor wants to introduce a regional tax to help pay for the stadium.
I was reading this last night in the notes from the meeting Phil and councillors Sam MacDonald and James Gough had pre-election with city council chief executive Dawn Baxendale.
The notes from that meeting say Phil wants to explore the idea of a regional tax to help pay for the stadium. How wanting a new tax on ratepayers is consistent with tackling inflation, I’ll never know.
Which is why, as far as I’m concerned - now that he’s mayor - the first thing Phil Mauger needs to do is to decide what he actually stands for and be open and honest about it.
You can’t say you’re concerned about climate change and then pull the plug on measures to try and get people to use their cars less.
Yes, I think some of the ideas in the Draft Transport Plan are dumb and not relevant in Christchurch. And yes, I think some of the cycleways around the place are way over the top and over-engineered. But if Phil Mauger was really worried about climate change, he wouldn’t be coming out swinging five minutes after winning the election and declaring war on cycleways and congestion charges.
Just like you can’t say inflation is a major challenge you want to address because life’s getting too expensive for all of us, and then want to introduce a new tax to pay for a new stadium.
I see in the notes from his pre-election meeting with the council’s chief executive that he wants to limit rates increase to 3 or 4 percent. Which sounds fine and dandy, but is probably unachievable and would be completely negated by his new stadium tax.
Which is why I’m saying: Will the real Phil Mauger please stand up.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to Christchurch's new Mayor, Phil Mauger.
They discussed the result, and what the main challenges are ahead for Mauger as Mayor. What will he focus on first?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by Gerry Brownlee and Dan Rosewarne in the studio for Politics Friday.
They discussed Tax, Oranga Tamariki and its alleged failings recently, Nitrates in Canterbury Water and the local election voter turnout - how do we fix it?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m not going to deny things are tight. Because they are. And if there’s anyone out there who thinks things aren’t tight in New Zealand right now, then I’ll have some of what they’re having.
Because it seems, doesn it, that everytime we go to the supermarket it's more expensive. Nip in to get a few things in-between the big weekly shop, and a hundred bucks can disappear like that.
And so the news out yesterday that the Government’s finances are in better shape than we had been led to believe, has fired up the inevitable calls for tax cuts.
The National and ACT parties are saying there’s now every reason to take on the cost of living crisis by cutting taxes. Labour and the Greens completely disagree, saying we’re not out of the woods yet.
And we’re not out of the woods, because it’s not as if the figures out yesterday were a booming surplus. They’re not.
We’ve still got a deficit - we’re $9.7 billion in deficit. The good news is that we’d been told to expect about twice that. So it’s bad, but just not as bad as people thought it was going to be.
So, why on earth National and ACT think that’s a good-enough reason to go cutting taxes, I’ll never know.
National’s finance spokesperson Nicola Willis is saying that a decent finance minister would look at those numbers and see an opportunity to ease the tax burden on New Zealanders.
As she puts it, the Government needs to “just let Kiwis keep more of what they earn”.
Which Nicola Willis would say because National is hanging its hat on tax cuts. In fact, so far it’s hanging its hat, scarf and overcoat on tax cuts.
And just like I’m not denying that things are tight for people right now - I’m not going to deny that most people would love a bit more money in their pocket.
But now is not the time to do it.
Aside from the $9.7 billion deficit figure, another figure worth noting that came out yesterday is that the Government earned 10 percent more through taxes because - overall - businesses have been more profitable and more people are in work.
So, technically - even though it doesn’t feel like it - technically we’re better off.
ACT leader David Seymour is saying if the Government’s benefited from more tax revenue, then taxpayers should benefit too and he’s chiming in with National on the call for tax cuts.
But I couldn’t disagree more with David Seymour and Nicola Willis, if I tried.
Because, just like you, I would love to hold on to more of the money I earn. With three teenagers, money flies out the door at our place like anything.
Yes, New Zealand is a great place to bring up kids. But it’s also an expensive place to bring up kids.
But even if the idea of having a little bit more sounds good to me, I can’t help think of the opportunity cost that would come with tax cuts.
You don’t need to be an economist to know that the less money the Government has coming in from taxes, the less it has to spend. And, let’s face it, if National and ACT got their way and you and I got a tax cut - the extra amount we would get would be chickenfeed compared to the cost to the country.
If you're frustrated with the state of the hospital system. Do you think that’s going to have any hope of getting better if the Government has less money to spend?
Do you really think there’ll be less ram raids happening if there’s less money to fund the police force in this country?
Of course not. And National and ACT can go on until they’re blue in the face with their reassurances that tax cuts wouldn’t mean a cut in services. Because I don’t believe them - not for a minute.
Which is why I think it would be nuts for the Government to cut taxes. And I completely disagree with National and ACT on this one.
Yes, life is blimmin’ hard on the financial front. But I think the benefit of you and me getting a tax cut would be outweighed big time by the Government having less money to spend on essential services that I think, we all agree, we need more of.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
At 6:20 on Monday morning, a woman was out running in Fendalton, Christchurch.
A man she didn’t know approached her and tried to drag her away. But he took off when someone who was driving past saw what was going on, pulled over and intervened.
How much of a hero is that person?
The Police are describing what happened as an attempted kidnapping and they’re on the hunt for this guy.
They’re describing him as possibly being of Indian descent, about five-foot-eight, five-foot-nine in height, with short black hair and a short beard.
And they particularly want to talk to anyone who might’ve been driving past the spot where this happened on Monday morning.
The reports are saying the woman was left shaken by what happened - but that won’t explain half of how she’ll be feeling, will it?
There she was, out for a morning run, minding her own business, and this guy tries to do the unthinkable. So, if you have any information that might help the Police track him down, get in touch with the Police.
A bit more detail about him: they’re saying he’s believed to be between 25 and 33 years old and was wearing a dark-coloured vest and dark-coloured tracksuit ants, with one trouser leg rolled up towards the knee.
So a pretty good description, considering the shock this poor woman would’ve been in when and after it happened. And let’s hope the Police find him ASAP.
At about the same time as this happened, I was heading into work. And, pretty much every day when I ride in, I find myself amazed at the number of women out running and walking on their own. Some are obviously exercising, others look like they’re heading to work.
Now before you go getting any ideas, this is not me saying that this poor woman shouldn’t have been out running on her own at 6:20am on Monday.
I’m not saying that at all. In fact, she and all the other women I see everyday on my way into work, have every right to go wherever they want - whenever they want.
Nevertheless, it does surprise me when I see a woman out in the dark on her own. Which probably reflects my sense of security, as much as anything. Because I don’t think it’s just women who are at-risk in this city.
I get a very hard time at home sometimes when I get a bit antsy about the teenagers walking somewhere at night.
This is the boys I’m talking about. And even though they’re both six-feet tall, sporty, go to the gym and more than capable of looking after themselves - as they tell me on a daily basis - despite all that, I still think it’s dodgy even for them to be on the street after dark.
We had an experience ourselves one night walking home after we’d been around the corner watching rugby with friends. So this was about 10 o’clock and some guy who was off his nut on something came out of nowhere and tried to run us down on a pushbike.
He came off second-best after whacking his head on a tree, but we were really shaken by that and, ever since, I’ve probably been more cautious than I used to be.
In town on Friday or Saturday night is another time I’m really cautious, because it seems to me that the threat of danger is just around the corner.
So I always make sure that I either walk people back to their car or, if I’m driving, I give them a lift to where they’re parked.
Which is why, in some respects, what happened to this poor woman in Fendalton on Monday morning doesn’t surprise me. I think it’s appalling, I think she had every right to go for a run without this happening to her - just like I think anyone (male, female or whatever) should be able to run or walk the streets safely. Anytime, day or night.
But, as far as I’m concerned, I don’t think we can take that for granted. Because, from my perspective - and sadly - I don’t feel that Christchurch is the kind of place where you can expect, or assume, that you’ll be safe anytime of the day or night.
The guy who attacked this woman in Fendalton on Monday morning - and let’s not beat around the bush, the police are calling it an attempted kidnapping but it was an attack - he needs to be off the streets ASAP and I hope the Police can track him down pretty quickly.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Proclaimers have announced they will undertake their biggest tour of New Zealand in March of next year. Best known in this country for their hit, 500 Miles, John MacDonald spoke to Craig Reid on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings to find out more about the music, the tour and their brand new album - Dentures Out.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The water sprinklers probably aren’t going to get that much action this week, with the storm that’s due to come through from late tonight.
But, as night follows day, the storm will pass and we will eventually get to the point where there is less rain and you’ll start wanting to water the vege garden, water the lawn and maybe even strip off and run under the sprinkler.
And, as of the weekend just gone, if you do too much of that and you pay your rates to the Christchurch City Council - you’ll have to pay its new excess water charge.
It came into force on Saturday and, if you use more water than you’re supposed to, you can look forward to the bill (or the fine) arriving in your mailbox sometime in late January.
So, as of right now, you can use 700 litres of water a day without getting charged more.
But for every extra 1,000 litres you use, you’ll be charged $1.35.
I was reading of a case recently where someone in Avonhead discovered they had two leaks on their property, got them fixed and reduced their water consumption by 42,000 litres a day.
Which is lucky for them because, under the new rules, they’d be charged an extra $55 a day.
Now that’s probably an extreme case, but that is a real example of a household here in Christchurch that would’ve had to pay an extra $1600 a month to the council if it hadn’t got the leaks fixed.
Which is why we got a letter from the council recently saying our water use was high and we should check if we’ve got a leak.
We did have a leak a wee while ago. It’s been fixed and I’m picking they did their check on our water use before we’d got it fixed.
Now the city council has been saying that it thinks charging people for using excess water is a good idea because, where this sort of thing has been done elsewhere in the country, water use has dropped by 20 to 30 percent.
Now that has to be a good thing, but is it the best way of going about it?
It seems, doesn’t it, that councils and the Government always go straight to threatening the stick instead of dangling the carrot when it comes to changing behaviours that are perceived to be bad, especially behaviours that are bad for the environment.
A non-water example would be this ridiculous idea the city council has in its big Transport Plan to fine companies and employers that provide car parks for their staff, because it thinks companies that do this are encouraging people to use cars.
This water thing is the same.
‘You can’t keep using water like it’s going out of fashion, so we’re going to fine you for using too much.’
Which probably sounds like the right thing to do when you’re sitting in front of the whiteboard at council HQ. But is it really?
Wouldn’t it be better if we just knew from the outset that we had to pay for every drop of water we use and if we want to pay less, we just use less.
I know this wouldn’t fix the inequity in this new system where a household of two can probably water their garden as much as they want and not be fined for excess use, but a family with three kids which does a lot more washing and a lot more showering are sitting ducks for excess charges.
But if we all paid for what we use, then we’d treat it the same as electricity wouldn’t we? If you want to pay less for power, there are ways you can do that. Turn the lights off, find more efficient ways to heat the house - that sort of thing.
And I know I would think twice about using water if I knew I was getting charged for every drop - and not just fined for using more than the council says I should.
Which is why I think a pure user-pays model - as they do in other parts of the country and other parts of the world - would be a much better way of getting us to reduce our overall water consumption.
Because other things the council has tried, like banning the use of sprinklers during certain hours during the summer months, have been pointless.
How many times have you seen the lawn enthusiast down the road blasting out the water when they shouldn’t be? And have you done anything about it? Of course you haven’t - because us New Zealanders, we don’t like to cause a fuss, so we turn a blind eye.
So the Christchurch City Council thinks the solution to that, is to charge us if we use more than it thinks we should. I disagree and think it would be fairer if the council charged us all for the water we actually use, instead of penalising some of us for using too much.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This week is set to be Chirstchurch mayor Lianne Dalziel's last week in office, as her replacement will be voted in during this current local body election.
As such, she agreed to do an 'exit interview' here today, to reflect on her nine years as a public servant for the people of Christchurch.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Over the weekend, there was an anniversary that I’m picking most people didn’t know about and certainly didn’t celebrate.
On Saturday, GST turned 36.
For 36 years, we’ve been paying that little bit extra on pretty much everything we buy. It started off as 10 percent extra when Roger Douglas kicked it off on the 1st of October 1986, and there’ve been increases along the way to get us to the 15 percent we pay now.
And it’s probably coincidental that GST is in the news today. This time it’s GST on the Government’s new unemployment insurance scheme.
I heard a tax expert on Newstalk ZB this morning and, after a while, my eyes started glazing over because tax experts being tax experts, they do get bogged down in the detail pretty quickly, don’t they?
But the gist, so to speak, of what he was talking about, is the advice from Treasury to the Government that it shouldn’t go giving us taxpayers any deduction on the GST that we will pay as part of our compulsory payments into the new unemployment insurance scheme.
You probably know about it - it’s where workers will pay into it and employers will pay into it too. And, once it’s up and running, if you lose your job through redundancy the Government will pay you 80 percent of what you were earning for up to seven months.
And, just like what happens with ACC, employees will have money deducted from their pay for the scheme and employers will have to pay into it as well through levies.
But, unlike employers who will be able to claim back the GST they pay into the insurance scheme, their workers won’t. And I think this is wrong.
If you go to the IRD website, here’s what it says about GST: “GST is a tax added to the price of most goods and services, including imports. It is a tax for people who buy and sell goods and services.”
A tax for people who buy and sell goods and services. But it's the buying bit that’s key here.
Because, generally, when you buy something you choose whether you’re going to do it or not, don’t you?
Even stuff you absolutely need, there’s still an element of choice there. If something breaks down, you can choose whether you’re going to get it fixed or not.
Food - we all need food. But there are a whole lot of choices available to us. We don’t have to buy everything - we can grow vegetables, if we choose to.
Life insurance and medical insurance - we’ve got a choice.
What we don’t get to choose, though, is whether we’re going to contribute to the Government’s new unemployment insurance scheme. It’s going to be compulsory, whether we like it or not.
And that’s why I don’t agree with Treasury and that’s why I don’t think we should be made to pay GST on the levies that are going to go straight out of our pay packets whether we like it or not.
The National Party also thinks that adding GST to the levies is outrageous.
Its Finance spokesperson Nicola Willis is describing it as “yet another grab on Kiwis’ take-home pay by Labour, intended to boost the Government’s coffers at the expense of workers.
And she goes on to say: “In the middle of a cost of living crisis, this is completely the wrong thing for the Government to be doing.”
And I couldn’t agree more.
Although, I’m coming at it from the perspective that this is not going to be optional - there’s no choice involved here - and so why should we be paying GST?
Because, as far as I’m concerned, buying something comes from a conscious decision to pay money in exchange for it. That’s why I’ve got no qualms about paying GST on my groceries and clothes and shoes and holidays…all things that I choose to spend my money on.
But when this new insurance scheme comes in, I’ll have no choice. I’ll be paying for the scheme - but I won’t be buying it. That’s why I think there is no way we should be paying GST on it.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It’s school holiday time again and the Police are doing their usual ‘let’s be careful out there’ thing which, as we know with some people, falls on deaf ears and the last thing they are when they’re behind the wheel is careful.
In the last week alone, eight people have died on the roads here in New Zealand. And there’ll be countless others who have been injured over the past week - we just don’t hear so much about them but, in some cases, the injuries can be life-changing.
So the Police want those of us driving over the holidays to do everything we can to avoid becoming another statistic - like the eight people in the past week. Eight people who - a week or so ago - were with us. Eight people who - today - aren’t.
But the Police also think we need to go a step further than just playing it safe - and they’re calling for a significant change to the speed limit.
It’s been revealed that the Police think that if we’re serious about reducing the road toll, we need to reduce the speed limit everywhere. And they’re saying that on open roads that don’t have median barriers - which is most roads - the speed limit should change from 100 kilometres per hour to 80 km/h.
Which is something that’s already happening in some parts.
Now this is not something the Police have come out with and announced. It’s come from an Official Information Act request for a briefing document that went from the Police’s National Road Safety Manager to the Police Minister.
The gist of what the Police are saying is that current speed limits - or what they call “unsafe speed limits” - are contributing to 60 percent of all deaths and serious injuries on the roads.
So they want it to go 80 km/h on open roads where there are no media barriers. And on windy or unsealed roads, they want it to go down to 60 km/h.
Now I know the Police have got the stats to back this all up. And who would argue that the faster you go, the more likely you are to be injured or worse if you have a crash. That all makes sense.
But I think expecting people to drive at 80 km/h - or 60 km/h in some places - is a recipe for disaster.
Like I say, it’s already happening in some areas. But can you imagine what it would be like if this was done pretty much everywhere? And it would be pretty much everywhere because, unfortunately, median barriers are few and far between in this country.
I see one long-time firefighter is saying he doubts it would work. He says people driving slower do have more time to react if something goes wrong but, like me, he thinks the frustration thing would be a real issue.
Motoring commentator Clive Matthew-Wilson is someone you’re possibly familiar with. He’s saying it would be “madness” to expect people to drive 80 km/h on long, straight, relatively safe highways. And I couldn’t agree with him more.
State Highway One from Christchurch to Ashburton is a prime example. Can you imagine what it would be like on that stretch of road if the speed limit went down to 80 km/h?
But that is exactly what the Police think needs to happen, everywhere.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by Gerry Brownlee and Poto Williams for Politics Friday.
They discussed the suggestion that the speed limit on open roads could be lowered to 80kmph, Phil Mauger's Hospital Car Parking plan, and should the parole notification policy review.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It wouldn’t be a local body election without hospital car parking coming up for discussion.
And that’s what’s happened today, with mayoral candidate Phil Mauger announcing that he wants to use part of Hagley Park for a hospital car park in Christchurch.
As you probably know, there’s a new 450-space car park being built but that isn't expected to be finished until the end of next year.
The original plan was to build an 800-space hospital car park. The plans were in place and things set to go. But in 2017, the Government said ‘no’ to funding it.
So they went back to the drawing board and, in 2020, the Government agreed to build the smaller 450-space building and add another two floors to an existing staff car park to create another 230 spaces.
But there have been the inevitable delays and it’s going to be the end of next year before the new car park is ready.
So Phil Mauger is saying today that, if he becomes mayor, he'll put cobblestones on a grass verge on Riccarton Avenue where he reckons there'd be space for 100 cars. If you park there you’ll get the first two hours free and Mauger says he'd want it done by Christmas.
So this would be a stop-gap measure until the new one is finished and ready.
He’s saying that the area he’s got in mind is a strip of grass that used to be used “unofficially” for parking. These days it’s a no-stopping zone and Phil thinks what used to be the unofficial parking area should be turned into an official one.
He’s teamed-up on this one with fellow city councillor Aaron Keown who also used to be a member of the Canterbury District Health Board before the Government got rid of health boards and did its centralisation thing.
So Aaron Keown is very familiar with this issue. Mauger says he’s no stranger to it either. He’s saying today that his wife was in hospital earlier this year and he saw first-hand how terrible the parking situation is there.
Not to mention how expensive it is in that tiny little car park out the front of the new Waipapa hospital building.
Not surprisingly, the advocates for keeping Hagley Park as it is aren’t fussed with this idea. I see their spokesperson is likening Phil to Bob the Builder. Can we do it? Yes we can.
You may recall when the Hagley Cricket Oval development was happening, the “Hands Off Hagley” group were up in arms. They were the same about the proposal to put floodlights in at the Oval.
That was to ensure the ground could be used for international TV broadcasts and I don’t think we can say that the Oval development and the lights have been the downfall of Christchurch.
Nevertheless, the “Hands off Hagley” people have a job to do - which is making sure Hagley Park as we know it isn’t lost. So good on them for that.
As for Mauger’s idea, I think he’s dreaming if he thinks he could have it done by Christmas. I also think we need to consider what would happen in other places where they have beautiful green spaces right in the middle of a city.
Do you think they’d do this kind of thing with Hyde Park in London? Do you think they’d do it with Central Park in New York? Of course they wouldn’t. And that’s good enough a reason for me to think it shouldn’t happen here.
What’s more, how would you know who was parking there because they were at the hospital and who was parking there while they nipped into Ballantynes and had a coffee at Riverside?
It’s shortsighted and only being suggested because of the elections.
Fellow mayoral candidate, David Meates - who knows a thing or two about the hospital - is describing Mauger’s idea as “a desperate solution”. He says randomly creating 100 car parks does not fix the problem.
Which, of course, it doesn’t. But then I don’t think Phil Mauger is claiming that. He’s just putting it out there as a stop-gap measure.
And he’s not planning on any drawn-out consultation process. If he becomes mayor, he’ll do an online survey to get a mandate to go ahead with it.
As he puts it: “We don’t need to consult this to death, let’s just ask the people and then get on with it.”
If it gets to that point, I'll be saying thanks but no thanks.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
One of the founding members and songwriters of Kiwi hit band Mi-Sex, Murray Burns, joined Canterbury Mornings.
Murray joined John MacDonald to discuss and reflect on the band's history, some of the challenges and losses they faced, and how they came to continue the magic of live performance.
Mi-Sex is part of the line up at Selwyn Sounds in Lincoln, to be held in March 2023. Tickets are on sale now.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Last night, Phil Mauger and David Meates fronted up to the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce Christchurch mayoral debate.
And, as you would expect, they talked about a whole lot of stuff and, inevitably, rates came up for discussion. Hard to avoid really.
So Phil Mauger and David Meates talked about two very different approaches or ways of thinking about rates.
David Meates' thinking is that the council needs to get more creative and not just see rates as the only way to pay for the services it provides. He said that, if he becomes mayor, he’ll want to get more benefits for ratepayers from the Council’s commercial operations.
These are the companies that are run by Christchurch City Holdings Limited which, he quite rightly said last night, is in a bit of a shambles at the moment with the Board chair and Board member James Gough quitting recently, and the disaster of a chief executive who’s also quit.
Nevertheless, David Meates thinks the council should be getting more out of those companies - the Orion lines company, the airport, the port company etc - for the benefit of ratepayers.
I don’t think he’s talking about creaming more profits. My reading of it is that these companies have big balance sheets that the council should be making more of.
A bit like the equity someone has in their house and how they can use that to get credit to buy another place or do a renovation. So David Meates’ approach is for the council to do more with its assets to try and keep rates increases down.
Phil Mauger, on the other hand, thinks cutting costs is the answer. He wants to cap rates increases at 3 percent and he said last night that, if he becomes mayor, he’ll want the council to “trim out some stuff that is not that necessary”.
“We’ve got to cut our cloth”, is what he said.
But, as David Meates pointed out, keeping rates increases at 3 percent would require “substantial cuts to operational and capital budgets”.
So two very different approaches - but the objective is the same: keeping rates increases to an absolute minimum. Show me a ratepayer who’s going to say ‘no’ to that.
But it raises an interesting question about rates and the value we get in return for them.
We pay rates to the Christchurch City Council. And I’ve got to say that I think we get very good value for money for our rates.
If we start with the basics, I think Christchurch’s rubbish and recycling system is brilliant. The bins, the trucks. You can pretty much set your watch to when the trucks are going to turn up.
Water. I’ve had nothing but positive experiences with the council over water. We had the toby tap where the water supply connects to the house go haywire not that long ago, it was on a Saturday afternoon, and they had someone around within a couple of hours to fix it.
We had a mysterious leak a while ago which took them a while to get around to. But I can’t complain about any of the council people I had dealings with over that.
The recycling crew at the dump. Great people. Although, I think what the council charges to dump rubbish there is a bit steep.
Council libraries - brilliant.
I haven’t dealt with the council over a building consent for quite a while but I know the service on that front has been a bit average recently.
But, overall, I think I get good value-for-money for my rates.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you think it’s taking you too long to get around Christchurch now, it’s nothing compared to how long it’s going to take you.
That’s because, in its infinite wisdom, Waka Kotahi has come up with a plan to reduce the speed limit on most Christchurch roads to 30 kilometres per hour. It’ll be 40 km/h for some, but 30 km/h for most.
It thinks it will make the roads safer and reduce emissions. And don’t go thinking it’s just a backstreet thing. It isn’t. Waka Kotahi has got its sights set on major roads including Riccarton Road, Colombo Street South, Papanui Road and Ferry Road.
This is not completely unheard of. Just a few weeks ago, the Wellington council voted to reduce the speed limit to 30km/h on 80 percent of city streets. Again, it was an idea pushed by Waka Kotahi - which has control of roads outside council areas.
And so it will be the Christchurch City Council that makes the final call here - but Waka Kotahi and senior government ministers are pushing the idea big time.
And as we know - generally, what Waka Kotahi wants, Waka Kotahi gets.
It’s just a pity they don’t want more critical things like median barriers on as many roads as possible. But then forcing - sorry, encouraging - the local council to reduce local speed limits to 30 km/h is the easy option, isn’t it?
Now you might be thinking, ‘I never get to a speed any quicker than 30 km/h on some of those roads they’re talking about”. But there will be roads and streets where 30 km/h is just not practical. And there are times when you can go faster on those main roads I mentioned.
All of this is part of the Road to Zero campaign. And Waka Kotahi is citing an OECD report from 2018 which says if someone is hit by a car travelling at 40 km/h, the probability of them being killed is double what it is if the car is doing 30 km/h.
And if the car’s doing 50 km/h, then the chance of surviving is even less.
But sometimes when a person or an organisation comes up with an idea, you’ve just gotta say ‘yeah cool, but…’
And this is an example where I just have to say ‘yeah cool, but…’.
For a couple of basic reasons that I don’t think anyone at Waka Kotahi thought about when they were sitting around the whiteboard doing the old brainstorming session.
Now no one is going to argue that minimising the risk of death for someone hit by a car is a good thing. In fact, it’s not just a good thing - it’s a critical thing.
But do you really think reducing the speed limit on paper is going to make one iota of difference? Of course it’s not.
That bozo you saw at the weekend in the Nissan Skyline doing 80 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. They're not going to give a damn about the speed limit being 30 km/h are they? And do you really think the police are going to be out there pinging people for going faster than 30 km/h?
We never seem to have enough cops on the roads to police the 50 km/h and 100 km/h speed limits, so what makes Waka Kotahi thinks this is remotely enforceable?
Well it’s not. Which shows why this Road to Zero thing is pretty much about strategy documents and plans and ideas that sound good but achieve nothing.
And it’s not just Road to Zero. I remember the National government had its own version back in the day - it was called the Safer Journeys Strategy. You still see the Safer Journeys logo on some of the road signs around the place.
I remember talking to the Associate Transport Minister back when National was in power and him trying to convince me that it was working - even though the road toll was going up. Again, looked good on paper, but didn’t achieve much.
And, as I say to the teenagers who have all now got their full licenses, a 50 km/h speed sign or a 100 km/h speed sign doesn’t make that speed compulsory, and it’s all about assessing what’s going on and driving to the conditions.
That’s why I think a blunt instrument such as saying ‘right, pretty much on every road in Christchurch the speed limit is now going to be 30 or 40 Ks per hour’, I think forcing that on people is a feel-good but no-good kind of thing.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to Christchurch mayoral candidate David Meates. They discussed the key issues for Christchurch going forward, and why he feels he is the right person for the job.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
190 days. That’s how long it’s been since I first asked these two questions: Why is the Russian ambassador still parked-up at the embassy in Wellington? And when is the Government going to kick him out?
That was on March 17 - 28 days after Russia launched its attack on Ukraine.
It will be seven months ago tomorrow (Saturday) when Putin said “fire”.
But despite all the death and carnage, Russia’s ambassador is still in New Zealand and still pumping out the propaganda on the embassy’s Facebook page.
You may remember the stuff the embassy was posting back in March, saying that that appalling missile strike on the maternity and children’s hospital in Ukraine was fake news because the hospital was empty and was just being used by the Ukrainians for firing practise. And it's still at it.
As I said back in March, if the ambassador wants to post that sort of propaganda on Facebook, let him do it in Moscow - not Wellington.
The question about the Russian ambassador’s ongoing presence in New Zealand is up for discussion again today for two reasons: National’s Foreign Affairs spokesperson Gerry Brownlee has repeated his demands for the ambassador to be expelled, and the Foreign Affairs Minister is now actually saying for the first time that the Government is “actively considering” finally doing it
Nanaia Mahuta yesterday described Vladimir Putin’s threat of nuclear war as an "increased escalation of tension that is not helpful on a number of fronts".
Don’t you just love the diplomatic weasel words? Here we’ve got a guy saying ‘don’t make me press the button and go nuclear”, and the diplomatic-speak describes that as “not helpful on a number of fronts”.
Still, the way the Government’s talking about this now is light years ahead of what it’s been saying up until now. Until yesterday, it had been saying that kicking out the ambassador wasn’t an option because it wanted to keep the diplomatic channels open. Although, the PM appeared to be pouring cold water on that earlier today.
My position hasn’t changed since March. I thought then that it was appalling that the ambassador was still here - it’s even more appalling that he’s still here, seven months since the invasion. More so actually, given Putin’s threat to go nuclear.
As Gerry Brownlee is saying: "The Russian Ambassador should have been expelled long before now. His continued presence in New Zealand is completely untenable with the ongoing atrocities and escalation of Russia’s war on Ukraine.
“New Zealand has always been proud of its nuclear-free stance. The Government needs to respond to the threat of nuclear retaliation by finally expelling the Russian ambassador.”
And I couldn’t agree more with Gerry Brownlee.
The guy should have gone months ago. And, in my mind, expulsion is the only option.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined in Newstalk ZB's brand new studio by Labour's Duncan Webb and National's Gerry Brownlee for Politics Friday.
On the table for discussion was the Russian ambassador, and if he should be sent packing, would that make a difference to the Ukraine situation?
They reacted to the Mood of the Boardroom survey out this morning, does the business community reflect the mood of New Zealanders? And would Jacinda Arden make a good President, should we become a republic one day?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Nanaia Mahuta won’t say it - so I’m going to say it for her.
All this noise about her husband getting government contracts wouldn't be happening if she wasn’t Māori .
She won’t say that, because, as well as being accused of letting her family milk the public purse, she’d also be accused of trying to defend the undefendable.
But I bet - as she probably would privately too - that we wouldn’t have the same amount of huffing and puffing if it involved a family member of an MP who wasn’t seen by some as the public face of the so-called Māori takeover.
I’m not a fan of Mahuta. I’ve said before that I think she’s the worst Foreign Minister we’ve ever had. I also think the way she’s handled the Three Waters reforms has been appalling. On that one, she’s come across as being arrogant and out-of-touch - not interested in what councils and ratepayers up-and-down the country have been saying.
She is a fully signed-up member of the “we know best” club - which I think most people in the current Government are members of.
But my criticisms of her have been based on her performance as a politician and a Cabinet minister. She’s been asleep at the wheel on Foreign Affairs - especially in the Pacific - and, as Local Government Minister, she has alienated herself so much from local government that her Associate Minister has had to take over trying to sell the con job on water reforms.
But listening to National’s Simeon Brown on Newstalk ZB this morning, I couldn’t help thinking that there is a much bigger issue that needs looking into.
What Simeon Brown should be getting hot and bothered about, is the reason why government departments think they need to hire-in all these consultants and contractors in the first place.
And this is something I know quite a bit about, because I’ve done work for some of them in the past and I’ll tell you this for nothing - when you walk into these outfits, after five minutes you start to wonder how many of the people there actually know what the organisation is there to do.
They’re full of project teams working on stuff like IT overhauls, culture change, building refurbs. And these project teams get bigger-and-bigger-bigger, and more consultants and contractors have to be brought in because the actual staff aren’t doing their real jobs anymore because they’re seconded here and seconded there.
And, of course, they’ve all got Koru Club memberships and they’re all flying around the country for meetings - trotting through the airport with their trolley bags and keep cups.
People flying from Wellington to Christchurch for the day for a meeting, all of them crowding out the Koru lounges.
This is what really needs to be looked into. But instead the National Party is getting all excited about Nanaia Mahuta. And we know why that is, don’t we?
And it’s not as if National is completely innocent either. Think back to the truckloads of money that was paid to consultants and contractors after the Canterbury earthquakes.
And remember the cases too when Gerry Brownlee was EQC minister and how people there were hiring family members left, right and centre.
I remember the story about one of the big bosses there hiring her daughter. Ironically, Ruth Dyson - who was a Labour MP at the time - said EQC was asking for trouble when it employed family members.
I’ve seen what it’s like on the inside and I know full-well that there are truckloads of people doing a whole lot of stuff that is way outside the core functions of these government departments.
Which is why they feel they have no option but to pay the big bucks for these consultants and contractors to come in and do basic stuff like running meetings.
A shameful waste of money.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to National leader Christopher Luxon. They discussed the safety of politicians off the back of Grant Robertson's concerns whilst visiting Northland recently. They also talked about the report into Sam Uffindell and if it should be released publicly, and how did Luxon react to the Christchurch City Council pushback on housing intensification?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Many years ago, I went to the loo one day in the building where I worked, walked into the mens toilet and Helen Clark was there.
Turned out the men's loo was closer to the studio where she was doing an interview and so they told her just to use that. And I remember afterwards thinking ‘only in New Zealand' would you walk into the men's loo and find the female Prime Minister there washing her hands.
And only in New Zealand would you have any chance of getting that close to the leader of a country without being swamped by the heavies from security.
But, according to Grant Roberston anyway, that may all be about to change.
Because he’s been saying that the abuse he’s been getting when he’s out in public has got so bad, that he’s had to have the same level of security around him as what the Prime Minister has.
And he has said that Labour is considering doing away with the public walkabouts during next year’s election campaign because he thinks politicians are becoming the targets of such abuse, that it may not be safe for them to do the shake-and-howdy walkabouts.
You know, the stuff they all do - especially at election time - where they walk around malls and talk to people and pretend they’re interested in what they’re doing.
Judith Collins did a famous walkabout last election on Ponsonby Road in Auckland. Actually, it was more infamous than famous because we found out afterwards that she’d planted a rent-a-crowd there full of National supporters.
But Grant Robertson says, next year, don’t assume Labour will be doing it because it’s just getting too dangerous out there.
But does Grant just need to harden up here and accept that - generally - politicians are fair-game and should expect to get a bit of a hard time now and then?
I see the Greens are chiming-in on this too. With co-leader Marama Davidson saying that the abuse towards politicians is of a "different, more violent nature” these days.
She’s talking, of course, after the experience of the occupation at Parliament earlier this year where there was no shortage of fruit-loops and troublemakers.
But hearing David Seymour and Christopher Luxon speak about this earlier today, it seems to me that it’s parties from the left that feel the most threatened.
Labour and the Greens are talking about it today - and remember back in May, the Maori Party said it wouldn’t be taking part in the Tauranga by-election because of safety issues.
The party said then that a string of racist incidents in the city, and death threats, made them decide that it wasn’t worth taking the risk.
And we’ve seen, haven’t we, that there can be deadly consequences for politicians. Almost a year ago in Britain, Conservative MP Sir David Amess was stabbed to death when he was meeting constituents.
Also in the UK, Labour MP Jo Cox died after being shot and stabbed in November 2016.
And you could say ‘oh, that’d never happen here in New Zealand’. But we probably used to think a terrorist attack on a mosque would never happen in New Zealand too.
Nevertheless, I think Labour is less concerned about safety and more concerned about what it would look like having rabid protesters turning up wherever their MPs and candidates go during the election campaign next year.
In political circles, they call that stuff “optics”. Whether something is a good look or a bad look. And footage night-after-night on the TV news and day-in day-out on the internet of Labour people getting abused is the last thing Labour would want when it’s trying to convince us to give it another term in government. As far as the optics go, that would be a very bad look.
Yes, there do seem to be more people out there who think very little of politicians and who are quite happy to ignore the protocols and give them an earful at every opportunity. And yes, things are generally a lot more unhinged than they used to be.
But I think Labour, and the Greens and the Maori Party need to accept that this is the reality these days - and, in my view anyway, pulling the plug on things like walkabouts has nothing to do with keeping people safe and everything to do with shamelessly trying to avoid situations which might not be such a good look during an election campaign.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Can someone send some morning tea to the New Zealand Initiative please? Because we finally have an outfit calling out the disaster that is “the modern learning environment”.
If you’ve had a child or grandchild go through school here in New Zealand anytime over the past 10-or-so years, you’ll know all about the modern learning environment.
Massive, barn-like classrooms with bean bags and tents where the kids - or “the learners” - get involved in “self-directed learning”.
It’s where the teachers don’t teach anymore, because they are learning as the kids learn, apparently. And where you once might have had one teacher for about 30 kids inside a compact classroom - you now get a couple of teachers trying to keep a handle on about 80 kids inside these massive spaces.
If I’m sounding a bit dismissive of the whole thing, it’s because I am - and I have been for a long time. Which is why I’m delighted that the New Zealand Initiative - which is one of these think tanks with some pretty impressive people on its books - has called out the Ministry of Education big time.
People like Dr Eric Crampton and Des Gorman - they’re a couple of names you see in the media all the time who are part of the New Zealand Initiative.
And I am delighted that it has come out today and said that these modern learning environments that schools up and down the country have been implementing are based on nothing else but ideology.
Which is nothing new to me because I spent about six years on a school board when the kids were younger - it was at their primary school - and it seemed back then that every weekend the caretaker was doing overtime knocking out walls between the classrooms.
The modern learning environment was the way of the future and we had to get on board, is what the principal kept telling us at board meetings. And I didn’t swallow it for a minute.
I had no time back then for massive classrooms with 60-to-80 kids, all doing their “self-directed learning”. And I said so too.
But I was a bit of a lone voice and so the walls kept getting knocked out. In fact, I was surprised the place stayed upright, there were so many walls being given the heave-ho.
Then came the earthquakes in Christchurch and the Ministry of Education rolled into town and announced it would rebuild everything. And what did it want to build? It wanted to build classrooms that looked like an old-school tavern.
Cavernous things to give the kids - sorry, the learners - a sense of space, freedom, wonder and exploration.
And every time it came up at board of trustee meetings, I just kept thinking to myself that it was nothing more than an experiment driven by ideology and nothing else.
Which is why I am so delighted today that the New Zealand Initiative has come out and said exactly the same thing.
And it’s saying it because the Ministry of Education has not been able to provide the big brains at the New Zealand Initiative with any data or information to show whether this ideologically-driven experiment has actually worked.
Dr Michael Johnston from the Initiative went to the Ministry wanting basic information such as the number of modern learning environments in schools in New Zealand, the cost of setting them up and how effective they’ve been.
And do you know what? The Ministry couldn’t provide it because it doesn’t have it.
The Ministry of Education spent billions of dollars on modern learning environments but did no research on their effectiveness before spending all that money and forcing schools to get with the programme. And it’s done no evaluation since to find out whether they’re working or not.
Which actually doesn’t even make it an experiment, does it? Because if you do an experiment, you gather a whole lot of data and information and find out if there’s any change.
So it’s just ideology gone mad.
Which is shameful. And I’m not just saying that because I’ve thought all along that this modern learning environment concept is a disaster. I’m also saying it because how the Ministry thinks it’s ok to spend billions of dollars without no research beforehand and no evaluation afterwards, I’ll never know.
And instead of spending billions on modern learning environments - which the Ministry of Education has no idea are working or not - it would’ve been much wiser to spend that money on actual teachers because they are what make the difference for our kids.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Phil Mauger, mayoral candidate is interviewed here today!
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I am really struggling with these two Mongrel Mob guys getting reduced prison sentences because they had a hard time growing up.
That’s probably putting it mildly - one report I’ve seen describes one of them having an “horrific” upbringing. But you get what I mean.
They were both high-up in a commercial methamphetamine operation which manufactured and supplied the drug in the Waikato area.
Their names are James Smith - a member of the Mongrel Mob’s World chapter - and Richard Heller - a member of the gang’s Rogue chapter.
They were caught as part of a police operation and they have been sent to prison. Which is where they should be, given the operation they were running was in the second-highest category of meth offending based on the quantity of drugs the police proved they were responsible for.
The bit I’m struggling with is the fact that these guys had their sentences reduced because of issues from their childhood.
They both pleaded guilty to supplying a Class A drug (methamphetamine), possession for supply, and participating in an organised criminal group. Smith also admitted an additional charge of manufacturing methamphetamine.
And when they appeared for sentencing, the starting point for Smith’s sentence was 12 years, four months in prison. And for Heller, the starting point was 10 years, six months.
The difference in the length of potential sentences was due to Smith being culpable for supplying more of the drug than Heller - and also because Smith had admitted manufacturing the drug as well.
But what happened when the sentencing judge decided how long to actually send them away for, is that he thought he would factor-in their childhoods and how that had led them to a life of crime.
So to start with, the judge gave both offenders a 25 percent discount on their sentences for pleading guilty early in the piece. But I just can’t believe what happened next.
After the 25 percent discount for the early pleas, the judge took a further 25 percent off Smith’s sentence because of his rough childhood, and another 5 percent off to “assist his rehabilitation”. Which meant his final sentence went from 12 years, four months to five years, six months in prison. Which, by my maths, comes to about a 45 percent discount.
Reports prepared for the court said Smith had a significant history of abuse growing up in state care and foster homes, and that he first used methamphetamine when he was 15.
And, after reading those reports, the judge said to him: "I agree that the catalogue of issues addressed in the various reports significantly reduces the level of your culpability with regard to the offending."
Which was essentially the judge saying ‘because of your tough time in the past, you’re not as much to blame for what you did'.
As for Richard Heller - remember the starting point for his sentence was 10 years, six months. But just like he did with Smith, the judge took 25 percent off for the early guilty plea - and then he went on to take off another 15 percent for his dysfunctional childhood, and another 15 per cent for rehabilitation.
Which took his sentence from 10 years, six months to four years, nine months. Just like his mate, that’s a discount of about 45 percent on the maximum sentence. And just like his mate, he got a reduced sentence because of abuse in state care, and drug and alcohol addiction, which led to poor mental health.
The judge decided that they weren’t to blame as much as someone who may have had a better upbringing than these guys. Which, on paper or if you’re perhaps in the privileged position of methamphetamine not having ruined your life or the life of someone close to you, sounds like such an understanding approach.
I’m not going to say that what happened to these guys early in life didn’t have an impact on how they led their adult lives. But is it an excuse or justification for a reduced sentence?
The liberal side of me would probably say 'yes'. But I can’t. So I won’t.
Because I actually think what that sentencing judge did was to completely forget about the misery these two guys created in other people’s lives. When you make and sell methamphetamine, you don’t give a damn about the people who end up using the stuff.
These guys didn’t give a damn. So why should we give a damn?
Yes, I know they’re in prison and it’s not as if they’re on home detention.But a 25 percent discount on a prison sentence because someone had a tough childhood? All I can think about is the parents I heard from recently who told me about the hell they went through when their kids got hooked on meth.
I remember one chap telling me about his son who took his life last year during lockdown because he ended up owing the gangs a truckload of money and couldn’t see a way out.
And this judge thinks reducing sentences for the creeps who make and sell this stuff because they had tough childhoods, is the kind thing to do. Give me a break. It is a shameful thing to do and totally disregards the poor sods hooked on this drug and who are taken advantage of day-in day-out by the likes of the Mongrel Mob.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I wonder how the family and friends of Rachael Harris are feeling today.
Rachael was the 62-year-old woman who died in August last year in a crash that happened in Christchurch after a man reeking of alcohol drove through a red light at more than 120 km/h and smashed into her car, pushing it 33 metres along the road.
Rachael died instantly. It’s been reported that it’s thought she was on her way home after helping a friend with their animals.
The car that smashed into Rachael’s car was doing 124 km/h when it ran the red light and 117 km/h when the crash happened. Rachael was travelling at 27 km/h per hour.
But it gets worse.
The guy who drove through the red light - Sunny Nepia - and his passenger, got out of their car, the passenger checked on Rachael and saw that she’d passed away, and then these two spineless creeps took off before emergency services arrived.
They stuck around long enough for members of the public who were on the scene to smell the alcohol on Nepia’s breath, hear him slurring his words and wonder whether they might have been on drugs too because of the way they were behaving.
But I gather it was a pretty brief encounter because when Nepia and his mate asked these people for a ride to get out of there, they said no, and so the two of them ran off.
But it gets worse.
When the police eventually caught up with Nepia about a day after the crash, he told them he’d had three pre-mixed bourbon drinks before the crash and had been unsure whether the traffic lights at the intersection were red, amber or green when he approached it at more than 120 km/h per hour.
And it wasn’t the first time Nepia had driven drunk. Before that terrible crash last August, he’d been done for drink-driving five times and he was done a sixth time for this one. And just last week, he breached his bail conditions by drinking alcohol.
And so yesterday, he appeared in court to be sentenced after pleading guilty to a charge of dangerous driving causing death. He had also faced a charge of failing to stop because he did a runner after the crash - but that was dropped because his passenger had gone and checked on Rachael and had seen that she had passed away before they took off.
So yesterday was his sentencing day. And what do you think he got?
Bear in mind this guy admitted dangerous driving causing death, he took off before emergency services got there, it was the sixth time he was done for drink driving and he breached his bail conditions just last week by drinking alcohol.
Was he sent to prison? No he wasn’t. Instead, he got 12 months home detention with community work.
Reading the court report, it appears the sentencing judge gave Nepia a lot of credit for going through a restorative justice meeting with Rachael Harris’ family.
His lawyer told the court it was one of the hardest things his client has ever had to do. And the sentencing judge said it would have taken a lot of courage to face Rachael’s family.
The court also heard that Nepia had been brought up with alcohol all around him. As his godmother said yesterday, the way his family did things was that if there was a problem they’d drink, and even if there wasn’t a problem, they’d drink.
And it was acknowledged that Nepia himself has a “chronic” alcohol problem.
But sometimes you’ve just gotta say “boo-hoo”, don’t you? I can’t share the Court’s sympathy for this guy. And, in my mind, the sentence he got yesterday was nothing short of outrageous.
12 months home detention after driving drunk for the sixth time, killing an innocent woman after running a red light at more than 120 km/h, doing a runner before emergency services arrived, and then breaching his bail last week by drinking alcohol.
It is nothing short of outrageous and - in my view - there is no way justice has been done.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to Labour's Poto Williams and National's Gerry Brownlee.
They covered the big news of the week, including the Reshaping Streets movement, the recent Taxpayers Union poll which gives National and ACT positive news, and yesterday's GDP number.
John also pressed them both on their reaction to the Christchurch City Council voting no to the housing intensification bill, and why has $16 million been spent on consultants for the proposed Three Waters Reform.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It seems doesn’t it that the Government, at the moment, is hellbent on forcing change on us in so many parts of our lives.
Yesterday, it was the housing intensification changes - which the Christchurch City Council snubbed its nose at.
There’s another one, though, that I suspect the Christchurch council - in fact, all councils around the country - might be quite excited about.
The Government’s “Reshaping Streets” policy will make changes to land transport rules and the Local Government Act, to allow councils to change street lay-outs and street uses for up to two years without consulting anyone first.
The Government’s saying the two years would be a “pilot” or a “trial” and then the councils could consult us on what we thought of it after that.
It would completely turn things on their head and any council could decide it wants to make a change to the lay-out of a road or change the way a road is used, give us just two weeks’ notice, keep the changes in place for two years, and then ask us what we think of it.
As one commentator has been saying, it would mean those opposed to something would run out of steam after two years and the rest of us would probably just accept it and not bother with the drawn-out consultation process.
Now one of the things these proposed changes would do, is allow councils to ban parents from driving to the school gate to pick-up and drop-off their kids.
And they’d do this by closing streets to private vehicles during drop-off and pick-up times.
Can you imagine that? And if parents started driving down side streets to get to the school, councils could extend the ban to those side streets as well. And that’s just one example of how this policy would work.
But, unlike the housing intensification business, it’s quite likely that our local councils will love this one because councils - rightly or wrongly - are perceived as being anti-car, because they seem to love chewing up roads to build cycleways and they love to tell us that we should be taking the bus and riding a bike.
The name of this government policy - Reshaping Streets - says it all, doesn’t it? And councils love re-shaping streets. So maybe they won’t be so quick to push back on it.
Another thing this proposed policy would do is it would let councils remove car parks for two years - again with just two weeks’ notice - and it’d be two years before they had to ask us what we thought of it.
Just yesterday afternoon I went into town to do something but I just about gave up when it became so difficult finding somewhere to park - all because the council thinks we shouldn’t be driving into town, and we should be riding our bikes or taking the bus. So there are nowhere near as many parking spaces in town as there used to be.
And that’s why I think councils everywhere are going to love this “Reshaping Streets” proposal the Government is pushing.
Because if it goes through, they'll be able to take away even more car parks (with just two weeks' notice) and make us wait two years before we get to have a say on it.
They’ll be able to close the roads around schools during drop-off and pick-up time, with just two weeks' notice, and make us wait two years before asking what we think of it.
In my view, calling these things “pilots” is nothing short of shifty. And, as far as I’m concerned, it will be seen by most people as ideology-gone-mad.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald discussed the Reshaping Streets plan currently being consulted on by Waka Kotahi.
The Government wants to give local councils the power to change road lay-outs and road uses for up to two years, before consulting anyone. It wants to allow councils to stop parents from driving to the school gate to pick-up and drop-off their kids by closing streets to private vehicles during drop-off and pick-up times.
Councils could also reduce the number of car parks for two years before consulting anyone. And any changes could happen with just two weeks' notice.
Annabel Turley of the Christchurch Central City Business Association spoke on the show about her huge concerns and the implications this could have on businesses and residents in Canterbury.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Christchurch City Council has voted "no" to implementing the Government's new housing intensification policy which will allow three, three-storey properties to be built on a single section.
And voted “no” by quite a significant majority too - ten councillors said “no”, five voted “yes” (that included the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor), one councillor abstained and another one wasn’t there for the vote.
Of course, it is government policy but remember it has the backing of the National Party too - which joined forces with Labour last year to make this thing happen.
Right from the outset, I’ve thought that it’s a dog of an idea. Basically because it’s a one-size fits all approach to address a problem we don’t necessarily have in Christchurch.
But even though we don’t have the problem of nowhere to build houses, the Government thinks we should be squeezing as many houses as possible onto every bit of land - and I say “houses” quite loosely because if you’ve got three, three-storey structures on one section they’re not going to be houses are they?
I think the people opposed to intensification who were at the Council meeting yesterday should get a prize for the best protest slogan I’ve seen in a long time - “Stop Daylight Robbery”.
Which is exactly what this intensification business is all about. Stealing people's daylight by allowing monstrosities to be built next door, without any form of notification.
Which means the first you or I would know something was happening next door, would be when the builders turned up and started pegging out the section.
And there’d be nothing you could do about it - apart from watch your daylight be robbed from right under your nose as three, three-story places went up over the fence.
Shady - in so many ways.
And so yesterday, Christchurch city councillors had to decide whether they would agree to enforce this new government policy - or not.
Ten of them voted “no” - or as one councillor, Melanie Coker, put it, they flipped the bird at the Government.
You may have heard Housing Minister Megan Woods saying on Newstalk ZB that she wants to see what analysis the Christchurch City Council has used to get to the decision it made yesterday.
She says Christchurch has had the second-highest rent rises in the country and more places need to be built.
Which might be a fair argument, but there’s no way I can accept a situation where developers could cram three, three-storey properties on any section in any part of town. That would just be nuts.
Yes, the central city is a prime location for more intense housing. And we’re seeing it already with the apartment developments that are happening.
But Somerfield, Bishopdale, St Albans - any part of town where people live because they want a bit of space for the kids to run around or they want to grow vegetables and they want light and sunshine, why on earth would any councillor vote in favour of that being ruined by this holus-bolus approach the Government wants to take?
So a brilliant move yesterday by the ten councillors who voted “no”.
The risk now is that the Government will choose to appoint commissioners or a Crown manager to take over and enforce the policy in Christchurch.
Megan Woods refused to say today whether she’d be doing that. She was banging on about taking a mature approach and wanting to see the numbers behind yesterday’s decision.
What the numbers won’t show is how much of an influence the upcoming elections had on how councillors voted yesterday. Because at a council meeting last week, one of the people opposed to the policy told councillors that the way they vote could be a deciding factor in their success or otherwise in next month’s local body elections.
So, of course, that would have been a factor in how councillors voted. But I actually don’t care about that because, until that vote went through yesterday, I wasn’t sure whether the city council would have the fortitude to tell the Government where to go with this policy.
And I’m delighted that it has.
Yes, in the long run, it may not make one scrap of difference - especially if the Government gets all heavy on it and goes down the track of appointing commissioners or a Crown manager to take over and make the policy happen here in Christchurch.
But that, as far as I’m concerned, is a risk well worth taking.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Tony Simons is the Chair for the Riccarton Bush-Kilmarnock Residents Association and has heaped a wave of pressure on the Christchurch City Council to push back against housing intensification plans for the city.
Simons spoke to Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings about the vote yesterday, which saw ten councillors vote against the changes. He said he expected it to be close, but was delighted with the result and the support from councillors who voted no.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Sara Templeton was one of five Christchurch City councillors for voted yes to the housing intensification changes that will see up to three properties on one section be build without needing consent.
Sara spoke to John MacDonald today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings to explain why she voted that way and the rationale behind her decision.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The traffic light system is gone, most of the mask requirements are gone and the vaccine mandates will be gone by September 26 - although employers will still be able to decide whether or not they want to stick with the mandates.
The only place the Government will require us to keep wearing masks is in places where health services are provided - so hospitals, GP practices etc.
I’m not going to lie - it doesn’t necessarily feel like a new day has dawned.
These changes have been about two-and-a-half years in the making - ever since the pandemic started, pretty much.
And you may have heard the bloke from the Nurses’ Society on Newstalk ZB today saying that we probably won’t see much change on the healthcare front because employers - health boards etc - were requiring staff to be vaccinated before the Government stepped in and mandated it.
He was saying employers have to provide safe working conditions so that makes sense from an HR perspective. But I don’t know whether this is just because I’ve had Covid recently, but I’ve certainly reached a point where I wouldn’t give two hoots whether a doctor or a nurse was vaccinated or not.
But as the Nurses’ Society is saying, it’s not just about me, or you, and vaccine mandates are probably going to continue in the health sector because it’s about protecting health staff from bugs carried by patients and hospital visitors and the like.
The Government has said there is no requirement for employers to take people back, nor is there any requirement for someone who lost their job because of the vaccination mandates to go back to their old job.
That second bit is irrelevant because do you really think the Government is going to start forcing people to go back to their old jobs? Of course not.
But what about the fact there is no obligation to take back people who were forced out of their jobs by the mandates, even though the rules have changed?
Aside from the practicalities and the likelihood that some of these people will have been replaced by other people happy to have the jab, don’t you think it is unfair that people are still on the outer if they used to work somewhere where there was a vaccine mandate, but there isn’t anymore?
Shouldn’t they automatically be offered their old job back?
I was thinking about all the other reasons people get sacked from their jobs.
And, generally, it’s to do with a loss of trust isn’t it?
Someone steals from their employer. A loss of trust. They’re out the door. Someone uses the company car when they shouldn’t. A loss of trust. Out the door. Break the law, out the door. Break company policy, out the door.
But if someone doesn’t agree that they should be vaccinated to keep their job, just because the Government says so, does that mean they can’t be trusted? Of course not. There’s no loss of trust there at all.
And so if the rules change - and the job they used to do is no longer Covid jab-dependent - such as teaching, for example - then why shouldn’t they automatically be given the opportunity to go back?
Chances are, some people who were forced out of their jobs because of the mandates will have such a bad taste in their mouths that they wouldn’t want to go back. But there is a principle here, isn’t there?
And the principle, in my mind, is one of fairness. Sure, people who got the jab and kept their jobs could understandably think that it’s unfair for the unvaccinated to be offered their jobs back.
Because there are many people who got vaccinated just to keep their job. And I can understand that they might be a bit peeved seeing someone who didn’t take one for the team, like they did, being welcomed back into the fold.
But we can’t look at it that way. I certainly thought that the no jab, no job approach was well and truly required at a certain point - back in the day when we didn’t have the vaccination rates we have today.
But that time has passed. And, come September 26, the mandates will generally be a thing of the past too. And I think anyone who lost their job because of the mandates, shouldn’t be punished any longer.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In our final chat with Lianne Dalziel as Christchurch Mayor, Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings spoke to her about the decision being made about the public holiday today to honour the late Queen. John asked the Mayor about the Kantar poll and customer satisfaction survey, where she revealed how frustrated she has felt in local government by decisions made for them by central government.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I was talking to someone last night who is a staunch royalist.
Ever since news of the Queen’s death came through on Friday morning, this person has been glued to the coverage. On radio, on TV. She’s all over it.
In fact, this person is such a royalist that she very nearly jumped on a plane and flew to London when Princess Diana died 25 years ago.
And when this person did make it to London, I think she spent most of her time at the Tower of London taking it all in, going to Windsor….loved it all.
So when I asked this person last night what they thought about having a public holiday here in New Zealand to mark the Queen’s passing, I was surprised by the response.
She didn’t think a holiday was justified. There was no in-depth reason for why she thought that. She just thought having a public holiday here would be over-the-top. And this is someone who was still a teenager when the Queen’s reign began and has loved the Queen ever since.
But even she doesn’t think a public holiday is justified here in New Zealand. And I totally agree.
The Australian Prime Minister beat us to it, announcing at the weekend that Australians will have a day off on 22 September for a National Day of Mourning.
In the UK, the day of the Queen’s funeral has already been declared a public holiday, and other countries are doing the same. So it’s not just Australia.
But just because other countries are doing it, doesn’t mean we have to.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Dick Tayler is cemented in our memories as he won Gold at the 1974 Commonwealth Games in Christchurch, Games that saw Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip visit.
Dick joined John MacDonald on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings and revealed that his medal wasn't the only cherished memory from those Games. But in fact the time he spent with the Queen on her ship, Royal Britannia, following his success and how she touched his heart.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I remember someone telling me once that the more children she had, the more conservative she got.
She said that, when she was younger, she was a real risk-taker but, after having kids, she’d become a bit more scaredy-cat and worried about things a lot more - mainly about things to do with her kids, and making sure she was keeping them safe.
And I remember saying at the time that I felt the same way. And it’s something researchers in Britain have been looking into and they’ve just published their findings which pretty much back that up.
They’ve found, after talking to thousands of people in 10 countries, that what this person told me years ago is actually a thing - and if you have kids, you tend to be more conservative than people who don’t have kids.
The reason I mention it, is because of this tragedy in Christchurch where a 20-year-old has died after what the police are saying may be due to a potential drug overdose, and a couple of cases in Queenstown where two people became unwell after taking what they thought was MDMA. Or ecstasy, as it’s also known.
And, as a parent who has definitely become more conservative as our kids have got older, this sort of thing terrifies me.
I don’t know all the details and I’m really mindful that there is a family out there living out every parent’s nightmare. But I’m mindful too that there will also be a truckload of families out there who - by luck, and only by luck - aren’t going through exactly the same thing right now.
Because, as the police have said, after this tragedy in Christchurch and the two cases in Queenstown where people had seizures after using what they thought was MDMA the police are saying people need to be very careful about what they take because it could be something completely different.
Which is why I say there will be families all over Canterbury who - through sheer luck - aren’t facing the same tragic loss as this family in Christchurch, because there will be families whose kids are using what they think is MDMA but could, in fact, be something completely different.
Drug dealers are no one’s friend. They’ll do anything to make a buck. And if that means mixing up drugs or telling people they’re buying MDMA when it isn’t - then that’s what these low lifes will do.
Just last week, the New Zealand Drug Foundation reported that 1-in-3 drugs sold here over the last six months weren’t what the people buying them thought they were.
1-in-3 were either mixed with other substances or something completely different.
Which is why the Drug Foundation and other outfits want drug testing made more available so people can check their drugs before they take them.
It’s been done on a relatively small-scale over the last couple of years, generally at music festivals. And, I’ve got to admit, that as one of those people who has become more conservative since becoming a parent, and as the kids have got older, the idea of having services to test drugs has freaked me out.
Because I don’t want kids taking this stuff and so I’ve probably seen drug testing as some sort of endorsement of drug use.
But the reality is, people are using this drug and all sorts of other drugs. So why wouldn’t we want to do everything we can to try and prevent tragedies like what’s happened in Christchurch?
Yes I probably bury my head in the sand a bit and wish kids weren’t taking MDMA - or any drug for that matter. And yes, as the researchers in the UK have proven, it’s because I have become more conservative as I’ve had kids and see them heading out into the party scene.
The same kids who tell me MDMA is everywhere. They don’t even blink when you mention it to them. I hate the thought of it. But then, back in the day, before I became this conservative parent - I probably wouldn’t have blinked either.
But now, every time I hear about families like this one in Christchurch who, last Saturday, had their boy go out for the night and who, this Saturday, will be having a funeral for him, it terrifies me.
So if I’m so terrified, then I have to accept, don’t I, that MDMA is everywhere and accept that the likes of the Drug Foundation aren’t promoting drug use when they say people should be able to get their drugs checked before they take them. And that they want more drug testing to try and prevent tragedies like this one.
And if we don’t wake up, and accept that we have a real problem on our hands, then there will be more families having funerals because of the low life drug dealers who will do anything to make a buck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
General Manager of the New Zealand Agricultural Show, Tracy Ahern, joined John MacDonald on Canterbury Mornings.
Tracy gave an update on all the amazing new initiatives that are on offer this year, including free entry for kids, Rural Games and Have A Go events, and also the new night time events that are sure to be a hit with Cantabrians this year.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There’s a lot of talk at the moment about the Government being too full of themselves and arrogant.
And I actually think that is rubbing off on the public service which does the grunt work delivering the Government’s policies and services.
In fact, I’m going to go further than that and say that I think the public service is even more arrogant than the Government itself.
It’s not necessarily a new thing. EQC, for example. How arrogant and full of itself was that outfit after the Canterbury earthquakes?
But a couple of new examples of public service arrogance have emerged in the past 24 hours that I think are further proof that the outfits funded by us have got so big for their boots, so out of touch with the people they serve, and so full of themselves - that they can only be judged as being way more arrogant than the Government itself.
First up, there’s this shambles with Northland going into an 11-day lockdown last year after the Ministry of Social Development issued travel documents to two women which allowed them to travel into the area.
They shouldn’t have been allowed. But they got the paperwork and off they went.
They were the two women that Chris Hipkins - who was Covid Minister at the time - said had used false information to travel across the border into Northand, and other politicians were slagging them off saying were prostitutes with connections to the Mongrel Mob.
All of those claims, by the way, were found subsequently to be a load of old nonsense.
The galling thing about all of this is that three days before Northland went into lockdown, MSD discovered it had cocked things up but no one in that outfit put their hand up and said ‘we’ve made a mistake here’.
No one. They said nothing. Silence. And what happened was the people of Northland were locked-up unnecessarily for 11 days and these two women were called all sorts of things by some of our most powerful politicians.
And the only way this has come to light - there hasn’t been a mea culpa or admission of mistake by MSD - the only way we know about this is through a request for info under the Official Information Act.
Which I suppose you could say is an example of the OIA process actually working, but it doesn’t excuse the Ministry of Social Development (or MSD) for the cock-up in the first place but, more importantly, not saying anything about it even though it knew three days before the lockdown.
Now whether or not the lockdown could have been avoided even if MSD had come clean at the time, I don’t know. Because one of the two women tested positive for Covid and, back then, one case and everything was shut down.
How things have changed since then.
Nevertheless, the fact MSD said nothing when it discovered it was the cause of the problem reeks of arrogance and, I think, is a prime example of why the public service needs to be told to pull its head in.
The other example that’s come to light in the last 24 hours involves Labour and Green Party local body politicians appearing in Waka Kotahi ads promoting the “streets of people” initiative which is pushing cycleways and public transport.
Waka Kotahi is arguing that it’s fine to use local government politicians in its propaganda because they’re not political party politicians. And that it’d be a different story if they’d used central government politicians.
But if it’s ok to use local body politicians, why has it only used councillors aligned to Labour and the Greens? So Waka Kotahi is pushing it uphill with that argument.
And, again, it just shows how the public service in this country has reached a point where its arrogance knows no limits.
Waka Kotahi, MSD, the whole public sector in my mind very obviously thinks it can get away with whatever it wants.
Well it can't. And we deserve much better from these outfits. Much better.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I had a bit of a ‘come to Jesus’ moment yesterday. In fact, I had several of them.
It was after hearing the harrowing stories people shared with us on Newstalk ZB about the impact methamphetamine has had on their families.
The conversations we had were incredibly moving.
We heard some desperate, desperate stories - although one did have a happy ending with the chap who told us about his daughter who had lost custody of her kids because of her addiction, and how she’d got herself off the meth, got her kids back and is now in a senior role with Oranga Tamariki.
But the ‘come to Jesus’ moments I’m talking about came when I heard the absolute hatred some of these parents had for the gangs peddling this awful, awful drug to their kids. And the way they’re getting people hooked on meth by selling them cannabis laced with the stuff.
One chap told me he’d got to the point where he was ready to pick up a shotgun and deal to the gangs himself. And we heard stories about punch ups with gang members in driveways after they turned up demanding money. Just terrible stuff.
And so when the Government made the announcement that it’s going to crack down on the so-called “ill-gotten gains” of gang members, my cynicism about this sort of thing disappeared and I thought about those people I’d spoken to and thought to myself ‘about bloody time’.
Then seeing the footage on the TV news last night - which was nothing new, we’ve seen it all before - but seeing the pictures of the gold-plated motorbikes, I thought about the real-life stories we’d heard yesterday and I was sickened seeing these gang members flaunting their so-called wealth. Effectively, rubbing the faces of the people we heard from yesterday in the dirt.
These gangs are ruining lives up and down the country. And they have the gall to hold up that misery as some sort of badge of honour, with the flash cars and flash motorbikes and everything else they spend their dirty money on.
So the gist of what the Government is doing is it’s expanding the powers of the Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act so that someone who isn’t necessarily a gang member but is what’s called an “associate”, will have to prove to the courts that any flash stuff they’ve got was funded and purchased legitimately.
Because what’s been happening is gang members have been putting property under the names of associates so that their assets can’t be seized - because the Proceeds of Crime laws have only applied to the crims themselves.
So the gangs sell the drugs and do all the other illegal things they do to make the money, but they use smoke and mirrors and have all the flash cars and gold-plated motorbikes registered under other peoples’ names. ‘Nothing to see here, officer’.
And what’s going to happen now, is anyone the police are suspicious of - gang member or not - will have to prove that assets are legitimately theirs and haven’t been bought using money from illegal activities, such as dealing in methamphetamine.
Now I’ve got no idea whether this change to the legislation is going to work, or not. But after those ‘come to Jesus’ moments yesterday, I’m not even going to stop and think about that, because I say ‘just do it, give it a go’. Because doing nothing, is not an option anymore, in my view.
And I don’t think I would necessarily be saying that today, if I hadn’t heard those terribly sad stories about what methamphetamine is doing to peoples’ kids, and if I hadn’t heard the hatred that came through in those calls towards the gangs.
And that’s why, as far as I’m concerned, these legislation changes can’t come quick enough.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you found out that your son or daughter, or grandson or granddaughter, or your wife or your husband, or partner - anyone close to you - was addicted to P or methamphetamine, would you want them treated as a criminal or would you want them treated for their addiction?
I’m willing to bet you’d want them treated for their addiction. You may have even been in this situation already with someone you love. I haven’t, thank goodness. But you may have.
But then what if you were the victim of a crime committed by a meth addict? Had your house broken into and precious things stolen, or been viciously assaulted or lost someone close to you in a car crash because some P-head was off their nut and still thought it was a good idea to get behind the wheel.
Chances are, if you were in this situation - and, again, you may very well have been in this situation yourself - I’m picking you’d want the person with the P addiction treated as a criminal because their behaviour may have changed your life forever.
And, understandably, you probably wouldn’t give a damn about them and their issues and addictions. You’d just want revenge.
There are, of course, exceptional cases where people find compassion they never knew they had. But if we narrow it down to two distinct responses, if you had someone close to you hooked on P - most likely you’d want them to get help. And a stranger on P who creates havoc in your life - most likely you’d want them locked up and the key thrown away.
It’s a double-edge sword, especially when we consider the recommendations from the Helen Clark Foundation and the New Zealand Drug Foundation, which have looked into the meth problem in New Zealand.
Their conclusion is simple - the war on drugs has failed, and they say it’s time to stop making P users criminals because it doesn’t do anything to get them off the drug and it only puts them on track for a lifetime of crime.
Which makes perfect sense if we look at it from the perspective of someone who feels they’re losing someone close to them because they’re in the downward spiral of methamphetamine addiction.
Of course I wouldn’t want to see someone close to me locked away. I’d want them to get help.
And one of the things the Helen Clark Foundation and the Drug Foundation are recommending, is that we help P addicts the same way we’ve helped people hooked on heroin for a long time here in New Zealand.
And what they’re talking about there is the methadone programme.
You probably don’t even blink an eye these days when you see former heroin addicts lining up to get their methadone, which they get to replace the heroin.
In fact, most of us when we see these people probably admire them for doing something to get their lives back on track. I certainly do.
So why wouldn’t we do the same things for P addicts? It’s a no-brainer, as far as I’m concerned.
The challenge, though, is while we might like this sort of thing for P addicts we want to help. What about the ones we don’t instinctively want to help?
The ones we don’t know from a bar of soap who have only come into our lives because they’re hooked on this awful drug and they only care about themselves - and getting their next hit - and they don’t give a damn about anyone else. They certainly don’t give a damn about you or me.
Until we can get ourselves to the point of caring enough for all P addicts, not just the ones who might happen to be in our family or friends of ours, then I don’t see this idea of the Helen Clark Foundation and the Drug Foundation going anywhere.
Not making P addicts criminals and, instead, helping them get treated for their addiction sounds like a great idea when you haven’t been at the receiving end. When you haven’t had your house done over by a P addict desperate for anything that might help them buy more of the stuff.
When you haven’t lost someone who was perfectly innocent but who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and came a cropper because their path crossed with someone off their head on methamphetamine.
And this is the tension that comes with approaches like the ones being suggested by the Helen Clark Foundation and the Drug Foundation. They’re saying the war on drugs has failed and instead of condemning P users, we need to care about them.
But are we ready to do that? Are you ready to do that?
Personally, I’m torn on this one. Because, of course, we should be helping anyone who’s hooked on this awful, awful drug. But then the people hooked on it can become awful, awful people too - and giving a damn about them doesn’t come easy does it?
So I’m ready to care - but there also still have to be consequences. Yes, treat the addiction but don’t give someone a licence to do whatever they want and get away with it just because they’re hooked on P.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to Christchurch Mayor, Lianne Dalziel. The discussed the housing intensity bill, and congestion charges which were included in the draft transport plan recently released.
The council has also funded a patrol to control antisocial behaviour from homeless people in the city, and does the mayor support lowering the voting age?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I saw a discussion on one of those community Facebook pages the other day about kids being little monkeys and knocking on people’s doors at night and running away.
The person who put up the original post wasn’t happy that this was happening to one of their elderly neighbours and wanted parents in the area to make sure it wasn’t their kids doing it.
What followed was a pretty heated discussion about kids just being kids and the person who made the post was told in no uncertain terms to lighten up.
“Ahh, they’re just knocking on doors having some fun. What’s the big deal?”
It might not be a big deal for some people but, as the person on this community Facebook page pointed out, this sort of thing can be a big deal for elderly people who don’t like knocks on the door when it’s dark and who can find it difficult even getting to the front door.
Kids just being kids. Which is not something we’re hearing said today about these ram raid stats that are just out.
In the past five years, the number of ram raids have increased by 400 percent. You may have heard Police Minister Chris Hipkins talking about it this morning with Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB. He had some other stats too.
Since May this year, there have been 129 ram raids. Almost all of them have been done by kids under-18. In fact, the median age of these kids is just 15.
Kids just being kids? Like I say, not many people trotting that line out today. But maybe it is kids just being kids in 2022. Which raises the question - are some kids in this country just out of control?
And if that’s the question? Then what’s the answer? Well, my answer is yes - I think it’s obvious that some kids in this country are out of control.
And I think the person who went onto that local Facebook page the other day about the elderly neighbours being harassed by door-knocking at night absolutely did the right thing, because we need more people to do this sort of thing and remind parents (especially) that they have a responsibility to know what their kids are up to.
The ACT Party’s deputy leader Brooke van Velden wrote a piece on nzherald.co.nz this week about the need for people who behave badly to face consequences for their actions.
She made the point that not many of the kids doing these ram raids would’ve started with ram raids. She said most of them would have started with something small, got away with it, and moved on to bigger things.
And the reason for that happening, is that they hadn’t faced any consequences - even for the small stuff. Small stuff like picking on elderly people and knocking on their door at night and running away.
It’s just “kids being kids”, remember? I’d bet money that the same thing was probably said about these 15-year-olds who are now doing the ram raiding, when they showed first signs of going off the rails.
And so Brooke van Velden from ACT has been saying that kids need to learn that their actions have consequences. She says the sooner they learn that, the less likely they are to re-offend.
She wants to see what she calls “Instant Practical Penalties” for kids - these would be things like making them clean-up any graffiti-ing they do, making them apologise to shopkeepers for stealing stuff, and other things like instant fines.
Van Velden makes the point that, as long as we live by the values of shifting blame - which the Police Minister appeared to be doing on the radio this morning when he was talking about these kids being “disengaged” - Brooke van Velden says if we keep doing that, it’s a slippery slope.
I would say that locking kids away has to be a last resort. But I think the ACT Party is bang-on when it says kids have to face consequences if they behave badly. And if it’s not going to come from parents - as it clearly isn’t in some cases - then, as a society, we are failing these kids if we don’t jump in and say “what you’re doing isn’t acceptable, and you need to face consequences”.
Consequences which, at the moment, seem to be sorely lacking
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to National's Nicola Grigg, and newly sworn in Labour List MP, Dan Rosewarne.
They discussed the rising rate in youth crime and what can be done to stop it, where does the issue lie? Also the Kiwi Soldier killed in Ukraine, where Dan reflected on his army background to help us understand why the soldier would be there. And what was their reaction to the released Draft Transport Plan from the Christchurch City Council.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Do you think the Christchurch City Council should make it easier or more difficult for you to drive your car into the central city?
From what we’re seeing, it looks like it’s setting out to make it more difficult with what a couple of city councillors are describing as “radical initiatives”, including congestion charges and road tolls.
Councillors are deciding whether or not to publicly release what’s known as the “Draft Christchurch Transport Plan”. Apparently, city council staff don’t want it released right now because they think it could be taken out of context.
And they’ve been pushing for it not to be released until sometime after the upcoming local body elections, because it’s going to be the new council that will decide whether or not the plan goes anywhere.
But two councillors - Aaron Keown and Phil Mauger - are saying that’s rubbish, and they want it released before the local body elections because they say it talks about “new and radical initiatives”. That’s a direct quote - “new and radical initiatives”.
Phil Mauger thinks the objective of the transport plan is to take the city “towards no cars of any sort”.
According to him and Cr Keown, not only does the draft plan include congestion charges and road tolls, it also proposes charging parking fees in areas where there’s currently free parking; and charging fees for employers who provide carparks for staff.
Sounds to me like a pretty concerted effort to stop people from taking cars into town.
Personally, I think the draft plan should be released before the elections because it would mean that if you wanted to find out what your local council candidates thought about congestion charges, road tolls, and more parking fees, you could.
If it isn’t released and you ask them, they’ll be well within their rights to say they can’t discuss it because it isn’t in the public domain yet.
So I think Aaron Keown and Phil Mauger are right when they say it should be made public. Having said that, I also think city councillor Mike Davidson is right when he says Keown and Mauger are electioneering over this.
But then show me a councillor anywhere who isn’t electioneering in some way, shape or form at the moment. They’re all doing it.
Cr Davidson is talking about it because he runs the council’s urban development and transport committee, as well as a working group that’s had oversight of the transport plan’s development, and he says if the council released the plan now there’d be a risk of us getting a bit confused because it’s a working draft and the plan could change.
He claims that it’s not about removing cars but creating choice.
But from where I’m sitting, what he means by creating choice is taking us to a point where we can decide whether we take our car into town and pay a congestion charge or a road toll, or catch a bus or a taxi or an Uber.
Technically, yes, that’s creating choice - but I think he’s pushing it a bit.
I also think Cr Davidson is being a little bit patronising saying we might get a bit confused if the plan’s released now, because that doesn’t really stack up with how the council releases draft plans all the time when it wants us to get on the consultation merry-go-round. So, nice try councillor, but that doesn’t wash with me. And I don’t think it’ll wash with anyone.
The broader question, though, is whether we think congestion charges are needed and/or wanted in Christchurch. If we’re talking about the central city, I think any congestion of any sort has been created by the council itself with the cycleways and footpaths chewing up so much road space.
Not to mention the number of on-street carparks that no longer exist. So if there is any congestion, it’s not because of the cars - it’s because of the way some roads in town are little more than two-lane alleyways.
So they can forget about charging me to fix a problem they themselves have created. What’s more, whenever congestion charges have been introduced in places around the world, it’s been done because - as the name suggests - there is an issue with congestion.
Aside from morning and evenings, I don’t think there is a major problem with traffic congestion here. Certainly not on the scale to warrant a congestion charge.
And as for the idea of road tolls and charging parking fees in areas where there is currently free-parking, I just don’t know where this council gets off. For years, it’s been banging on about attracting more people into the central city.
The Central City Business Association has been crying out for support from the council to get more people into town. And, granted, the council has responded with various initiatives - mostly through its economic development arm, ChristchurchNZ.
But how the council sees road tolls, congestion charges and more parking fees fitting in with that, I’ll never know. Because, by their very nature, these sorts of things won’t attract people to the city - they’ll put people off. And I think the council needs to be told loud and clear that it’s dreaming if it thinks this is what's needed.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Yesterday, a politician who said he was being bullied was kicked out by his Labour Party colleagues.
Today, another politician - who quite a few people think is a bit of a bully himself - resigns with the very best wishes of his Labour Party colleagues.
Yesterday it was Gaurav Sharma. Today, it is Trevor Mallard, who officially stand-downs ahead of packing his bags and heading-off to become New Zealand’s next ambassador to Ireland. He’s expected to start the new job in January. His last actual day in Parliament will be sometime in October - but today is when he officially resigns.
So the paperwork’s all ticked off and it’s now official. Mallard is out of here and most of us are probably pleased to see the back of him.
I actually think Mallard has been the worst Speaker we’ve ever had and I think he rates about a 2-out-of-10.
And with his diplomatic posting now official, ACT leader David Seymour has come out firing, saying it’s “an outrage” that Mallard has scored the job.
As soon as Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta formally announced it yesterday, Seymour put out a scathing statement saying: “To send someone with such a lengthy political rap sheet and zero diplomatic ability is an insult to our friends in Ireland."
Seymour went on to say: "He took the Office of the Speaker only to have the worst approval rating of any politician in modern history. Now he's being rewarded for his bad behaviour."
Now I don’t necessarily agree that Mallard’s being rewarded for his bad behaviour but I certainly think the Prime Minister - for whatever reason - is turning a blind eye to it. And if it was me, I wouldn’t be sending him to Ireland or anywhere, for that matter.
That approval rating that Seymour mentioned was back in June when a 1News-Kantar poll found that only 17 percent of people approved of the way Mallard was doing his job.
And the main beefs people have with Trevor Mallard are his appalling treatment of the parliamentary staff member he accused of being a rapist - and the $300,000 it cost the taxpayer to clean up that mess. And his carry-on during the protest at Parliament earlier in the year.
Barry Manilow music screaming out of the loudspeakers and the sprinklers being turned on the protesters. I didn’t have any time for the protesters but I thought the way Mallard handled things was appalling.
Judith Collins once said he was the biggest bully she had ever seen in Parliament. And I can’t argue with that. I remember seeing him on TV recently when he appeared before a select committee at Parliament and he was grilled about his handling of the anti-mandate protest.
From what I saw, I thought he was menacing towards the MPs. And I thought he was just a bully-boy the way he barged through journalists when he left the meeting room.
Just awful, in my honest opinion.
Earlier today, Megan Woods was on Newstalk ZB defending Mallard. She was banging on about his 35-year political career and how he’s held about 13 ministerial portfolios in that time and how his diplomatic skills got the Rugby World Cup happening in New Zealand.
She was saying it’s not unique what’s happening with him moving on to the job in Ireland because of the last five Speakers in Parliament, three have gone on to diplomatic postings.
Where she really got interesting - and started to really push it uphill - was when she started going on about the bullying behaviour not being the sum total of Mallard’s career.
Which was a ridiculous thing to say. Because, of course those things don’t represent everything Mallard has done, but they do put a cloud over all the good stuff. And I didn’t hear her say the same thing about her old mate Gaurav Sharma who, you could say, shouldn’t be judged just by the monkey business that’s been going on.
But the bit that made me laugh out loud, was when she said people acknowledge that Mallard has flaws, that he’s a human being like the rest of us and that New Zealanders see a bit of themselves in Trevor.
I think that would have to be the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard Megan Woods say. Because I don’t see anything of myself in Trevor Mallard. You might, but I don’t.
And I think despite all the good stuff Megan Woods says he’s done, the New Zealand Parliament will be a far better place without Trevor Mallard.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Was I the only person in the country taken by complete surprise yesterday when Finance Minister Grant Robertson announced that the Government is going to spend $2.1 billion to buy Kiwibank?
$2.1 billion. And even then people in the banking and finance sector are saying that it won’t mean much because, for Kiwibank to live up to its true potential, it needs a whole lot of investment if it’s going to become a genuine competitor with the big Australian banks.
Which is something the Government says it might do but I’ll believe that when I see it, because I don’t see a government-owned bank being a vote-catcher - and if something isn’t a vote-catcher then, generally, it goes nowhere.
A banking specialist at Victoria University Wellington, Martien Lubberink, is mystified as to why the Government would want to own a bank.
He’s saying today that we're funding a very risky, probably non-viable institution, which "is not great, if you ask me”.
And I couldn’t agree with him more. In fact, “not great” is putting it mildly. What I’d say about it, is that it’s just another example of the current government letting ideology rule its thinking.
Because, apparently, the SuperFund wanted to take a bigger stake in Kiwibank providing it had the flexibility to allow private investors to get in on the action.
But the Government wasn’t going to have a bar of that. Grant Robertson couldn’t bring himself to let that happen and so he’s reached down the back of the chair, found a couple of billion dollars and announced that the Government will buy it outright.
That’s if the Reserve Bank gives it the nod. But I don’t think the Government would be announcing this if that part of it was anything more than a formality. So it will happen and the Government will have its hands all over Kiwibank.
And what those-in-the know see happening, is the only further investment the Government might make into its bank is stepping in sometime in the future if debt needs to be paid off which, in effect, would make Kiwibank what the experts call a “zombie bank”. Which is a bank that only continues to operate because a government acts as a bit of an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.
I heard one expert on Newstalk ZB this morning saying that Kiwibank has provided an illusion of competition in the banking sector, but it’s never actually been able to compete with the big banks because it doesn’t offer everything the Aussie outfits offer.
And, in the years since the late Jim Anderton pushed hard for a one hundred percent New Zealand-owned bank - and got what he wanted - it’s only been a small player in the market and is probably going to stay that way.
Which is largely being put down to the bank not having the capital to expand and grow. And, from what I’m reading, there aren’t many people around the traps who think that’s going to change with the Government in charge.
Yes, it’s spending $2.1 billion buying Kiwibank from New Zealand Post, ACC and the Superannuation Fund - because those outfits don’t see owning a bank fitting with their “long term strategic and investment plans. But the Government isn’t going to keep pouring money into it and so not much is going to change.
The question it raises, though, is this: is a state-owned bank really a priority right now? My answer to that would be “no”.
I am not a Kiwibank customer. Never have been. And that’s probably because I don’t give two hoots whether a bank is locally-owned or not. That’s why I could never appreciate the fire Jim Anderton had in his belly over a New Zealand-owned bank.
I actually think the country has moved on from those days and I think we’re over that whole thing about the Aussies taking over everything from pavlova, Phar Lap and our banking system.
And I suspect that most of us - whether we have accounts with Kiwibank or not - will be thinking today that the Government has failed to read the room, because I think there is a lot more to worry about these days than whether-or-not we have a New Zealand-owned bank.
In fact, I’d go as far as saying that I think spending $2.1 billion buying Kiwibank is the last thing we need from the Government right now - especially if the experts are right, and it’s not going to deliver anything meaningful for the people of New Zealand.
As far as I'm concerned, spending $2.1 billion to defend some sort of government ideology is never good grounds for investment of any sort. Particularly, when it is an investment made on behalf of the taxpayer.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Red rag to a bull. That’s what the suggestion from the Teaching Council that te reo Māori may eventually become mandatory for teachers has been.
But no surprises there. Because we live in a country where some people go nuts over some weather presenters on TV using what they consider to be too much of the Māori language and we live in a country where people get all hot and bothered about New Zealand being called Aotearoa.
And where people talk a whole load of nonsense about boycotting Whittaker’s chocolate because Whittaker’s has got the nerve to print a bit of te reo on the wrapper of one of its chocolate bars.
Which is one sure sign that civilisation, as we know it, is going downhill isn’t it? Te reo on a chocolate wrapper. Well, it is as far as some people are concerned.
And, in reality, the chocolate bar thing is probably the closest we’re ever going to get to having the Māori language “rammed down our throats” - as some people like to say. Although, eating chocolate isn’t mandatory, so I don’t think we can even say that.
So when you get an outfit representing the teaching profession saying that it’s likely one day all teachers will need to know the Māori language, it seems to be natural for some people to start banging on about the kids needing to learn the basics first. And referring to te reo as if it's some sort of add-on or nice-to-have.
“Stick to the Three Rs” - reading, writing, ‘rithmetic. That’s a common one isn’t it? Which I’ve always thought is a bit of an odd way of talking about education when one of the so-called “Rs” actually starts with “A”. It’s A-rithmetic. Not ‘rithmetic. And another one starts with "W".
But, anyway, you get my gist.
Now, as far as I’m concerned, what the Teaching Council is saying makes perfect sense. Of course teachers are going to have to up their game on the te reo front.
And that’s not because it’s the right thing to do, or because it’s politically correct, or because it’s fashionable. Or whatever other reason those anti it might want to throw around.
Teachers are going to at least be proficient in all things Māori because it’s not 1975 anymore and, in the years to come (if not already), te reo is going to be just as much a part of literacy in this country as anything else.
Now I don’t speak te reo. I did a course through work a few years ago - it ran for a few weeks - and, to be honest, I struggled with it. But it doesn’t mean that I don’t recognise the value of learning the language.
And I probably did the course as much out of curiosity as anything else. But kids growing up today and the kids to come don’t have that luxury.
Te reo Māori is not going to be a nice-to-have in the years to come. It’s going to be essential. It’s a fact.
You don’t have to love the idea if you don’t love it. But, at the very least, we all have to recognise that - in the future - if you want to be considered literate in this country, then sticking your head in the sand when it comes to te reo Māori isn’t going to be an option.
And that’s why what the Teaching Council is saying shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. If anything, we should be applauding the Teaching Council for saying it.
If your child or grandchild wants a job in the public sector, they’ll go straight to the front of the queue if they speak te reo. If your child or grandchild wants to work for some of the big legal and engineering firms, or in the health sector, they’ll go straight to the front of the queue if they speak te reo.
If your child or grandchild wants to get into politics - again, they’ll be at the front of the queue if they can speak te reo. If that wasn’t the case, then you wouldn’t have people like National Party leader Christopher Luxon learning te reo, would you?
That’s why the Teaching Council is saying what it’s saying. It’s just being realistic and saying what’s going to be needed if we want a teaching profession that can truly prepare our kids for the real world of tomorrow.
The sooner we get our heads around that, the better. Because, as far as I’m concerned, being literate in this country isn’t always going to be about reading and writing and speaking English, and nothing else.
It’s also going to be about familiarity - at the very least - with te reo Māori which, I needn’t remind you, is an official language of Aotearoa New Zealand.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Why the Government didn’t launch an independent inquiry into these allegations by rogue MP Dr Gaurav Sharma, I will never know.
But if it wants to get out of this hole that the Hamilton West MP is digging for it, it's going to have to.
Some of his latest allegations are being described as “explosive”.
For a lot of people, I think what he’s been saying about how the Government bends over backwards to get around requests for information under the Official Information Act will be surprising.
But I know that this sort of thing isn’t new and certainly isn’t limited to the Government.
Any public organisation that can be scrutinised through the OIA process freaks out over this stuff and does everything to try and keep sensitive things secret. Just like local authorities do too.
For them, it’s the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act that they operate under (or LGOIMA as those in the know refer to it). But the OIA and the LGOIMA are essentially the same thing, designed to allow people to request information about all sorts of things from public entities.
So I wasn’t surprised in the least to hear Dr Sharma talking this morning about how the Prime Minister’s office cherry picks how information is handled, and if something is really tricky they try to make it a matter for the leader of Labour Party because, that way, it can’t be subject to the Official Information Act.
And, of course, there are workshops held with MPs telling them how they can keep stuff secret. Don’t write things down, don’t send emails about sensitive or controversial things - because they’re what’s described as being “discoverable”.
So instead, talk about things on the phone. Phone calls aren’t discoverable, unless they’re recorded, of course. Or go and chat face-to-face with someone.
Just don’t write it down.
So, the current Government does it, the previous Government did it, all councils do it and all government agencies do it and have done ever since these official information processes have been around.
But should a government that promised to be the most open and transparent government we’ve ever had be doing it? Of course it shouldn’t. But it is. And I don’t see anything changing on that front.
Along those lines, Mike Hosking asked Dr Sharma this morning whether he thought the Prime Minister was a liar. He said it was up to us to come to our own conclusions.
And that is the nub of the issue. Because the way the Government is handling this, leaves every one of us with the only option but to come to our own conclusion.
Unlike the way National is doing things and letting an independent inquiry come to a conclusion on the issue it’s got with MP Sam Uffindell. Arm's length. Independent. With a conclusion that is likely to be far more credible than secret Zoom meetings and a whole bunch of Labour MPs towing the party line.
That’s why I’m in no doubt that an independent inquiry must happen. And Labour needs to get over itself and stop thinking that suspending or expelling people is the way you deal with things in 2022.
Because it isn’t.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Megan Woods for Politics Friday.
MacDonald pressed Woods on the Sharma situation, following allegations of bullying within the Labour party and asked why there has not been an inquiry. They also discussed today's strike by Fire and Emergency New Zealand, the Mega Polytechnic situation and housing intensification changes.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A group of Christchurch residents associations have delivered a letter calling on Mayor Lianne Dalziel and her Council to take a stand against the government-directed planning changes that will rezone almost all of Christchurch for medium and high-density housing.
Tony Simons, who fronted the letter, spoke to John MacDonald about the implications these changes have on our communities and explained why they were so concerned.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Who would want to be coach of the All Blacks? I wouldn’t.
I’m not saying I wouldn’t want the job because of all the scrutiny and criticism that comes from fans and the media. That’d be fine.
I’m not saying I wouldn’t want the job because of the headaches that must come with managing professional sportspeople and their egos. I’d keep them under control.
I’m saying I wouldn’t want the job because it would mean I’d have to be on the payroll at New Zealand Rugby.
An outfit I think has shown itself to be completely Mickey Mouse these last few weeks with its handling of the All Blacks coaching shambles.
I was convinced on Monday this week that NZ Rugby wanted to get rid of Ian Foster.
I’d got that very strong impression from the so-called media conference NZ Rugby chief executive Mark Robinson did on Zoom from South Africa after the win over the Springboks on Sunday morning.
It was Sunday afternoon New Zealand-time when Robinson got online, in what I gather was a bit of a rushed last-minute affair, and basically said nothing but said everything - or so I thought. And I was convinced from that, that Foster was toast.
But fast-forward to yesterday, and we have another media conference but, at least this time, NZ Rugby actually said something.
And that was that Ian Foster was being retained as All Blacks head coach until the end of the Rugby World Cup in France next year.
I still rethink Razor Robertson is a way better person for the job, but changing things now with just a little over a year until the World Cup wouldn’t make sense to me.
But that isn’t everyone’s view. An online poll today says NZ Rugby has made a mistake keeping Foster on as head coach. So there seems to be a pretty strong view out there that NZ Rugby has got it wrong again.
But I think the criticism needs to go further than just the decision on the coaching.
All the talk by chief executive Mark Robinson yesterday about them being an organisation that looks after its people - what a load of nonsense.
I don’t think there would be anyone in the country who doesn’t think Ian Foster has been hung out to dry by the outfit he works for over the last few weeks.
And I don’t think I was on my own thinking, after the gibberish from Mark Robinson on Sunday, that NZ Rugby was giving all the signals that it had lost faith in Foster.
But then yesterday, the same guy was going on about having “huge amounts of confidence” in him.
I know Foster himself looked pretty chuffed yesterday, but if this is the way his employers treat him, he’s not going to know where he stands from day-to-day is he?
Either that, or Mark Robinson needs some training on how to say what he actually means. Because, as far as I’m concerned, he definitely said one thing on Sunday and something completely different yesterday.
Which, as one sports writer is saying, has made him look weak and indecisive.
And it’s being suggested that the way some of the senior players came out after the win against the Springboks on Sunday and backed Foster, could be evidence that the bad blood between NZ Rugby and the All Blacks over the Silver Lake investment deal may still be there.
Either way, I think NZ Rugby needs to launch another one of its famous reviews and, this time, take a long, hard look at itself - because more and more these last few weeks, it has shown itself to be an outfit that is nothing short of arrogant and out-of-touch.
And if I were the Silver Lake private equity people and I’d just put $200 million into NZ Rugby, I’d be far more concerned about the Mickey Mouse outfit running the sport in this country than what the All Blacks may or may not be doing on the field. Way more concerned.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to National Party Leader Christopher Luxon regarding the current situation with Sharma and the Labour Party, and asked why the details of the report on Sam Uffindell will be kept private.
They discussed National's Tax Policy poll results, published early this week, and should Labour and National form a grand coalition to control extremist parties entering Parliament?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to National Party Leader Christopher Luxon regarding the current situation with Sharma and the Labour Party, and asked why the details of the report on Sam Uffindell will be kept private.
They discussed National's Tax Policy poll results, published early this week, and should Labour and National form a grand coalition to control extremist parties entering Parliament?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
We know Jacinda Ardern likes to do a bit of DJing in her spare time, but yesterday, she was the one doing the dancing for a change. And it wasn’t on the dancefloor - it was on the head of a pin.
It was all to do with the announcement that the Labour Party caucus had voted unanimously to suspend MP Gaurav Sharma after he went rogue, slagging off his Labour colleagues in Facebook posts about the length of your average PhD thesis and in an article on nzherald.co.nz.
So the Prime Minister came out at about 4 o’clock yesterday afternoon and announced that because of what Sharma had done, his caucus colleagues felt they couldn’t trust him anymore and so they wanted him out. Suspending him from Caucus for the rest of the year.
He’s still a Labour MP - he’s just not welcome at Caucus. That may change if he pulls his head in and the Prime Minister said yesterday there’d be a review of things on that front in December.
She also said that if he keeps being a pain in the backside for the party (my words, not hers), if he keeps up with his antics, then the Party may look at further action.
So that part of it is all understandable. But where it got weird, was the lengths Jacinda Ardern went to, to try and explain away the so-called “secret” caucus meeting that happened ahead of yesterday’s “official” caucus meeting.
Sharma himself found out about it when someone in the caucus apparently pressed a few wrong buttons on the laptop and mistakenly sent him a screenshot of caucus members having a chinwag online on Monday night.
The way Jacinda Ardern explained it yesterday was that it wasn’t an “official” caucus meeting because not every caucus member was invited. All but one were invited - Sharma was the one left off the invite list.
The PM said yesterday that was because Labour MPs felt they couldn’t trust Sharma and, therefore, couldn’t speak freely and frankly if he was involved.
But for Jacinda Ardern to say that it wasn’t a caucus meeting because one of its MPs wasn’t invited is like having a family gathering and not inviting one of the cousins, for example, because everyone’s sick of hearing about their conspiracy theories - and then saying it’s not actually a family gathering because one of the cuzzies wasn’t invited.
They’re weasel words and I think that’s being generous.
And, for me, demonstrates why I think the National Party - so far, anyway - has done a much better job handling the Sam Uffindell issue, than Labour has done with the Gaurav Sharma issue.
The first reason I would give for Labour not doing as well as National, is the fact that Jacinda Ardern knew about the Sharma thing way before he went rogue on social media and long before he wrote the opinion article for the New Zealand Herald last week.
So that’s a failure on her part.
In contrast to National leader Christopher Luxon who, if we’re to believe what we've been told, didn’t know about the Uffindell thing until it was blowing up in the media.
So Ardern had time to be better-prepared. Luxon didn’t. But he still did a better job - in my view, anyway.
Another reason why I think National’s response last week was better than Labour’s response this week, is the way Luxon handed the whole thing over to a QC for an independent inquiry.
What Labour has done is keep it all in-house - within the caucus - and has effectively told everyone what to say and do and I think because of that, Uffindell is going to be treated a lot fairer than Sharma.
The Labour Party has been judge and jury. The National Party has stayed right out of it, and is letting the independent inquiry currently being done by Maria Dew QC guide its thinking.
Of course, that is a much fairer way of handling it than doing what Labour has done and let its MPs handle it from the get-go.
Because, despite what the Prime Minister says, those Labour MPs won’t be giving two hoots about natural justice - they’re just brassed-off with Sharma and they want to make him pay for what he’s done.
And they’re making him pay by suspending him from Caucus with the threat of further action if he doesn’t pull his head in.
Which is why, if we were dishing out a prize for the party that’s handled issues with its MPs the best over the past couple of weeks, I’d give it to the National Party over the Labour Party.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to former MP Dr Liz Gordon who has spoken out about white supremacist Philip Arps standing for the school board of Te Aratai College.
There are currently no rules stopping someone who has spent less than two years in prison standing for Board of Trustees.
They spoke about the lack of rules around standing for a school board, and if candidates should be transparent if they have a criminal background, and Gordon's own experience with Arps after he commented on her blog.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When our kids were younger, I served a couple of terms on the Board at our local primary school and never, during that six years, did it enter my mind that some of my fellow board members might be ex-prisoners.
I’m pretty sure none of them were but there could’ve been, because we’re finding out today that if someone has served a prison sentence of less than two years they can put themselves up for election to a school board of trustees.
We’re finding out about it because it’s election time for school boards around the country and someone by the name of Philip Arps has put his hat in the ring to be a board member at Te Aratai College in Christchurch, which is being described today as one of Christchurch’s most multi-cultural schools.
If his name rings a bell, that’s because he’s the white supremacist who used to run the insulation company which charged $14.88 per metre for insulation, with 14.88 being a hate symbol popular with white supremacists.
Back in 2016, he delivered a pig’s head to the Al Noor Mosque in Christchurch and, more recently, he’s had connections with the anti-vaccine mandate movement.
But he’s probably best known for sending the video of the March 15 Christchurch mosque shooting to 30 people, and asking a friend to modify it by adding cross-hairs and a "kill count".
That appalling, sickening behaviour earned him six-months in prison.
But because he was sentenced for less than two years he is fully entitled to run in school board elections. Which is what he’s currently doing. In fact, anyone who has served a prison sentence of less than two years can.
So, in light of Arps trying to get elected to the Te Aratai College board, there are calls today for the rules to be changed because they provide no safeguard at all against parents with extremist views ending up on school boards.
When I first heard about this I thought ‘if they’re the rules, let him stand, and if people don’t like him they won’t vote for him’.
But then I thought about the fact that while people might know who Philip Arps is, it doesn’t mean they necessarily know every other ex-prisoner who might be trying to get themselves onto a school board.
And so I definitely think the rules need to be changed because there will be some people who won’t want ex-prisoners being anywhere near a school board.
But not all ex-prisoners are the same are they? And while Philip Arps went to prison for something that 99.99 percent of us were appalled by, there are people who also go to prison for six months, 12 months, or 18 months whose crimes are completely different.
They could be for driving offences or dishonesty offences which, most of the time, aren’t necessarily linked to extreme views.
And so there may be someone who did a short period of time inside who may be perfectly ready to make a contribution to their community and who shouldn’t be prevented from doing that. That could even be Philip Arps.
So I think letting someone stand for school board elections if they’ve served a prison sentence of less than two years is going to be fine in most cases - but much more transparency is needed.
That’s why I think that if there’s going to be any change to the rules, it shouldn’t be along the lines of banning ex-prisoners from school boards - but we should be requiring these people to be completely open and transparent from the outset about their past.
And I think the best way of doing that would be to require candidates to include their convictions in the blurb they write that goes out to the parents when it’s time to do the voting.
So in this case with Philip Arps running for the Te Aratai College board, he would have to say that he was sentenced for doing what he did with the mosque shootings video.
And anyone else who’d been in prison for less than two years would do the same.
Example: My name’s Joe Bloggs, I’d love it if you voted for me. I’ve done this, this and this; I’ve also served a six month prison sentence for stealing $10,000 from my employer but that’s in the past, I’m a different person now and I’m ready to do my bit for our great school.
This approach would achieve two things: it would let ex-prisoners move on with their lives but also ensure the parents doing the voting weren’t surprised after-the-fact and find that they’d elected the last person they’d want to be a Board of Trustee member.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Remember the Seinfeld TV series back in the 90s, and how they always talked about it being a show about nothing?
That’s what the media conference NZ Rugby boss Mark Robinson did on Zoom from South Africa was like after the All Blacks beat the Springboks 35-23 yesterday.
It went for 20 minutes and no matter how many different ways reporters asked the same question, Robinson refused to say whether or not he endorsed Ian Foster. He wouldn’t even say whether Foster would be coach when the All Blacks play Argentina here in Christchurch on 27 August.
How about this for wishy-washy? Here’s a quote from Robinson: "We've been having conversations right through this time. We believe we know where we stand, we've just got to work through that with him." “Him”, of course, being Foster.
It was a bit like the Greens leadership nonsense a few weeks back when every Green MP would bang on about process, if someone asked them whether-or-not they supported James Shaw.
Mark Robinson was just the same, going on-and-on-and-on about reviews and processes. It was a media conference about nothing. Just like Seinfeld was a TV show about nothing.
But if I was Ian Foster, I think I’d be feeling pretty uncomfortable about the way Robinson was talking. Because it sounds to me like Robinson wants him gone.
But something clicked yesterday with that result, didn’t it? Whether it’s as specific as Jason Ryan working his magic with the forward pack just a few weeks into his new gig, I don’t know. Either way, it was a result I certainly wasn’t expecting.
And if the game had gone how I’d expected, I’d probably be saying Foster has to go.
I’ve been a big advocate of Razor Robertson getting the job and if the All Blacks hadn’t won yesterday, I reckon I’d be going down the Razor line again and pushing for him to replace Foster.
But the All Blacks didn’t lose yesterday. They won. And, as former coach John Hart said on Newstalk ZB, beating the Springboks at Ellis Park is an achievement in itself.
And that’s why my thinking has changed - after all, what good is having a mind if you can’t change it - and I now reckon that NZ Rugby should just stick with Ian Foster until the World Cup in France, in just over a year’s time.
I know it’s just one win for the All Blacks after losing five-out-of-six test matches. And who knows what will happen with Argentina in less than a couple of weeks. But that’s the point isn’t it? We don’t know.
But we do know that the All Blacks have just beaten the Springboks in one of the toughest places to play, from a crowd perspective.
Which, for me, is enough to think that Foster and Sam Cane haven’t just been talking hot air when they’ve been saying that they think the team has been building towards something good.
And they showed that yesterday morning in Johannesburg, didn't they? So why would you do anything to mess with the momentum that will certainly come from that?
But aside from the rugby itself, I think when it comes to the All Blacks we can lose perspective big time pretty quickly. Especially when you consider some of the issues that we’ve been talking about over the past week in relation to people’s behaviour.
Ian Foster isn’t a politician. He hasn’t held himself up as some sort of pillar of society. He doesn’t want to change the world because he thinks he knows it all.
He’s a rugby coach. Just a rugby coach. And when it comes down to it, so what if his team loses five-out-of-six test matches? Because, even if it’s the All Blacks, it’s still just a game.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Retiring Christchurch mayor Lianne Dalziel says she's been taken aback by some candidates' actions in the lead up to the elections.
Mayoral hopeful Phil Mauger has donated to some city council candidates.
He's endorsed four out of 13, all running as as independents or under the right-leaning Independent Citizens banner.
Dalziel told Newstalk ZB's Canterbury Mornings she's never donated to individual campaigns, nor endorsed candidates.
She says the decision on who is elected lies with the public.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
One day last year, I was walking down Cashel Mall in Christchurch and I saw Finance Minister Grant Robertson.
Some people wanted to take a selfie - which he was perfectly happy to do - but I heard him say first: “Hold on, I better put a mask on first or Jacinda will tell me off."
Which probably sounded like a bit of a gag but I remember thinking at the time ‘yeah I bet she would’.
That’s because I’ve always considered Jacinda Ardern to be a bit of a Helen Clark. Even her mannerisms are similar. And I can see very clearly that behind the smiles and kindness talk there is a ruthless political operator there.
She wouldn’t be where she is today if she wasn’t. And perhaps goes some way to explain why she’s done nothing about that awful Labour Party bully Trevor Mallard. As I’ve said many times, in my honest opinion he is a bully and should’ve been given the flick ages ago.
And, as I’ve said before, it is shameful that Jacinda Ardern has done nothing about Trevor Mallard. But he is obviously very useful for the Prime Minister.
Awful, but useful too.
That’s why I’m not in the least bit surprised that we have Labour backbench MP Gaurav Sharma saying that there’s all sorts of bullying behaviour going on at Parliament.
He seems to be particularly concerned about the way MPs are treated by party whips and the Parliamentary Service, which provides administration support and runs the complex. And you know who’s in charge of that, don’t you? Yep, Speaker Trevor Mallard.
Sharma is a relative newcomer to Parliament. He’s only been there since 2020.
But obviously he’s had a gutsful already and he’s written this opinion piece about it for the New Zealand Herald.
I think as far as his career as a Labour Party politician is concerned, he’s an idiot for doing what he’s done. Jacinda will be fuming. Angry Andrew will be fuming. Even Chris Hipkins might be saying a few swear words.
“Chris, that’s not like you!”
“Oh sorry Jacinda. I’m just really annoyed, you know. That guy’s from Hamilton and we know there are bullies in Hamilton. So what makes him think he can call us bullies too? It’s just not on.”
I still don’t quite understand why Gaurav Sharma has done what he’s done.
There is obviously an issue bubbling away behind the scenes and so he’s decided to go public about it.
Labour Party whip Duncan Webb has confirmed that there are, what he calls, “employment matters” being dealt with.
And, man alive, the Labour Party machine is coming down hard on him.
He’s been in a bit of a stoush online with former Labour MP Darien Fenton who’s been online telling Sharma she’s “appalled” that he’s so ill-disciplined and is “mouthing off in the media” about this.
That’s a direct quote from the message the former Labour MP sent to Gaurav Sharma after his article was published by the Herald. Sharma went back to Darien Fenton saying it’s because of people like her that there's still a problem with bullying at Parliament. Boom!
But it’s not just former Labour MPs. Current Labour MPs are also trying hard to convince us that there’s nothing to see here.
One of them is Willy Jackson. How about this for a quote: “I have never seen it in my life. You’re going to have to talk to him but I have never seen it. We are great whanau.” That’s what Willie Jackson is saying.
But, with respect Willie, I’m not quite sure whether you’re the best person to be making that kind of judgement. I’m not saying you’re a bully mate, I just suspect that you’re one of the last people in Parliament that a bully would want to pick on. So, of course, you haven’t seen it.
And I think it is appalling that you are fobbing it off in this way.
Just like I think it’s appalling that current and former Labour MPs are ganging up on their MP for coming out and saying Parliament is a toxic place to work.
By responding the way it is, the Government and Labour is showing that it is just as much a part of the problem as anyone else in that strange, strange place we know as Parliament.
And it doesn’t give me much hope that things are going to get any less toxic at Parliament anytime soon.
Which is so rich, isn’t it, given we hear so much weasel words from politicians about cracking down on bullying, being kind to each other, looking after our mental health.
What a bunch of turkeys they all are.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald spoke to Labour's Tracey McLellan and National's Matt Doocey about the bullying allegations coming out within the Labour Party yesterday. Have they been bullied, or seen this within Parliament?
They also discussed the flagship mental health programme and National's calls to pause it, and should the age for criminal responsibility be raised from 10 to 14 years old?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In a brutally honest interview on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings' John MacDonald spoke to former All Black Zac Guildford following the news that Woodend Rugby Club has approached him to be a coach for their first division team.
Currently on home detention for alcohol and gambling related incidents, including stealing and defrauding friends and family for over $100,000, Guildford is still under intensive supervision.
There are reports of division within the club around the appointment.
MacDonald asked Zac about the coaching role, but also pressed him on his addiction and behaviour, and asked him what the future might hold for him if he's able to keep his demons behind him.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If we gave out medals for dealing with bullies, I think the National Party would win gold and the Labour Party would probably crash and burn in the semi-finals.
No, it wouldn’t even get that far. It probably wouldn’t even qualify.
Because what we’ve seen from Christopher Luxon in relation to the Sam Uffindell situation shows just how shameful Labour has been in failing to deal with one of its own MPs who - currently - is the most powerful person in Parliament.
Ever since news broke of Sam Uffindell’s history of bullying when he was at boarding school and the developments overnight with a former flatmate from his university days saying he was a piece of work to live with, there’s been a lot of “what about so-and-so” conversations on-air and online.
And that “so-and-so” that people have been talking about is Speaker and Labour MP Trevor Mallard.
In my honest opinion, the way Trevor Mallard has conducted himself - particularly in his role running Parliament (not just in the debating chamber but running the whole complex), he has shown himself to be nothing short of a bully.
There was all the stuff about the parliamentary staffer and, more recently, there were his utterly embarrassing antics during the anti-mandate protest outside Parliament with the loudspeakers and water sprinklers.
But what has Labour done about it? Absolutely nothing.
They’re moving him on - just like King’s College moved Sam Uffindell on after that vicious assault on the 3rd former in the dormitory back in 1999. And Mallard’s off to Ireland where he will suddenly get all diplomatic on it.
But Labour’s had numerous opportunities to call him out for being a bully but it has refused time and time again. As I say, its handling of Mallard has been shameful, particularly when you compare that to how National is dealing with the Uffindell situation.
Late last night, Christopher Luxon put out a statement saying the Tauranga MP was being stood-down from caucus because of what Luxon said were “very concerning” allegations and that an investigation would be done by Maria Dew QC.
I think Uffindell needs to resign as an MP full-stop. But that’s completely up to him because, as an electorate MP, it’s only the voters who can fire him. National is stuck with him as long as he refuses to resign.
So Christopher Luxon’s done the next best thing - the only thing - and stood him down while this investigation is carried out.
Which is clever politically because, with an investigation on the cards, he can quite rightly avoid any further interrogation on the matter - for a couple of weeks anyway - because there is now a formal process in place and why would he want to jepoardise that by talking publicly about it. So it’s a good political move.
I also think it’s smart given this latest allegation involves a former female flatmate from Uffindell’s days as a student at Otago University - who is alleging that he could get out of control on booze and drugs, and that she was scared stiff of him.
She’s alleging he was verbally aggressive, would trash the place after using drugs and alcohol and, on one occasion, she had to climb out of her bedroom window and go to a friend’s place because he was banging on her door yelling all sorts of obscenities.
And, as Christopher Luxon told Mike Hosking this morning, as a father with a daughter flatting, he’d want the thing fully investigated and that’s what’s going to happen.
And myself, with a daughter flatting at university, I’d be exactly the same. And I bet there’ll be other parents up and down the country who would’ve heard Luxon say that this morning and think ‘yep, I’m with you on that one mate’.
As for Uffindell himself, he’s saying he did drink and smoke weed at university but he’s denying that he was intimidating or bullying in the flat. This is the guy, though, who told Newstalk ZB yesterday morning there was nothing else that could come out. So, we’ll let the QC try and work out who’s telling the truth.
Nevertheless, I think Christopher Luxon has done the right thing here standing-down Uffindell. He kind of hid it this morning when he was on the radio, but Luxon will be fuming about this. And he should be.
Because not only has he been let-down by his new MP, he’s also been let-down big time by his own party which left him completely in the dark over all this.
But Luxon has shown that he’s in charge of the situation now and good on him.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If MPs resigned every time they did something just to protect their political careers, then we’d probably have no one left in Parliament. But some cases are different - and that's what we have on our hands today.
Brand new National MP Sam Uffindell is in the firing line not just for giving a 3rd former a hiding when he was a boarder at King’s College in Auckland 23 years ago, and being kicked out of the school because of it.
He’s also being criticised for apologising to the victim last year, nine months before he stood for the National Party and winning the Tauranga by-election - and not telling voters about it.
And, as far as I’m concerned, that’s the bit that sticks.
He’s the guy, by the way, who insinuated in his maiden speech in Parliament last week that New Zealand has gone soft.
All the talking he’s been doing since the story came out yesterday about him “reaching out” to his victim and his “atonement” - that all rings about as true as his answer to a question during the by-election campaign about what he thought his biggest regret or mistake in life had been.
This was in a Bay of Plenty Times Q&A article all the candidates took part in. The ACT candidate said drink-driving as a teenager was his biggest regret. Uffindell said his was not coming back home to New Zealand sooner.
Pull the other one mate.
Today, though, he’s saying that taking part in the beating was “one of the dumbest and stupidest things I’ve ever done”.
Which still doesn’t sound like regret, does it? Dumb and stupid?
Do you think his victim thinks the whole thing was “dumb and stupid”? Of course not…I think words like “terrifying”, “totally unjustified”, “repulsive” are more accurate than “dumb and stupid”.
As we know, Uffindell came back to New Zealand with his family after working overseas and - according to what I heard him say to Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB this morning - it was at that point that he decided he wanted to get in touch with the guy he beat-up in the boarding house at school to apologise.
He says it had been weighing on him and he wanted to do the right thing.
It seems the apology was accepted - but then when the guy who was the victim of the beating saw on the news that Uffindell was standing in the Tauranga by-election, he was gobsmacked.
“I felt sick.” They’re his exact words.
It seems the National Party knew about the incident - and that Uffindell had been kicked out of school because of it - when it selected him to be its candidate in Tauranga.
For some reason, though, the party didn’t share that information publicly. Nor did Uffindell.
Although, apparently, he had been expecting it to come out at some point during the by-election campaign. I think it would be more accurate to say he was hoping it wouldn’t come out during the campaign, don’t you?
The thing is, you ask anyone who’s been to any boarding school anywhere in New Zealand they’ll tell you stories of violence just like the one we’ve heard about Uffindell and his mates giving that 3rd form kid a hiding in the dorm at King’s College back in ‘99.
That doesn’t make it any more acceptable - but it’s not unique. And it’s probably still happening in some places.
These days, though, you’d like to think that schools are doing a bit more to stop it. I know at King’s College, at least, the 3rd form or Year 9 boarders have their own boarding house these days. So incidents like the dorm raid Uffindell and his mates were involved in are less likely to happen.
But what has struck me about this, is this happened 23 years ago when schools were nowhere near as proactive in dealing with bullying and violence. There was still a “grin and bear it” attitude back in 1999.
Nevertheless, King’s College obviously thought that whatever Uffindell did was bad enough for him to be kicked out of school the very next day.
There was no stand-down. No cooling off period. He was called to a meeting with his parents and the principal and the house master and given his marching orders.
The very next day.
And when I heard Uffindell himself explain to Newstalk ZB what he and his mates did to that kid, it sounded absolutely appalling. And obviously the school thought so too.
But, despite all that, I can look at this as a parent and know that what a person does when they are 16 shouldn’t be a ball and chain they have to carry for the rest of their lives.
However, I am more judgemental of someone nearing their 40s - particularly someone who wants to be an MP and wants their community to put their trust in them.
And, on the basis of Uffindell not being up front with the public and only talking about his part in this appalling act of violence after it’s been reported in the media, tells me that he is not the type of person I want as an MP.
That's why I think he should resign.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald had the pleasure of chatting to Kiwi rocker Jon Toogood.
Best known as the lead singer of Shihad, Jon is joining a collaboration of New Zealand's best musicians to present Come Together - Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars.
This is a track by track recreation of the album, celebrating 50 years since the release of Ziggy Stardust.
John asked about the tour, which visits Christchurch this Friday, and talked about Jon's career with Shihad and how his music and writing has changed after 30 years with the band.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Is any job better than no job?
The National Party seems to think so - announcing yesterday that, if it becomes government, there’ll be no more young people lying around on the unemployment benefit playing video games all day.
“The free ride is over” - that was the warning shot fired from the luxurious surroundings of Christchurch’s new Te Pae Convention Centre, to young people in Aranui, Linwood, Spreydon, Otara….in fact, anywhere in New Zealand where there is a young person currently receiving the unemployment benefit. Or jobseeker benefit, as it’s known these days.
And when I saw the coverage on TV last night, I thought I was back in the 80s. Especially pre-’87 when it seemed anyone who had a spare bit of cash was starting up or joining a shares club and there were yuppies left, right and centre who seemed to be making money out of nothing.
It turned out they were making money out of nothing and it all came crashing down but, before it did, if you weren’t in a share club or if you weren’t a yuppie you were what we here in New Zealand referred to at the time as a dole bludger.
If you were on a benefit, it was because you couldn’t be bothered working and all you needed was a good kick up the backside and sent out to do an honest day’s work. Because it never did us any harm!
That was back in the 80s. But fast-forward to yesterday, and the National Party seems to think the same solution is needed.
The gist of its policy is that anyone under-25 who’s been on the jobseeker benefit for more than three months, would get what’s being called a “job coach” to essentially do whatever is needed to get them into a job.
And then when you get a job - if you stick at it for 12 months, you get a $1,000 bonus from the taxpayer.
But if you don’t go along with the plan laid out by the “job coach”, then there would be what the National Party is calling “sanctions”. Even the word “sanctions” reeks of Margaret Thatcher doesn’t it?
This morning, party leader Christopher Luxon told Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB that these sanctions would start with state-control of beneficiaries’ spending and then eventually their unemployment benefit would be out the window if they didn’t tow the line and get a job.
Now I think this policy is a disaster. It will sound good but, in my view, it will achieve nothing.
It’s all big stick with a little bit of carrot. It’s the sort of thing that is very easy to trot out - but making it happen is a completely different story.
For starters, does the National Party have any idea why some or all of these young people aren’t working? Doesn’t it understand that some of them come from really good families who have done all the right things - who aren’t “the no-hoper parents” people like to rant on about - but despite all that, life just throws some cruel things at these young people.
Things like mental health issues. But also self-esteem and confidence problems. Kids who, especially over the past two-to-three years, have spent so much time in isolation that the idea of going out terrifies them.
I know young people right now - some of them I’ve known since they were babies - who are really struggling at the moment. And what does National think will help them? Telling them that the free ride is over and they need to get a job.
Is this really still the answer in 2022? Are we really going back to the days of calling everyone who doesn’t have a job a “dole bludger”?
Another reason why I think it won’t work, is that National seems to have completely forgotten - or ignored - what would actually have to happen to make it work.
Where would all these “job coaches” come from? What would the Ministry of Social Development have to stop doing, so it could implement this new policy? What would the consequences be of cutting someone’s unemployment benefit just because they don’t get a job? More crime anyone?
I was talking to a 75-year-old woman on Saturday night who is still working. She started working when she was 16 and she’s at the point now where she thinks it’s time to wind things up.
I’d never met her before and I don’t know alot about her but it sounded to me like she and her husband had done pretty well for themselves, but they had obviously worked very hard to get there.
Now she could easily be very critical of “the current generation” and be of the view that if she managed to work hard and keep working, then anyone could.
But she wasn’t, and even she acknowledged that life is so much more complicated for young people today.
And I’m picking that, like me, she won’t be falling for this cheap talk from the National Party
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If the honeymoon isn't over yet for National Party leader Christopher Luxon, I think it's about to be.
Because, in the past 24 hours, I’ve read two political opinion pieces - one by a left-leaning commentator, the other by a right-leaning commentator - which are both saying pretty much the same thing.
That Luxon is struggling and Nicola Willis might have been a better bet.
I remember getting quite a bit of flack a few months ago when I said I thought Nicola Willis should be leader. I even predicted that she would be by the end of the year. And nothing since then has given me any reason to change my thinking on that front.
The thing about Luxon is that he was never, ever going to be another John Key. I know alot of people thought he was. But I think that was pretty superficial thinking based on the fact that both of them come from impressive business backgrounds.
The difference was, John Key had been a trader - and traders thrive on chaos. Which is good if you want to be successful in politics.
Christopher Luxon, though, had impressively worked his way up the ranks to become a chief executive. But chief executives hate chaos. Chief executives talk alot about pivoting and all that but, when it comes down to it, they prefer things to be organised and planned and structured and well thought out. Chief executives are terrified of surprises. That’s why they employ swathes of people to manage risk.
And so you’ve got John Key who thrived on chaos and was quite prepared to make a clown of himself and didn’t hide the fact that he had truckloads of money and holidayed in Hawaii and played golf with Barack Obama. And people loved him because he was authentic.
And then you’ve got Christopher Luxon who is actually very reserved and considered as any successful chief executive probably should be - and, because of that, he doesn’t thrive on chaos (like John Key did), which I think must make politics a very difficult thing for him to be involved in. Certainly as leader of a party.
So I was very interested to read these articles about Christopher Luxon by two people at each end of the political spectrum, both saying they don’t think he’s up to the job.
Let’s start with Shane Te Pou who comes at things from the left.
In his piece on the nzherald.co.nz website he says that when he expressed the view back in April that National may have got it wrong making Luxon leader and not Nicola Willis, his National Party friends accused him of stirring.
But fast-forward to today and when he says the same thing to the same people today, he’s finding there’s less eye-rolling and “a lot more flickers of acknowledgement” as he puts it.
Shane Te Pou’s criticism of Luxon is largely focused on recent performances in the media - accusing Luxon of scoring own goals left, right and centre. The most recent example being a TV interview where Luxon tried desperately to avoid answering the questions that were actually asked. Using a trick known as “block and bridge”.
An example of “block and bridge” is where a politician might be asked a question about something and instead of answering it they trot out a line saying New Zealanders don’t really care about that, but they do care about what it’s costing to fill the tank, buy petrol and pay the mortgage.
And we saw Christopher Luxon do it the other week when he was asked about the Facebook post saying he was in Te Puke when he was actually in Hawaii.
He acknowledged it was a mistake by his social media team but when a reporter asked him something along the lines of whether the muck-up was keeping him awake at night, he said it was the cost of living in New Zealand that was keeping him awake at night.
Block and bridge.
And Shane Te Pou finishes the article by saying this: “At what point will Luxon’s CEO credentials and superficial plausibility give way to the recognition he is just not very good at this?”.
So that’s the view from the left which, I can think we could all agree, is hardly surprising for that very reason. Shane Te Pou is a left-leaning commentator and, of course, he’s going to take every opportunity to throw potshots at Christopher Luxon.
But then today, we’ve got Matthew Hooton - who comes at things from the right. He’s polar opposites of Shane Te Pou politically but his thinking is strikingly similar.
His article today on nzherald.co.nz starts with this headline: “”Peak Chrostopher Luxon now firmly in the past”.
Hooton says since taking over as leader, Luxon has offered nothing new. He says the only thing of any significance has been a promise to cut taxes.
But, as we’ve seen, that’s been played down by National’s finance spokesperson Nicola Willis who is saying the tax cut thing was just an idea National was putting forward for this year’s Budget.
Matthew Hooton thinks one of the most damaging things Luxon has done is criticise New Zealand businesses and call them soft during his recent overseas trip.
As Hooton says in his article, sole traders and small business owners who have battled through Covid would have heard those comments and assumed he was talking about them.
He writes: “They might legitimately ask if the softest corporate job in New Zealand is the one Luxon himself held: chief executive of a state-owned airline that gets bailed out each time it goes bust.”
And he goes on to say that Jacinda Ardern - who he describes as “the more experienced and nimbler political operator” - is likely to have the edge over Christoher Luxon at next year’s election.
He writes: “Unless he has a lot more in the tank than is apparent so far, Luxon is starting to look more like a Todd Muller or Andrew Little than a Key or an Ardern.”
And I couldn't agree more.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings John MacDonald was joined by Labour's Poto Williams and National's Gerry Brownlee.
The discussed National's Tax Policy and the leadership of the party, following recent media articles around Christopher Luxon's performance as leader.
The Shortland Street advertising campaign, and if they thought it was a good way of targeting the nursing shortage. The passing of the ECan and Ngai Tahu representation bill this week, and ties in the workplace - is the dress standard at Parliament needing to change?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I think the Labour Party might have cooked its goose in Parliament last night when it used its majority to push through the Canterbury Regional Council Ngai Tahu Representation Bill - which is the official name of the legislation that will now allow Ngai Tahu to appoint two representatives to the ECan council.
The Ngai Tahu representatives won’t be elected, they’ll be appointed - over and above the 14 elected council members. And they won’t be appointed by ECan, they’ll be appointed by Ngai Tahu.
But just like the ECan councillors who are elected, the non-elected Ngai Tahu representatives will have full decision-making and voting rights - just like any other elected councillor.
And I think it’s going to bite Labour on the backside, here in Canterbury at least, at next year’s election because pretty much wherever you sit on the political spectrum - democracy is at the heart of everything.
Unless, of course, you’re a communist. But most of us aren’t - and so anything that looks like it might be riding roughshod over democracy isn’t going to go down well with pretty much everyone.
If we were generous, we could possibly describe the legislation passed in Parliament as a new twist on democracy - but I think most people will see it riding roughshod over democracy. And you won’t be getting any argument from me on that one.
But even though I think Labour will be punished for it - I don’t think it’s the main offender here. Just like I think Ngai Tahu shouldn’t be copping any blame - it was right behind the legislation, but it wasn’t its idea.
No, the outfit I think we should be coming down on like a tonne of bricks, is ECan itself. For several reasons.
The first reason, is that it’s just not necessary.
Because, already, ECan pretty much doesn’t do anything without talking to Ngai Tahu about it first. And if Ngai Tahu puts the kibosh on something, it generally doesn’t happen.
This is largely due to the local government legislation that ECan operates under but also due to a formal partnership ECan has had with Ngai Tahu since 2016, which is known as “Tuia”.
As ECan says on its website, Tuia is about the regional council recognising that its work is “inextricably linked” - that’s the wording it uses - ECan’s work is “inextricably linked” with Ngai Tahu and its ancestral land.
And I’ve got no qualms with that because, of course, ECan exists to oversee management and protection of Canterbury’s natural air and water resources which are sacred to Ngai Tahu.
This is even recognised by Federated Farmers which is saying today that it supports Maori representation on the ECan council.
But, as its South Canterbury President Greg Anderson is saying, it should be done democratically.
No argument from me on that one. I’d be perfectly happy for there to be specific Maori councillors elected to ECan.
But as well as thinking the legislation is unnecessary, I also think it’s wrong because it reinstates an arrangement that was in place when the previous National government kicked out all of the ECan councillors and brought in commissioners.
When that happened, there were a couple of Ngai Tahu reps on board. Which made perfect sense when everyone else around that council table was appointed.
But things are different now - and ECan is being run by elected councillors again. So bringing in a little bit of the old set-up makes no sense. Well it doesn’t just not make sense - it’s wrong.
But the main reason why I think ECan needs to really be taken to task over all of this, is its lack of consultation with the people it serves.
ECan wanted the legislation and went to Te Tai Tonga MP Rino Tirikatene to get it through Parliament. Which, in itself, is fine.
But as National Party MP Paul Goldsmith is saying, the way it went about it was totally wrong. He says it was "pretty rotten" ECan didn't consult the Canterbury people.
Pretty rotten, indeed.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Commonwealth Games flag bearer, and shot put star, Tom Walsh, kindly took time out of his games preparation to talk to John MacDonald on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings.
He talked about the atmosphere and life at the games village, and how different it is to his Olympic experience last year with Covid in the mix, and how he is preparing for his event after finishing fourth at the recent world championships.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I remember hearing about a school that, apparently, has four categories in its annual cross-country running event.
Competitive running, non-competitive running, competitive walking and non-competitive walking.
And I suspect this is the type of thing new National MP Sam Uffindell was getting at, when he delivered his maiden speech in Parliament last night.
The general drift of his speech was that New Zealand has slipped into cruise mode (or a general malaise, as he put it) and we seem to be more than willing to accept mediocrity and we have much lower expectations and we need to take a good hard look at ourselves.
So if I was to summarise - Sam Uffindell thinks we’ve gone a bit soft.
He talked in Parliament last night about playing sport when he was a kid, and playing to win.
“Every time I played, my dad taught me to play to win. And I did, and I loved it. Now we don’t even keep score.”
Which is why I mentioned the school cross-country with the four categories - competitive running, non-competitive running, competitive walking and non-competitive walking.
Over the years, I’ve probably been just as guilty as the next person of rolling my eyes over the whole “taking part is more important than winning” thing.
I certainly did that when I heard about the “non-competitive walking” cross-country.
Just like, over the years, when I’ve gone to the kids’ swimming sports and I’ve been dismayed how the number of kids taking part seems to have dwindled every year. Because taking part in school swimming competitions isn’t compulsory anymore.
Not that that seems to have stopped our swimmers from winning medals at the Commonwealth Games, has it?
But is it really such a big deal that kids don’t have to do the swimming sports if they don’t want to? And is it really such a big deal that there’s a school that lets the kids go for a non-competitive walk around the cross-country course?
And are these things really going to be the downfall of our country?
Another thing the new Tauranga MP talked about in his speech last night was wanting his kids to grow up in a country that allows people to reach their potential.
Which I think is an interesting concept in itself, because who determines what someone’s potential is?
When I read that comment I couldn’t help thinking about something mental health campaigner Mike King said recently. He was talking about how what we, as parents, think is encouragement, is actually the complete opposite.
He gave an example of two parents talking to their son, and saying: “Your mum and I love you but we both know you can do better.” The parents think it’s encouragement, but Mike King says what the kid thinks is: “No matter what I do, I’m never going to be good enough for you.”
And that’s where I think this talk about people reaching their potential can be so dangerous. Because who decides what someone’s potential is?
There's a line I like to use about what good is a a mind if you can’t change it - and that’s how I feel after reading Sam Uffindell’s comments.
All power to him if he loves to win. I like to win too. But we can’t win all the time. And there are many, many people who never win - and how do you think they feel when they hear a member of our parliament saying winning is everything and, if you don’t win, it means you’ve gone soft.
Which is why I no longer think it’s absurd that kids, for example, don’t have to take part in the swimming sports - and why I no longer think a non-competitive walking category in the school cross country is nuts. I’ve changed my mind.
Because I reckon the worst thing we can do for anyone, is decide on their behalf what their potential is - and, even worse, tell them when we think they’re not living up to it.
I’ll put my hand up and say I struggle with that all the time, as a parent. I suspect you do too, if you’re a parent. But I want to get better at it.
And that’s why I completely disagree with MP Sam Uffindell’s view that New Zealand has gone soft. I don’t think we are more willing to accept mediocrity. And I don’t think our expectations are any lower than they used to be.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Former Shortland Street and Westside actor, Will Hall, has returned to his Christchurch roots with his young family after 20 years away, and has announced he will be standing for the Heathcote ward in the upcoming local body elections.
He has a family history in local government, and wants to help bring the communication and community back together for future generations.
He is passionate about environmental concerns, and wants to leave a better Christchurch for families in future.
Will also shared his views on the Shortland Street storyline which will see nursing given a spotlight as a career option.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
"Is it you or is it me? Lately I've been lost it seems. I think a change is what I need."
Hmmmm, have you thought about nursing?
If those lines sound familiar, that's because they’re the opening lyrics of the Shortland Street theme song.
It’s been so long since I’ve watched Shortland Street that I don’t even know if they still use the version with the lyrics or whether it’s more of an instrumental these days.
Either way, Health Minister Andrew Little and the Government have announced that they're going to use the show to promote nursing as a career.
I can see it now - the end-of-season cliffhanger: will they pass their exams? Will they be rostered on on New Years’ Eve or will they have the night off to go to Queenstown? Dramatic stuff.
Funny thing is, apparently, the storyline that’s running at the moment on the show is about how stressed, miserable and stretched nurses are. Which is probably doing a pretty good job of turning people off nursing.
So it’s going to be quite a pivot from making nursing look like the last job you’d want to do, to something people will be falling over themselves to take up.
The nurses union - the Nurses Organisation - isn’t too impressed by the idea. Which is putting it mildly.
Its president Anne Daniels is saying that when Andrew Little announced it yesterday her phone started pinging with messages from nurses saying “is this guy for real?”.
Well he is for real - but so too is the desperate need for nurses in this country. Remember it was only about a week ago when Dunedin Hospital was so short over a weekend that it brought-in a bunch of trainee nurses to keep things going on the wards and paid them with shopping vouchers.
One of them got in a bit of strife for making a Tik Tok video while they were on shift and that, right there, is one of the reasons why the Government’s Shortland Street idea is so off beam.
Because if it thinks Shortland Street is the way to get cut-through - it’s dreaming and shows that it’s stuck in the 90s.
I reckon one TikTok video from a trainee nurse could have far more influence over someone deciding to give nursing a go than a storyline on a TV show that’s been around forever.
Our teenagers don’t watch Shortland Street. So Andrew Little’s not going to get our lot signing up to be nurses.
And I can’t say whether watching WKRP in Cincinnati when I was a kid had any influence over what I do for a living. Probably not. It was just entertainment.
Just like Suits has never made me want to be a lawyer and Police 10/7 - or whatever it’s called these days - has never made me want to be a cop. And I don’t think I’ve ever watched Border Patrol and thought that’s the game for me.
Which is why I think the Government might be expecting a bit too much to come from this Shortland Street thing.
Some people have been saying it's offensive to nurses and embarrassing to their profession. I don’t think the TV show idea on its own is offensive to nurses. But it will be offensive if nurses watch it and think people are being lied to about what it’s really like being a nurse. It will also be offensive if the Government doesn’t back it up with some genuine investment in the nursing profession.
I could be totally wrong about the Government going up a dead-end street with this TV show thing and, who knows, there could be a truckload of people who see it and want to become a nurse.
But it will all be meaningless and amount to zero, if nothing changes for the nurses themselves and if they still feel under-appreciated, under-valued and taken for granted by the Government and the health system.
And that is where things will get offensive.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This week on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by Labour's Poto Williams and National's Matt Doocey.
They discussed the Road to Zero campaign, and the role Police have to play in bringing down the road toll. Mental health staffing levels are at a dangerous low, what is being done to ensure there is help for all New Zealanders. Foot and mouth disease is a huge threat to our agriculture sector, do we have it under control. And could the Commonwealth Games be held in New Zealand again?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
We’re going to be doing a fair bit of driving over the next few days, and how many cops do you think we’ll see on patrol? I’ll say not many - if any.
Which is kind of what the Ministry of Transport’s Bryan Sherritt was saying when he spoke earlier this morning about the road toll going up, when it should be going down.
The latest Road to Zero monitoring report says there were 320 road deaths last year and 2,323 serious injuries. This is up from 318 deaths and 2,175 serious injuries the year before.
Which gives the impression doesn’t it that the Road to Zero thing is well on track to becoming Kiwibuild on wheels.
And “diabolical” is how Bryan Sherritt from the MOT is describing the situation. That’s a direct quote. He’s saying it’s diabolical. Which I don’t think too many people will disagree with.
And he's putting it down to three main things: Lack of infrastructure - in particular, a lack of things like median barriers which we all know would make a world of difference. Too many clapped-out cars being on the road - they’re just not safe. But the one that's really made me sit-up and listen - is a lack of enforcement by the Police
They’re just not out there as much as they should be, pinging people for doing stupid things behind the wheel or behind the handlebars.
Here’s what he says: “It’s lack of police effort in terms of the regular enforcement around road infringements."
He's refusing to go as far as saying the police aren’t doing their job properly, but I think it’s pretty clear isn’t it - the cops aren’t out patrolling the roads as much as they should be and it’s one of the three main reasons why the road toll isn’t going down.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard an official from the MOT or Waka Kotahi - or any of those outfits - say the cops aren’t doing the enforcement they should be doing.
But lack of enforcement is one of the top three reasons being given for the road toll not going down. Which says to me that something needs to change if there is any hope of the Road to Zero getting anywhere near zero.
I’ve referred to the Ministry of Transport already as the MOT which, if you’re of a certain age, you will remember being the name we used for the outfit that was dedicated to policing the roads. Officially, it was known as the Traffic Safety Service but we all knew it as the MOT.
They had truckloads of cops on motorbikes and also used to drive around in the black and white patrol cars. They were merged with the Police in 1992 and I think the old traffic cops had a bit of a hard time of it at the start.
I think some of the police crew thought the traffic cops were a bit second-rate, but that’s all history and today we have the one police force, responsible for everything. Chasing crims, writing tickets - the whole shebang.
But listening to Bryan Sherritt from the Ministry of Transport talking on Newstalk ZB this morning, I couldn’t help wondering whether bringing back a dedicated road or traffic police force might be the answer. Or part of it, anyway.
Because I don’t think anyone will argue that our Police are stretched at the moment. And part of that is because they are involved in so many things that perhaps, in years gone by, they wouldn’t have been involved in.
Mental health call-outs for example. They’ve gone through the roof and, of course, they’re going to prioritise that over sitting on the side of a highway somewhere looking out for people driving like idiots.
So this is not a beat-up on the Police. But I certainly think something needs to change, and we must have more cops out patrolling the roads if we think we’re going to do anything about the appalling road toll stats in this country.
I’ll be honest with you. I turn into the perfect driver whenever there’s a cop car behind me, or if I see one on the side of the road. That has far more influence on what I do behind the wheel than any Road to Zero TV ad. They’re a total waste of money as far as I’m concerned.
And I reckon that, when it comes to how we behave on the roads, nothing is as effective as the threat of the big stick. I know we’d all like to think that with the right encouragement with TV ads, we can make a difference.
But it won’t. What makes a difference, is knowing there’s a pretty good chance you’re going to get stung if you drive fast, or cross the yellow line, or do anything stupid on the road.
And the only way that’s going to happen, is to have more cops patrolling the roads. It’s been acknowledged today that a lack of police on our roads and highways is part of the problem, so let’s fix it.
And that can be done either by insisting that the Police up their game and make sure road safety work isn’t a nice-to-have, or bringing back the old MOT so that we have cops who turn up to work every day - and their only job is to get out there and wave the big stick and make our roads safer.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Does Crusaders Coach Scott Razor Robertson have your blessing to leave Canterbury and leave New Zealand ASAP to do what he should have been doing years ago - which is coaching a national rugby team and leading it to glory at the World Cup? Does he have your blessing to do that? Because he sure as hell has mine.
ASAP, by the way, probably isn’t today or tomorrow - it’s probably early-ish next year because he’s still contracted to do another Super Rugby season with the Crusaders. Although, as we’ve seen in the last few days, rugby coaching contracts in New Zealand can come to an early end. Only problem is it’s the wrong contracts that have come to an early end - in my view, anyway.
But back to Razor. In the past 24 hours, he has made it very clear that he’s sick of waiting around for the All Blacks coaching role and he has big ambitions - wanting to win the Rugby World Cup twice, with two different national teams.
And the headline that’s had everyone talking says it all: “If the ABs don’t want me, I’m going overseas”. How appalling is that? Best coach in the world by far and he’s been kept waiting for a big break by New Zealand Rugby - like a school kid knocking on the door somewhere wanting a bit of work experience.
And the door hasn’t been open for Razor.
It is a shameful way to treat someone. Not just someone involved in elite sport - anyone. And, as always happens when people get treated like that, they get to the point where they look up and think ‘sod this, I’m going to make something happen myself - I don’t need to wait for these turkeys’.
And if I was him, I’d be thinking exactly the same.
Now I know this could all be Razor talking it up, to make New Zealand Rugby sit-up and pay attention. And, even if it is, you can’t blame him because the crowd that runs rugby in this country seems to have the earmuffs on don’t they?
You know how you see those All Blacks coming off the bus with the cans on? That’s what the honchos at New Zealand Rugby are like. Except I don’t think they’re listening to anything. I think they’re just trying to block out the noise. ‘Sorry mate, can’t hear ya’.
I heard on Newstalk ZB's Sportstalk show last night that there are rugby clubs in France falling over themselves trying to get Razor to coach over there. But he’s not interested. He’s 47 and wants to make the move to the big time.
And he’s ambitious. He wants to coach at the highest level and win world cups not just for one country, but two.
So he’s come out in the past 24 hours and said he is open to offers. How bold a statement is that?
Here’s what he’s been saying about missing out on the All Blacks coaching job.
"When someone doesn't give it to you, you have to think differently about what opportunities are out there.”
Now no one can accuse him, can they, of being ungracious about missing out and Ian Foster getting the gig. He’s even declined to comment in the last couple of weeks on how much of a shambles the All Blacks are under Foster. He’s probably thinking it. Hold on - probably thinking it? Sorry, he’ll definitely be thinking it.
And I reckon seeing Foster keep his job after that disastrous series loss to Ireland has been the final straw for Razor and he’s decided it’s time to be a bit more forthcoming on what he wants and it’s time to tell the world that he’s not going to wait around for the dinosaurs at New Zealand Rugby to come to their senses. As he says, he’s open to offers.
And I genuinely hope those offers flood in. Not from clubs - but from national teams wanting to tap into his magic.
England could be a real possibility if Eddie Jones ends up going back to Australia to coach rugby league. That's the talk, isnt it? Either way, Razor is officially on the market and - now that he is - who knows where the offers might come from?
Which is very exciting for him. Daunting too, though, because moving overseas when you’ve still got quite a young family isn’t the easy option. So there’ll be alot to consider.
But he’s said it himself, he’s on the market and open to offers and - if the All Blacks don’t want him - then he’s heading overseas. And when that happens - not if, when that happens - it will be the greatest self-inflicted cock-up by New Zealand Rugby since Buck Shelford was dropped from the All Blacks in 1990.
That said, I don’t want him held back any longer. Yes, he’ll be a massive loss to the Crusaders. But it’s going to have to happen sometime. And if he can’t leave us to coach the All Blacks, then I’m more than happy for him to leave us to go somewhere where his brilliance as a coach and a person is appreciated and where he’ll no longer be the King in waiting, and waiting, and waiting.
That’s why Razor, you’ve got my blessing to leave.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There’s less than two months until voting opens in the local body elections up and down the country, and the candidates are all starting to come out of the woodwork aren’t they?
They include ex-MPs too. I saw this morning that former National MP Maurice Williamson is going to try and get elected to the Auckland Council. Another one of his ex colleagues, Nick Smith, announced yesterday he’s going to run for mayor in Nelson.
In Invercargill, there’s a former NZ First MP running for council. In Wellington, they’ve got Aaron “do you know who I am” Gilmore trying to get elected and current Labour MP Paul Eagle wants to be the mayor of Wellington.
As far as I’m aware, so far we don’t have any former MPs trying to get elected to councils here in Canterbury, but we have had a former Labour MP as mayor of Christchurch for the past nine years.
Before becoming mayor, Lianne Dalziel had been in Parliament for 23 years. She started off as Christchurch Central MP, and then she served as a list MP before becoming Christchurch East MP. During that time she was also a Cabinet Minister.
And it was 2013 when she quit Parliament to run for mayor. And when she leaves council HQ in October, she will have served three terms. So quite a political career.
But has being a former MP necessarily made her a good mayor? And if Maurice Williamson and Nick Smith and all the other ex-MPs get elected to their local councils in October, will the fact they’ve been MPs make them any better than anyone else putting themselves forward?
I don’t think it will. In fact, I think someone having such obvious political affiliations is a hindrance when it comes to local government. And, to be honest with you, whenever I see an ex-MP trying to get involved in local body politics, I either think to myself ‘can’t you let go mate’ or wonder if they just need a job.
Because, let’s face it, being in local government is a bit more lucrative than it used to be. That’s why council meetings used to be held at night, because all the people around the table had day jobs as well.
I remember as a young reporter in Dunedin sitting through endless meetings at Mosgiel and Green Island borough councils. And they’d go well into the night.
But these days it’s all different. Here in Christchurch we pay our councillors over $100k each and they have their meetings during the day.
So, if you’re an ex-MP, you probably look at your local council and see that you can make a decent crust doing what you probably know best. Especially if you’re someone like Lianne Dalziel who, as I said just before, was in Parliament for 23 years before she became mayor.
Same too for Maurice Williamson and Nick Smith who seemed to be central government politicians forever.
But does it make them any good? I don’t think it does. For the simple reason that, when someone is an MP, their politics are so black and white that I think it’s impossible for them to be objective - even after they’ve been an MP. And once their political leanings are ingrained, I think it’s impossible for them to think any differently.
Lianne Dalziel is a case in point. As a former Labour MP, she was so anti-government because she disagreed with how the National government pretty much took over Christchurch - with the whole ECAN saga but especially after the earthquakes - and she was hell-bent on getting the Government out of Christchurch ASAP.
It started when she became mayor in 2013 and continued even after Labour was elected in 2017. Which meant that when the Government offered to take over the stadium project in 2017 and 2019, she couldn’t bring herself to do it, because she was so obsessed with this “get the Government out of Christchurch” thing.
Which backfired big time didn’t it. Because if Christchurch had accepted that offer back in 2017 or 2019, we’d have more than big holes full of water down there on Madras Street.
And what started as an anti-National thing - because she was ex-Labour - just kept going. Even after her Labour mates became government.
Once someone has been an MP, it is impossible for them to change their colours. And while that might work when you’re up at Parliament, it doesn’t work at local government level. If anything, it creates division around a council table when we actually elect and pay these people to think about the greater good - not the party manifesto.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
News just out today from the Christchurch Christmas Show Parade organisers announced that the planned indoor ticketed event has now been canned, and the parade will now be held outdoors at the Canterbury A&P Showgrounds for free.
Event organiser Jason Reekers joined John MacDonald to explain the changes, and how they plan to ensure the parade can go ahead despite needing a further $185,000 in funding.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The people running the Santa Parade in Christchurch seem to have come to their senses, and realised that a $15-a-head indoor Christmas concert, instead of a free Santa Parade outside somewhere was never going to fly.
There was an outcry last month when this concert idea was announced. That it would be held at the Christchurch Arena, you’d have to buy tickets to go, and that the days of the free Santa Parade in Christchurch were pretty much over.
It was a balmy idea. I thought it was balmy then and I still thought it was balmy right up until this morning, when it started to look like the Christmas Parade Trust was having a change of heart.
Which it has, and has announced a different plan which I think is certainly a win on the common-sense front.
The parade is now going to be free and it’s going to be outside. As it should be. But instead of winding its way down Riccarton Road - as it has in recent years - or through the centre of town, like it used to back in the pre-earthquake days, it’s going to be held at the A&P Showgrounds.
As I said last month when the concert idea was announced, the brilliant thing about Santa Parades is that anyone and everyone can go.
Anyone can rock up to them and it doesn’t matter what part of town you live in or what the family budget is like. They are a truly public event and it costs nothing to go.
So, of course, it got peoples’ backs up last month when we were told that it wouldn’t be free anymore, and anyone and everyone wouldn’t just be able to turn up on the day and enjoy it.
As I said at the time, if you think things are tough financially now, think ahead to December when making ends meet gets even harder for so many people. Presents, holidays - the pressure to spend.
So the announcement today that the Santa Parade is going to be free and it’s going to be held outside is brilliant news.
But I know it’s also going to create a bit of a nightmare on the financial front because it’s going to be free. It actually costs quite a bit of money to run a parade and keep things like the floats up-to-scratch.
So, with the parade organisers giving in to the public backlash, they’re not going to have the revenue coming in from the $15-a-head tickets and they’re out of pocket by about $185,000 and they need to find that money somewhere.
Jason Reekers - who is the Parade Director - has been saying in the news today that if everyone in Christchurch gave $1 they’d be “home and hosed”, as he puts it. If only it was that easy.
As he says: “Everyone wants it for free, but someone has got to pay for it." Which is true.
So let’s look at the financials. The Christchurch City Council has given the Parade Trust a $45,000 grant - which is quite a bit less than what it used to spend on the parade.
In 2017, it was $100,000. In 2018, that went down to $65,000. And now it’s at $45,000.
Other councils around the country have a bit more skin in the game. In recent years, Dunedin council has put in about $70,000 and Auckland around $60,000. Wellington council takes the cake, though, spending $270,000 on a two-day event which includes two mini Santa parades.
I’m not going to demand that Christchurch City Council spend $270k on a Santa Parade, but I do think it could be helping out a bit more than it is at the moment.
I’m not talking about just writing out a cheque. I think the city council should be underwriting the event, with some pretty rigorous strings attached.
So, what it would do, is it would say to the parade organisers ‘if you can’t get the money from elsewhere, we guarantee to contribute up to $185,000’ - which is the gap in funding between the grant the council’s already given to the parade and the overall costs.
The Parade Trust would also need to show the council a thorough, professional, fundraising and sponsorship plan - clearly demonstrating how it is going to do everything it can possibly do to find the money it needs elsewhere, and how the extra money from the council would just be a last resort.
Then next year, if the parade did a good job with the finances - the Council could consider doing the same thing again.
That way, the parade organisers could press-on with confidence - knowing that whether its sponsorship or council money, or a mix of both, they’d know that they could get on with the job of putting on the type of parade the people of Christchurch have said they want and deserve.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to Christchurch mayor Lianne Dalziel for the first time since the Court of Appeal water bottling decision, and got her reaction.
Also discussed was the Coastal Pathway, Local Government New Zealand, stormwater and flooding.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I feel very sorry for Green Party MP James Shaw. I almost called him Green Party "co-leader" but, of course, as of the weekend he's not after the party voted to kick him out and put it to the vote to find out whether members want him to continue or want someone else.
He has already confirmed today that he is going to put his hat back in the ring and try and get re-elected back into the job. Which is a bit like someone being made redundant and having to reapply for the same role, isn't it?
So I'm feeling sorry for him but I'm not in the least bit surprised. Sorry for him because, as Climate Change Minister, he was always going to be on a hiding to nothing when it came to keeping the Green Party faithful happy and not looking like he'd sold his soul for politics.
But, not surprised, given there will always be an element within the Greens who aren't prepared to compromise.
If you think back to May 17 - the day after the Government's Emissions Reduction Plan came out - I could see what happened at the weekend was coming.
As I said at the time, I thought the emissions plan was a dog's breakfast and that James Shaw was toast.
It was the first plan of its kind here in New Zealand, with the goal of us getting to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
But it was a mish-mash of nothing. I remember the day it came out talking with someone who'd had a minor involvement in putting it together, and they said part of the problem was that there'd been too many cooks in the kitchen.
The main issue being Treasury's over-the-top involvement which, inevitably meant, that economics won out over the environment. And, because that happened, I was convinced that James Shaw was on shaky ground as far as co-leadership of the Green Party was concerned.
I thought the rabid greenies within the party would be very dark on Shaw - especially because the emissions plan doesn't really crack down on the agriculture sector and is probably seen by some as a "get out of jail" card" for farmers.
And, as it turns out, they were very dark on Shaw and we saw it come to some form of fruition at the weekend with them voting to toss him out of his co-leadership role and see if someone else wants to take it on.
That "someone else" hasn't shown their hand yet, although there's a bit of talk about Chloe Swarbrick being a contender. But we will see what happens on that front over the next wee while. The party has up to five weeks to hold a vote on the co-leadership role - but I imagine it won't want to muck around.
Whatever happens, the Prime Minister has already told Shaw that his job as Climate Change Minister is safe - which makes sense, doesn't it? Why would she want to bring someone else from the Greens into the tent when she seems to have Shaw under control?
But it does raise the question as to whether we still need a Green Party in New Zealand.
Because, when you think about it, awareness of climate change and its impact on the environment is not a niche market anymore.
Back in the day when Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons were co-leaders, I think New Zealand was a very different place and the Green Party was probably seen broadly as not much more than an off-shoot of the Values Party. And green politics were certainly on the fringe.
Fast-forward to today, and the green movement's fingerprints are everywhere. A lot of it has to do with the increased global awareness of the challenges facing our natural environments - some of it probably has to do also with the way we are so much more interconnected with each other through the internet and social media.
In Donald's day, there were no Green Party websites or Facebook pages.
Also these days, we now have the likes of the Climate Change Minister role in Cabinet. So the politics of the environment are now well and truly in the mainstream.
So does it really matter if the Greens self-implode over the next few weeks? Brought down by the likes within the party who're probably quite happy to be agitators on the fringe, and not sell-outs like they think Shaw has become?
And more, generally, do we still actually need a green party here in New Zealand?
I would say that when there's a centre-left government in power - the role for the Greens is much less. But as soon as you get the likes of National and/or ACT in government, the Greens come into their own.
Because when was the last time you heard Christopher Luxon or David Seymour speak passionately about the environment?
I've never heard them. Maybe a bit of lip service here and there but not in a way that tells me that the likes of the Green Party wouldn't be needed - at least on the sidelines - making sure a centre-right government didn't let the economy win over the environment every day.
So, even though we are all much more environmentally aware these days, I think there is definitely still a need and still a role for the Green Party to play in New Zealand politics.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Now before you accuse me, I’m going to stick my hand up and say ‘yes, my finger is in the pie; yes, my snot is in the trough; and yes, I’m riding the gravy train’.
I think that covers all the things that might get thrown at me for what some people will probably think is my defence of the huge increase in government spending on advertising over the last few years.
The commercial media company I work for benefits from the Government buying ads - which means I benefit from it too. So, there we go, potential conflict of interest taken care of.
And, I tell you what, if you’re not happy about the Government spending more than ever on advertising - we’ve only got ourselves to blame. You’re to blame. I’m to blame.
I’ll get to that. But let’s start with the numbers, as reported by Newstalk ZB today.
In the past five years, advertising spending by public sector and Crown agencies - i.e. the Government - has increased by 122 percent. So it’s gone from $56 million to $125 million.
Not surprisingly, the biggest jump has been in the past two years. In 2020, the Government spent $97 million on advertising, in the past year it was $125 million.
Why so much more money? Well, the Government is saying it’s been needed to provide essential information about things like Covid.
But the National Party isn’t buying that, and is saying a lot of the money spent has nothing to do with Covid and it’s being used to sell government policies like the Three Waters reforms. Which, by the way, would have to go down as a huge waste of money, wouldn’t it?
Overall, every government department is advertising. ACC, Department of Internal Affairs, Waka Kotahi - the whole lot.
And National thinks it’s time for the Government to reign-in the spending.
There are a whole lot of numbers being thrown around - including $43 million being spent on advertising for the Covid vaccine programme alone.
Newstalk ZB's Deputy Political Editor Jason Walls says it’s a matter of perception as to whether the money’s being spent on public information or propaganda.
I think it depends on what the advertising is for as to whether it’s propaganda or not. The Three Waters ads were definitely propaganda.
Others might say anything the Government advertises is propaganda in some way, shape or form because anything the Government does has some sort of party ideology behind it. Especially the current Government, which can pretty much do what it wants because of its majority in Parliament.
But I actually think the Government has no option but to buy advertising - which is where our ‘fault’ in all of this comes into it.
These days, we - as a society - question everything. Especially when it comes to politicians.
I’ve lost count of the number of people who’ve told me they think TV1 News is just a propaganda machine for the Government. That Jacinda Ardern’s pulling the strings behind the scenes. And on some nights, it does look like that.
And then when a politician gets ripped to shreds during an interview, people love it.
So if you’re the Government, and there’s information you think really needs to get out there, you know from the start that it’s going to be an uphill battle, because it’s not the news media’s job to sell government policy. It’s the media’s job to question it.
And so, because every one of us questions everything and demands transparency on everything - whether we’re involved in the media or not - we leave the Government with no option but to buy advertising time so it can say what it wants to say - or what it thinks needs to be said.
And that is why we end up in a situation where, as it’s being reported today, government spending on advertising increases 122 percent over five years.
And I’m ok with that, because if the Government didn’t think it was needed - it would mean that we’ve either fallen asleep or we’re living in some sort of communist state. And last time I checked, neither of those things are true.
Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean that I don’t think any of the Government’s big spend on advertising has been a waste of money.
My pick for the biggest waste of money would be those ridiculous “Road to Zero” road safety ads. I don’t know about you but, whenever I’m driving, there’s nothing in those ads that influence what I do. Nothing.
Another example of wasteful spending, which I mentioned earlier, is the Three Waters advertising the Government did. I reckon those ads got people’s backs up, more than anything.
So, yes, there’s been some stupid spending. But I think we’d have more to worry about if there was none.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald: At last, a cap on water bottling madnessSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Paul Ego: Comedian and one half of The Paul Paul Comedy Night coming to a theatre near youSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald: The Government are just like the All BlacksSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Nicola Willis.: National Party Deputy Leader on Three Waters payment, inflationSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It’s occurred to me that the old phrase “what goes around, comes around” pretty much sums up inflation in five words.
The more money going around, the more it comes back to bite us with higher inflation.
And it’s happening in countries all over the world. Our latest inflation rate came out yesterday - 7.3 percent. Certainly not the lowest, and certainly not the highest.
The most recent inflation figure in the UK is 9.1 percent. In the US it’s 9.1 percent. Lebanon is the worst, though, at a 211 percent rate of inflation.
Nevertheless, no one can argue that the cost of living here in New Zealand is going through the roof when you consider how much more we’re paying when we go to the supermarket, fill the car up with fuel, pay the rent or try to build a house.
Pretty much everything is more expensive, which is probably why people are talking about it being a gloomy winter. It feels like it, doesn’t it?
Now, not surprisingly, the politicians have been going bananas since the inflation stats came out yesterday. Especially the ones in opposition.
David Seymour from the ACT Party is banging on about tax cuts being the answer. Which, to me, is a little bit strange when you would think that putting more money in peoples’ pockets like that would just cause inflation to keep going northwards.
The National Party has been talking about tax cuts too - but not just that.
In some respects, whether we like it or not - and this is where Finance Minister Grant Robertson comes from - a lot of the things causing our inflation to increase here in New Zealand, we have no control over.
The usual things trotted out are Covid-related supply chain issues and the impact the war in Ukraine is having on global supplies of fuel.
We - or the Government - have no control over that. Just like we - or the Government - has no control over what other countries are doing to try and keep their inflation rates down.
The United States, for example: a 9.1 percent inflation rate and it’s doing exactly what the Reserve Bank is doing here and increasing interest rates to make it more expensive to borrow money.
When the Reserve Bank does that it, generally, just affects us here. Because we are smallfry. But when the Federal Reserve does it, it affects the whole world. Because it makes the United States a more attractive place to invest, which pushes up the value of the US dollar and makes life more expensive for pretty much every other country around the world.
And there is nothing Grant Robertson can do about that. Nothing.
But as National’s deputy leader and finance spokesperson Nicola Willis is saying, the Government can and should be doing its bit to fight inflation.
And she’s not talking about the fuel tax discount or the half price public transport. She’s calling that a “band aid” and I couldn’t agree more.
What National is saying, is that the Government has control over what it spends - and if it spends less, then that will help bring down inflation.
This is something that former National MP Dan Bidois is saying today too. And he’s pointing the finger at the Government for spending truckloads of money on its reforms programme.
Think back to the old saying - what goes around, comes around. If the Government is out there spending money - just like you or me - then, of course, it’s going to have some impact on what happens with inflation.
And so the Reserve Bank tries to make us spend less by putting up the Official Cash Rate so that the banks have to put up their interest rates.
But it shouldn’t all fall on our shoulders. And it makes perfect sense, then, doesn’t it for the Government to do exactly the same? Because the less money floating around the place, the greater the chance of putting some sort of lid on inflation.
And what Nicola Willis and Dan Bidois are saying today, is that the Government should ditch some of its reforms if it means less money...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel spoke to John MacDonald on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings and commented on the decision to go ahead with the new stadium build at a fixed price.
MacDonald asked about the recent decision to drop fines given to protestors in Cranmer Square, and who the Mayor is backing in the upcoming local elections.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It was a funny old day in Wellington yesterday. There was a media conference that was scheduled to happen, that didn’t happen. And there was another one that wasn’t scheduled, that did happen.
The one that did happen was the Government front-footing today’s inflation figure with the announcement that it’s extending the fuel tax discount and half-price public transport until January.
The one that didn’t happen was New Zealand Rugby doing the complete opposite, and going on the back foot and telling the world it doesn’t want to talk about that shocking All Blacks series loss to Ireland on Saturday night.
It’s the first series loss on home soil since 1994. Laurie Mains was coach then and he lasted another year after that. Which was when the All Blacks got crook at the World Cup in South Africa and there was all sorts of talk about their burgers being poisoned.
Now, you could say that the All Blacks cancelling a media conference after such an appalling performance just reeks of the sense of entitlement and arrogance that runs through the veins of the outfit in charge of rugby in this country.
The outfit that’s more than happy to charge truckloads for you to go and watch the matches. More than happy for you to shell out money for all the merchandise. But when things go pear-shaped, nowhere to be seen.
Now normally, that’s what I would think. And I can pretty much guarantee that after the post-match media conference on Saturday night, the All Blacks’ media people would’ve been saying to Foster that fronting another media conference on Sunday - as scheduled, and as per normal - would be a “distraction the team doesn’t need at the moment”.
We saw it on Saturday night. Journalists were asking Foster about his future as All Blacks coach, and they got a telling off. I saw it on the TV news last night.
So they would’ve been saying to him late Saturday night: “You saw what happened tonight Fozzie. Tomorrow will be the same. We want to protect you from all that so we’re going to cancel the media conference. We’re doing it for you Fozzie.”
And, normally, I’d just say that it was yet another example of New Zealand Rugby’s arrogance and control-freak tendencies that it’s got away with for so long.
But, in my honest opinion, I suspect there’s more to it than that.
I don’t think they were protecting Fozzie at all when they pulled the plug on yesterday’s traditional post-match day media conference. I think they did it to protect themselves.
Because, if he was forced to front up yesterday, he could quite easily turn around somewhere down the track and accuse New Zealand Rugby of hanging him out to dry. In employment law circles, they call it constructive dismissal. And no employer wants to be dealing with that.
We know already, don’t we, that it’s launching some sort of investigation. It said yesterday the outcome of the test series was “unacceptable”. Which is exactly the word we were all using on Saturday night, wasn’t it?
In sports bars and lounges up and down the country, everyone was turning to each other afterwards and saying ‘well, that was unacceptable wasn’t it’. I know it was a bit more colourful than that where I was.
Scotty Morrison is saying today in a piece online that the All Blacks are completely lacking. He says, Beauden Barrett, for example, is “playing with all the joy of an accountancy conference”. Which says it all in terms of the on-field performance of the All Blacks, which contrasts so starkly with the Crusaders.
When the Crusaders won their Super Rugby Pacific semi-final and final this year, it occurred to me that they play sometimes as if they’re throwing a ball around at a park or on a beach. It looks effortless and, more importantly, they make it look fun.
Which is exactly how Ireland looked like on Saturday night. And it’s how the All Blacks used to look. And if something doesn’t change ASAP, forget about them looking like that...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to All Blacks great, Frank Bunce, about his feelings watching the All Blacks game on Saturday.
Bunce said he was 'frustrated' and the game was a hard watch for the former centre. MacDonald also asked his thoughts about coach Ian Foster, and if he had faith he could turn things around. Also, could Scott Robertson turn things around overnight if he was given the job now?
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to Labour's Duncan Webb and National's Gerry Brownlee about the big topics of the week on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings.
MacDonald asked them what they thought on the council's decision to build Te Kaha Stadium, the possibility of Christchurch becoming a super city, the new anti-gangs laws and the latest Covid developments.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
So a monumental decision by the Christchurch City Council yesterday, with a 13-3 vote in favour of spending another $150 million and getting on with the job of building the new Te Kaha stadium.
As we know, it followed the announcement last month that there’d been a budget blowout, pushing the price tag up to $683 million.
I think the council made the right decision yesterday and I’m delighted that this thing is actually going to happen. No one could argue that it’s ridiculous that it’s taken this long to get to this point - but I’m right behind it. Even though there are some aspects that I’m still not completely comfortable with.
The so-called fixed-price contract with the Australian construction and civil engineering company running the project - I’m still not convinced that’s going to happen.
As we heard this week, the Board overseeing the project has managed to negotiate a deal which makes Besix WATPAC responsible for the costs of labour and materials - as well as carrying the can for all other risks and cost overruns.
I just can’t see - in light of everything that’s happened over the last couple of years - how a fixed-price for a project four years out from delivery is realistic. Happy to be proven wrong, but that’s how I feel about that part of it.
The other thing I think is nuts, is the fact that Selwyn and Waimakariri councils aren’t putting any money into it.
As I’ve said all along, the stadium is a regional project. And it will deliver benefits for people not just living in Christchurch.
Remember, for example, that nearly half of the people who live in Selwyn come into Christchurch every day to go to work or go to school. So they should have skin in the game when it comes to the stadium, because they will benefit from it.
And there’s been no shortage of people from Selwyn and Waimakariri saying they’d be more than happy to contribute.
But I’m now actually starting to wonder whether these other councils haven’t been asked yet because Christchurch wants to keep them up its sleeve - just in case.
What if the whole fixed-price thing goes pear-shaped and the council needs to find more money? The contractors were told very clearly the other day that there’d be no more money coming from Christchurch ratepayers. So perhaps Selwyn and Waimakariri are being kept out of it for now, in case they need to become a bit of a financial lifeline down the track.
Just a thought.
Nevertheless, even though I’ve still got my misgivings about the financial side of things, overall - I am delighted with yesterday’s decision.
Yes, it should’ve happened sooner. Yes, the city was stupid to turn down the Government’s offers to take over the project all those years ago. But thank goodness it is finally happening.
Crusaders CEO Colin Mansbrdge makes some very good points about yesterday’s decision in a piece he’s written today for nzherald.co.nz. Of course, he’s delighted too that it’s going ahead - but he also tips his hat to the people opposed to the stadium, for their role in the community’s debate about it.
And I want to pick up on that and make mention of the three city councillors who yesterday voted against putting-in the extra money - Melanie Coker, Sara Templeton and Celeste Donovan.
Melanie Coker’s concerned about the impact the rates increase needed to pay for the stadium will have on people on fixed incomes. Sara Templeton voted against it on behalf of the people who don’t want more financial burden on the city. And Celeste Donovan thinks there are more important things the council should be spending money on - Bromley being one of them.
I had actually thought there might have been a couple more who would vote against. But they’re the three who did, and I want to congratulate them for doing it. Because it is never easy going against the tide - and the tide was well and truly against them in the council meeting yesterday.
In fact, not...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Something about this fixed-price contract for building the new Christchurch stadium, Te Kaha, just doesn’t stack up for me.
In fact, the whole fixed-price thing doesn’t stack up, as far as I’m concerned.
The gist of it all, is that the Board overseeing the project has managed to negotiate a deal which will make the Australian construction and civil engineering company that is the lead contractor for the project, responsible for the costs of labour and materials - as well as carrying the can for all other risks and cost overruns.
So it’s put a fixed price of $683 million on the project. Sounds too good to be true? I think it does.
And this is my predicament. I’m all for the stadium. But I’m afraid I can’t get excited about this big fixed-price announcement because I simply don’t think it can be done.
Of course, a lot of people are excited about it - including mayoral candidates Phil Mauger and David Meates who are saying today that it gives us all certainty. Other city councillors are saying the same.
But, unless I’m missing something here, do you really think the cost of a major construction project - which hasn’t even begun yet and isn’t expected to be open for business until April 2026 - do you really think you can set the cost now and think nothing’s going to change? Really?
If you can, then there must be a massive amount of contingency in the price - which is something Phil Mauger suspected when the $150 million cost blow-out was announced last month.
Back then, he wanted to press pause on the whole thing to see if costs might come down a bit. But, of course, he’s changed his tune the closer we’ve got to October’s local body elections.
City councillor Sam MacDonald is saying that, when councillors were briefed on the fixed-price contract yesterday morning, he told the stadium board not to come back to the Council looking for more ratepayer money.
“This is a full and final get on and do it,” is what he’s saying about the fixed-price arrangement.
So there’s a lot of bluster, but I’m not convinced it can be done. And, essentially, this is what city councillors are going to have to decide for themselves between now and tomorrow morning when they’ll get together to make the big decision whether to invest another $150 million into the project - and sign the dotted line on a $683 million contract.
If I was a city councillor, even if I wanted the stadium - like I do - I couldn’t vote “yes” tomorrow because - like I said before - I think this fixed price is too good to be true.
And I don’t think I’m going to be the only person who thinks that.
I see Graham Burke from the Construction Industry Council is also scratching his head about it.
He’s saying that he’s (quote) “very surprised that they’ve managed to tie somebody down to a fixed-price contract.
He goes on to say: “We’ve got costs going up across the board, we’ve got interest rates rising, we’ve got shortage of skills, hold-ups and shortages across the supply chain internationally.” (End of quote).
That’s what Graham Burke from the Construction Industry Council is saying - and he’ll know what he’s talking about. And I was interested in his comments because I already had my doubts about this fixed-price thing before I saw what he was saying.
He’s in the construction sector - so he knows what he’s on about. But he seems to be a bit of a lone voice when you compare what he’s saying with the likes of Phil Mauger and David Meates, city councillor Sam MacDonald and even Colin Mansbridge from the Crusaders.
But how many of them are in the construction industry? None of them - so you could say they’ve got no idea what they’re talking about. You could say the same thing about me, because I’m not in the construction sector either.
But Graham Burke from the Construction Industry Council does know what he’s on about, and if he thinks it looks too good to be true - then I’m happy to go...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Politicians either love the word "crisis" - or they hate it.
Generally, it’s opposition politicians who love it and it’s the ones in government who can’t bring themselves to say it.
Remember all the dancing-on-a-pinhead the Government did earlier this year over the cost of living crisis? It was like pulling hens’ teeth getting them to admit that. And we’re seeing it again today - this time it’s health.
The New Zealand Women in Medicine Charitable Trust has surveyed 900 doctors working across 30 different areas of medicine. And 93.5 percent of them say there is definitely a health crisis and 6.3 percent say there is probably a crisis.
Add them together and you get 99.8 percent. That leaves 0.2 percent who must think everything is tickety boo.
And so in response to the survey findings, the New Zealand Women in Medicine Charitable Trust wrote to the Prime Minister yesterday telling her that the health system is at significant risk.
Here’s one of the things they said in the letter to the PM yesterday: “The results indicate that we are at risk of a catastrophic collapse of the healthcare workforce.” And it was signed by 923 doctors working at GP clinics and hospitals.
So, following that, Health Minister Andrew Little comes on with Mike this morning - and Mike asks him “is there a crisis?”. And here’s what he says: “As Minister, I’ve been asked to declare probably half a dozen crises in the health sector in the two years I’ve been Minister. It is under pressure, management are doing the best they can with what they can and the frontline healthcare workforce are doing a terrific job in the circumstances. But we will get through this.”
And Andrew Little is right in some respects. We will get through this. Unless Vladimir Putin drops a nuclear bomb on us, we’ll get through it. Just like we get through a lot of things.
But talk about falling on deaf ears.
93.5 percent of doctors say there is definitely a health crisis and 6.3 percent say there is probably a crisis. And we get the Health Minister responding by saying the healthcare system “is under pressure” and “struggling to keep up. But refusing to say it’s a crisis.
And not just despite the numbers and stats from the survey, but also despite comments like this that one doctor made when they took part in the survey. “The system is beyond a crisis. I feel sorry for new grads coming into this crisis. It will break many.”
And that’s the language a St John’s paramedic was using when he spoke on the TV news last night.
He said he was leaving because he was broken. Another St John’s person was saying the health crisis is meaning elderly who fall in their bathrooms at night are being stuck there for hours before an ambulance can turn up.
This is because it’s taking so long to get people admitted to our overcrowded hospitals that the ambulance people are finding themselves having to stay at the hospitals much longer than they should - and not back out on the road responding to the next call.
But “we’ll get through this”, according to the Health Minister. And yes we will get through this, but is like it or lump it really the response our doctors and other medical professionals deserve from our government? In particular, the Minister responsible for the health system.
It seems that, when it suits, the Government is more than happy to tell us that it listens to advice from medical professionals. How many times have we heard that line trotted out over the last few years?
How then, can it suddenly not be listening to the medical experts when they’re saying that the health system they work in, is in crisis? Actually writing to the Prime Minister telling her and Andrew Little just that.
I can only imagine how betrayed they must be feeling today, hearing the Health Minister fob it off like he has.
They’re saying things like: “I don’t have the words to describe how awful work has become. I am yet to see...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
We probably shouldn’t be surprised that the number of cyclists using Christchurch’s cycleway network has flatlined since the Covid pandemic, but does it mean it’s time for a bit of a re-think as to whether we need more of them? I think a re-think is definitely needed.
Here’s what’s being spent: $301 million on 101-kilometres of cycleways. The Christchurch City Council’s putting in $114 million, the Government’s putting in $187 million.
There are 13 cycleways all up. Four of them are completed, four are partially completed, one is being built, one is at the detailed design stage and there are three others. All of this is due for completion by 2028.
Data gathered over the past six years using 32 high-tech sensors which count passing cyclists, has found that initial growth in cycleway usage hasn’t continued.
Here’s an example of one, known as the Papanui Parallel, which runs from Northcote to Bealey Ave. It was the first major cycle route in Christchurch.
In the 2018/2019 year, on average, 207 cyclists used it each day. The highest number of daily users since then has been 222, but in the 2021-2022 year that’s dropped to 196, which is below what it was in 2018/2019.
A lot of numbers are being thrown around and different bits of analysis are being bandied around but the overarching message is this: we are spending a truckload of money on cycleways but the number of people using them isn’t increasing.
The city council is putting it down to changing work habits since Covid, with more people working from home, which may be true.
But, either way, it’s time isn’t it that we had a good hard look as to whether the development of more cycleways in Christchurch should continue at the rate it has.
When you think about it, the “Build it and They Will Come” mentality which seems to go with cycleway development is the complete opposite of how Waka Kotahi decides whether it’s going to spend money making roads safer.
It waits until road deaths or injuries on a particular stretch of road have reached a certain number before it thinks it’s worth spending money on improvements.
With cycleways, though, we spend truckloads of money and then hope people are going to use them. And, as we’re seeing in Christchurch, we’re building them - but the people aren’t coming.
As I’ve said many times, I’m not against making it easier for people to get around using bikes. But I don’t think the over-engineered cycleways being built here in Christchurch are what’s actually needed.
I ride a bike to work now and then and the main road I use doesn’t have a cycleway. Not even a white line with green asphalt.
And, for me, if the Council did go and build a flash cycleway on that road, it wouldn’t make me any more inclined to get the bike out first thing in the morning. It just wouldn’t.
Chances are the 196 people who do use the Papanui Parallel each day, for example, would be cycling anyway.
And, going on the numbers which came out over the weekend, there are plenty of other people just like me, because they’re telling us that the cycleway network is doing nothing to get more people using bikes.
City councillor Mike Davidson chairs the council's urban development and transport committee and he’s a big fan of the cycleway network.
Here’s what he’s been saying about growth in the number of users flatlining: “I have no doubt that the investment in cycleways will pay dividends in the future. It is important to create transport options that are safe.”
Which is all well and good, but surely it raises the question whether the Christchurch City Council should be pressing on and not using these numbers as a bit of a wake-up call.
I don’t think it should press on blindly - because there’s still $261 million to be spent. And I’m told about $100 million of that will be city council money.
Now, later this week, the Council is going to decide whether it spends another $150...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Yesterday, I asked Christchurch mayoral candidates Phil Mauger and David Meates what they thought was the biggest challenge facing Christchurch.
And what a let-down that was.
Phil Mauger answered first, and he said Bromley. The Christchurch suburb that has become synonymous with the appalling odour that’s been coming from the burnt-out wastewater plant and the longstanding composting plant. Unfortunately for the people living there, the word Bromley is like Madonna or Prince - and one word says it all.
It didn’t really surprise me that Phil Mauger thinks that’s the biggest challenge facing Christchurch because, as he says himself, he’s the kind of person who likes to get stuff done and fix things. Practical stuff. That’s what he’s known for and, as far as some people are concerned, loved for.
Remember he announced the other day that if he’s elected mayor, he’ll set-up a roving pothole repair crew. Can we fix it? Yes we can. That’s Phil Mauger.
Then it was David Meates' turn. And he said Bromley too. Which I couldn’t quite believe and I wondered at the time whether he was just saying that because that’s what Phil had said. I suspect if I’d just been talking to him on his own, he might have said something different.
But, either way, they both think sorting out the Bromley odour situation is the biggest challenge facing Christchurch.
But, not wanting to upset the people of Bromley (who have been treated appallingly by the Christchurch City Council), I think if these mayoral candidates think that’s the biggest challenge facing Christchurch then don’t go looking to the city council for any big thinking over the next three years if either of them are running the shop.
To borrow a word used by the Prime Minister yesterday, the city council’s handling of the Bromley situation has been a complete cluster. But is it really the biggest challenge facing Christchurch?
It’s a big clean-up job and re-building trust with the people of Bromley are two big tasks on the Council’s plate - but, in my mind, it certainly isn’t the biggest challenge facing the city. It’s challenging for the people living with the terrible smell - but it’s not the biggest challenge facing the city.
So what is?
I think the biggest challenge facing Christchurch is sorting out this ridiculous situation we have where three local councils operate in complete isolation of each other. Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri. That’s what I think is our biggest challenge.
And it needs to be sorted, because at the moment the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing and for that to be happening in a place the size of Greater Christchurch, is just nuts.
There have been many examples of left hand/right hand, and there was another one yesterday with a recommendation that an 820-home sub-division go ahead in Selwyn, which will increase the size of Prebbleton significantly.
Another example recently was the uproar in Lincoln over plans for a housing development with 1700 new houses.
The Carter Family is behind that one. They want to increase the number of houses in the Lincoln area by more than 50 percent and chew up a huge chunk of farmland in the process.
And while all this is going on in Selwyn, we’ve got the Christchurch council desperately trying to get more people to come and live in the central city. Effectively, Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri are competing against each other.
Which, in my mind, is a massive challenge. Way more of a challenge than cleaning up that shambles in Bromley.
Bromley’s going to be sorted - eventually. Yes, the people in Bromley will probably only believe that once it happens. And yes, the wastewater plant will be sorted well before the composting plant is moved somewhere else. So the smell is going to linger for quite some time yet.
But, as far as I’m concerned, it is not the biggest challenge.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to Labour's Megan Woods and National's Gerry Brownlee about the big topics of the week on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings.
MacDonald asked them what they felt the biggest issue facing Canterbury was in their opinion, whether the Prime Minister's trip is paying off, their reaction to recent Covid case numbers in New Zealand and Boris Johnson's resignation in the UK.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you are like me, and you are a fan of the new Christchurch stadium Te Kaha going ahead, a word of warning - don’t count your chickens just yet.
The results of the city council’s consultation process following the budget blow-out are in, with 77 percent of the 30,500 submissions in favour of the Council pouring in another $150 million to make up the difference and make the thing a reality.
There were three options put out for feedback: spend the extra money and press on, pause the project or scrap the whole thing altogether.
77 percent say press on, 15 percent want the project completely scrapped and 8 percent of the submissions say the project should be paused and re-evaluated.
So, it’s safe to say that the key message coming through in 23,485 of those 30,500 submissions is this: “Just get on with it”.
And next week, city councillors will meet to consider and discuss the consultation findings and make a decision on the future of the stadium project.
But remember it’s the Christchurch City Council we’re talking about here and remember too that 77 percent of 30,500 isn’t actually a lot of people. So, if you think the Council’s woken up today with a mandate to pour more money into the stadium, it hasn’t.
Here are the numbers: From a population of 392,000 people, there were 30,500 submissions. Let’s assume each submission is from a different person - which is probably being generous - but let’s assume that, and we have 8 percent of the city’s population taking part and giving their view.
Take that further, and the percentage of Christchurch’s population that has stood up and said it wants the Council to spend another $150 million and press on with the stadium project is just 6 percent.
Now there will be a lot of people saying today that the results of the consultation are a clear mandate for the Council to stick with the stadium project. But anyone who thinks having 6 percent of the population on your side is a mandate needs to go away and look up what the word means.
Essentially, it means an authority to act. Getting the nod from 6 percent of the population is not an authority to act, as far as I’m concerned. Which is why I’m saying, don’t count your chickens.
Whether you like it or not, there will be a truckload of people who don't want the Council spending more money on the stadium - they just won’t have taken part in the consultation. Just like truckloads of people don’t take part in local body elections.
So, 77 percent of the 30,000 people who actually took part in the consultation process is not the ringing endorsement that some are saying it is.
But I tell you what 100 percent of people in Christchurch and Canterbury are in favour of and do want - they want this Council to show some leadership for a change, to make a decision and to stick with it.
And the councillors, when they get around that council table next Thursday to decide what to do next with the stadium, we need to remember that this consultation process only happened because local government rules require it.
This was not the Council being genuinely interested in what people had to say - it happened because the rules say it had to consult the public before it put more money into the stadium project. And this is what councillors need to remember - it was a box-ticking exercise. Nothing more, nothing less.
And that’s why they could, and should, pretty much ignore the findings and make a decision that demonstrates true leadership and a bold vision for the future of Christchurch.
They don’t have a mandate from the people to spend the extra money and get on with building the stadium. Just like they don’t have a mandate to press pause or stop the thing altogether.
The only mandate they have is to make a decision and show they are capable of seeing past all the noise, and not be swayed in any particular direction by a box-ticking exercise which only a tiny...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings John MacDonald spoke to Christchurch City mayoral candidates, Phil Mauger and David Meates.
With the future stadium being a major issues for residents, MacDonald asked their position on whether we should go forward, pause or stop the project.
He also raised the question about Christchurch potentially becoming a super city, amalgamating with Waimakariri and Selwyn, and asked them the reasons why they felt they would make a good mayor for New Zealand's second largest city.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you’ve got an outstanding parking fine from the Christchurch City Council, don’t bother paying it - just get yourself a meeting with the mayor and it will disappear. Just like that.
In fact, not just parking fines, any money you might owe the Christchurch City Council - call them up today, book in some time in the Mayoral Lounge, and you’ll walk out the door owing nothing.
You might be one of those people with a city council rates instalment due on the 15th of August. You’ve got just over a month to get a fireside chat with the mayor organised and you’ll save yourself a rates bill.
That’s how things roll at the city council these days.
Because that is exactly what a chap by the name of Derek Tait managed to pull-off yesterday. He’s the local Destiny Church pastor who was the mouthpiece for the Freedom and Rights Coalition, which held all the anti-vax and anti-mandate protests over summer.
Remember those? They started in Cranmer Square week-after-week, which was also the spot where all the freedom fighters set-up camp in their little pup tents. And did their best to make life miserable for the people living in the Cranmer Square area.
Who, quite rightly, are outraged that Derek Tait and his anti-mandate mates have been let-off paying the $50,000 they owe the Christchurch City Council for causing all that disruption.
If we go back to March when the Council was making all the noise about charging the protesters the $50,000 because of the way they’d gone about things to cause maximum disruption, this is how the mayor was talking.
“Members of the community and business owners have raised concerns about how intimidated staff and customers have been by hordes of people not wearing masks entering stores and yelling abuse.”
She didn’t sound like she had much time or sympathy for the freedom fighters, did she? That was back in March.
Fast-forward to yesterday, and Lianne Dalziel had more than changed her tune and was more than happy to forget about the $50,000 and she even posed for a photo with Mr Tait.
“Ah, Derek, don’t worry about it. Let’s just drop the whole thing. And when you get home, you just rip those invoices into little tiny pieces and you just concentrate on doing God’s work.”
Quite rightly, Cranmer Square residents are outraged.
Here’s a quote from one of them: “She (that’s the mayor this resident is talking about) she did nothing for months while these things were going on, while they put tents and portaloos all over the square, made a massive nuisance of themselves and blocked roads with their marches. It was all the Destiny Church. I think it’s absolutely wrong.”
And I couldn’t agree more. The Christchurch City Council - and, in particular mayor Lianne Dalziel - have shown that we’re not just living in the People's Republic of Christchurch, we’re living in the People’s Republic of Pushovers.
Derek Tait, the Destiny Church, the Freedom and Rights Coalition and all the other hangers-on - remember the National Front crew jumped on the bandwagon too - they were all involved in that shambles, and they’ve been let off in a way that you and I can only dream of.
And let’s not forget here that this $50,000 wasn’t just a fine, it was the Council trying to recover costs it actually incurred because of the way the Destiny Church and the freedom fighters ran things.
They wanted to cause maximum disruption which meant the council had to step in with full-on traffic management - the full cost of which was $50,533. But the mayor yesterday took it on herself to approve the Council effectively funding that protest action.
It wasn’t revenue-generating - like many fines are - it was cost recovery. Because the Council is out of pocket, as a result of the protest action. And if the costs aren’t recovered, it’s ratepayer money down the drain. And I have no idea what made Lianne Dalziel think yesterday that she could just waive the magic wand and...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National Party Deputy Leader, Nicola Willis, joined Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings host John MacDonald today on the show.
They discussed council's decision to drop fines against the Freedom and Rights Coalition following their protest earlier this year, the current Covid situation and how it will impact New Zealand, and should Boris Johnson be out of the big job in the UK with today's news?
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Cantabrians were furious yesterday with news that the Freedom and Rights Coalition group have had $50,000 worth of fines dropped by the Christchurch City Council. This followed their protests through streets of Christchurch and occupation of Cranmer Square earlier this year.
Destiny Church pastor and leader of the protests, Derek Tait, called Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings to defend the dropping of the fines. Claiming the protestors were rate payers so were not required to pay anything towards costs.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you don’t think we need fluoride in our drinking water, think again. And if you don’t think we need a tax on sugary drinks in this country, think that one over again too.
Because new research out from the University of Otago shows we desperately need both.
The numbers say it all. By the age of five, at least a third of all kids in New Zealand have had tooth decay. For Maori, it’s 60 percent and for Pasifika it’s 70 percent.
And University of Otago researcher Dorothy Boyd is saying that it’s unacceptable that there are kids experiencing preventable pain every day.
"We need to say, 'actually it's not okay that so many of our children can't chew, can't sleep, can't eat, can't play, because their teeth hurt'."
And she’s saying something needs to be done about it urgently. And I couldn’t agree with her more
The question is - what is that something urgent”?
If I had my way, I’d have fluoride in our drinking water tomorrow. Legislation forcing councils to fluoridate the water supply came into force late last year but it’s going to take a while before we see it happening in Christchurch, for example.
Did you know that Christchurch is the largest city in New Zealand not to have fluoride in the drinking water? The Council here isn’t terribly excited about paying the cost of fluoridation - it’s expected to be about $60 million - but I’m all for it. I’m all for the fluoride and I’m all for the Council paying for it.
I say that because I’m realistic. The money’s not going to come from the Government. So let’s just get on with it.
I know someone who has never had a filling in her life. She’s got amazing teeth and says her mother puts that down to the fluoride tablets the family took when they were growing up. So I've seen evidence that fluoride works and it works a treat.
But if we have a situation here in New Zealand where some parents can’t even get their kids to brush their teeth, then what chance is there of getting everyone to pop fluoride tablets every day? That’s why we need fluoride in the drinking water.
But, as I say, it’s not going to be the urgent answer we need to try and get less kids having teeth pulled out and have less kids living in pain every day because they’ve got rotten teeth by the time they turn five.
Sure, press on with all the planning and regulation frameworks and bickering over who’s going to pay for what but, in the meantime, do something else as well - because we can’t just let this situation go on. And actually, not just go on - potentially get a lot worse. It can’t happen.
So we need a circuit breaker. Something that’s going to actually force people to stop giving their kids these awful drinks. And the best option I see, as well as fluoridation, is making it more difficult for parents to buy the sugary drinks that we see everywhere.
Rows and rows of them at the supermarkets, shelves full of them at the dairies, kids sucking on them in their pushchairs - it is incredible how these drinks aren’t seen as just a treat anymore, kids are sucking on them every day.
And it’s not just the obvious offenders like Coke and Fanta - it’s all the so-called “healthy” fruit juices that are full of sugar too.
The person I mentioned earlier says as well as the fluoride tablets, only being allowed sugary drinks on special occasions is another reason she’s never had a filling in her life.
And the one surefire way of making it more difficult for parents to buy these drinks - or, at the very least, make them think twice about buying them - is to put the price up. And we could do that pretty much overnight by putting an extra tax on sugary drinks.
More than 45 other countries do it. We don’t. A piece of analysis that came out about a month ago found that in 12 of these countries, a sugary drinks tax led to a 15 percent drop in sales.
But that’s not enough to convince our government. It thinks introducing water and milk-only...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’ve been appalled over the past few weeks by a case in the Christchurch District Court of a local couple accused of neglecting the man’s elderly father, who has advanced dementia.
“Neglect” is a bit of an understatement. The 90-year-old was locked in a dark room for up to 16 hours a day, with no way to go to the toilet - he had to use a plastic bag or a plastic urinal, or just to go to the toilet in his bed or on the floor.
He had no access to light, fresh air or water. The light switch in his room was taped off, the window securely closed, and a sheet fastened outside the house to stop any daylight getting in even if the curtains were open.
At night, these animals dressed him in an adult nappy and a wet suit that he couldn’t take off, for whenever he soiled himself.
And after he’d been in hospital with pneumonia, they didn’t even bother getting him the anti-biotics that had been prescribed for him.
And to add insult to injury, the son helped himself to more than $200,000 of his father’s money.
As I’ve followed the case against these two, I’ve thought to myself time and time again “you absolute low-lifes” - and so I was relieved/delighted when these two swines were finally found guilty late last week.
Guilty of keeping the elderly man in unhealthy conditions. Guilty of failing to provide the necessities of life. On top of that, the guy was found guilty of theft, guilty of fraud and guilty of assaulting his father after he’d soiled himself.
Two absolutely appalling individuals whose behaviour and treatment of this 90-year-old man was described in court by the judge as being "akin to torture". Akin to torture.
At one point during the trial, some CCTV footage from inside the man’s room was shown.
He was trying to clean himself up and was knocking loudly on his door asking for help. His son eventually turned up, saw the soiled sheets on the bed and yelled at his father to take his top off.
Here’s what he said: “Why do this? This is behaviour that's going to put you in a mental hospital, this is where this is going, I'm not going to put up with this anymore. None of us are, we're sick of it."
He went on: “By God, I’m going to smack you one in the head if you don’t listen to me.” And he went on to call his father “a filthy animal” and assaulted him while he was taking his top off.
As I’ve followed this case, I’ve been thinking about how something like this could happen. Not why these two people behaved the way they did, but how it was able to happen.
And it’s had me wondering whether, more broadly, we are letting down our older people in this country.
At one point while this trial was happening, it was World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. And a key message the people behind it wanted to get out there was “if you see something, say something”.
And that’s a thing about this abuse case that I haven’t been able to get my head around. Surely, it couldn’t have gone unnoticed. Or could it?
Are we all really that busy, so busy, too busy, to keep an eye out for this sort of thing? This poor fella being abused by his son and his son’s partner, don’t you think someone would’ve noticed that he wasn’t out and about much?
Don’t you think there might’ve been some tell-tale signs that could’ve been picked up when he was in hospital with pneumonia? Or was it just that his son and his partner were brilliant at making things look good? Nothing to see here.
Is it, perhaps, a fact that despite our population ageing, older people are becoming invisible?
Which is strange really because, unless something happens to us, we all get old. At one point when I was a kid, I wanted to be a commercial pilot. That’s never going to happen, but I am going to get old (God willing).
You might already be old. You might not be there yet. But it’s going to happen.
And that’s why cases like the one I’ve just talked about really fire me up. Because I know that one...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Last week, residents of Kaiapoi were shocked and saddened to learn of damage that had been done to RSA headstones at Kaiapoi Cemetery.
Vandals had deliberately removed bronze RSA plaques from a number of headstones, and burn out marks were also discovered near some of the grave sites.
Waimakariri District Mayor, Dan Gordon, joined John MacDonald on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings to encourage anyone with information to please contact the Council or Police.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
We started the week horrified by the random killing of Laisa Waka on Cheyenne Street in Sockburn, in Christchurch.
She’d been at work last Saturday at a retirement village, finished up, got the bus home, had a 300 metre walk from the bus stop to her house, was nearly there - it was about 20-past-four - but she didn’t make it home. She was attacked in broad daylight by a man with a knife. Emergency services got there, but they couldn’t save her and she died at the scene.
The police, at that point, were saying that the man allegedly responsible for the killing was known to them. It was also being reported back on Monday that he was in the care of mental health services.
That’s how our week started and we were horrified.
Five days on, and now that we know more, we are scratching our heads wondering how the hell this was allowed to happen.
Because, since Monday, we’ve learned that the man accused of killing Laisa was on community leave from a specialist mental health facility at Hillmorton Hospital. As it’s been reported, he had been in a secure unit but somehow he was allowed to leave.
At about 2 o'clock last Saturday afternoon, he walked out of Hillmorton and got a bus to his brother’s place in Sockburn. At some point he left his brother’s place, and it was shortly after that when the alleged killing took place.
It was 4.45pm when the Police were notified that the man wasn’t at the hospital - nearly 30 minutes after the alleged killing happened.
Today, there are further developments, with it being reported that since this all happened, staff at the mental health unit have quit their jobs.
We don’t know how many but a report I’ve seen says “several”.
Although, health authorities have since disputed that.
The same report also quotes a Hillmorton staff member who says a meeting had been held to discuss whether or not the man should be allowed to leave the unit, but the final decision was made by a psychiatrist.
As this person is quoted as saying, some staff at the hospital didn’t think he should’ve been allowed to leave because he had been quite volatile in the days leading up to last weekend and alarm bells were going off for some people.
According to this report, it is thought that the psychiatrist who made the call to grant the man community leave has since gone on stress leave. Which I for one can certainly understand. Can you imagine being the person who made that call?
Not that the psychiatrist can expect much sympathy from Andrew Little who was asked this week whether, as Health Minister, he carries the blame for the man being allowed to leave Hillmorton. In short, he doesn't think he does.
Although Andrew Little is getting his Director of Mental Health to do an inspection of Hillmorton Hospital. Which I gather isn’t done lightly because it requires using statutory powers which seem to be some sort of last resort.
But do you think that’s going to be of any comfort to Laisa Waka’s family who held a funeral for her in Christchurch yesterday and who’re flying her body back home to Fiji today? Do you think they’ll care about that? Not right now they won’t, anyway.
But they will want to know how the hell this happened. Her husband was saying as much earlier in the week when the health board was being all tight-lipped on it, hiding behind that age-old lame excuse of not commenting on something being investigated by the police.
Which is a load of old nonsense because whatever happened in the lead-up to that man walking out of Hillmorton last Saturday has nothing to do with determining whether or not he is guilty of the crime he is accused of.
And, as the week has gone on, the health board has been forced to prise open its lips and be a little bit more upfront about what actually happened last weekend.
Typically, though, most of the info has come from the people on the inside at Hillmorton who are having to deal with the cards...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to Labour's Duncan Webb and National's Gerry Brownlee about the big topics of the week.
They discussed the tragic situation with Hillmorton Hospital, and where the responsibility lies, the Health Minister? Or the staff? The Prime Minister announced a new free trade agreement during her European tour, is it really a great deal for New Zealand? And the Greens have proposed a bill to prevent alcohol brands advertising in sport - is it necessary? Plus find out their predictions for the All Blacks match against Ireland on Saturday night.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to All Blacks Assistant Coach Brad Mooar about the team and preparation leading into tomorrow's test match against Ireland. Coverage will be on Newstalk ZB from 6pm Saturday.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Let me start with a disclaimer of sorts. I have never been through what six Timaru families have been through since 6 August last year.
In five of those families, each parent lost a son and siblings lost brothers when a car smashed into a power pole at high speed near Washdyke in South Canterbury. Four kids inside the car, one in the boot.
The sixth family didn’t lose anyone in the crash, but it was their boy who was behind the wheel, carrying passengers despite the fact he was on a restricted licence, he’d been drinking and pretty much did everything he shouldn’t have done.
And I’ve got absolutely no time for what he did. The way people like him use vehicles terrifies me. In fact, I detest the whole thing.
And it was him, Tyreese Fleming, who appeared in the High Court in Timaru yesterday for sentencing after pleading guilty back in April to five charges of dangerous driving causing death. He was originally charged with manslaughter but those charges were reduced.
And yesterday he was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison. The prosecution had wanted six years, but Judge Rob Osbourne settled on two-and-a-half years.
So, like I say, I’ve never been through what these six families have been through and, like every parent on the planet, I hope like hell I never do. It’s one of the biggest worries as a parent, isn’t it? Kids and cars and alcohol. And time and time again, there are absolutely tragic consequences.
Losing a child - tragic. Living with the fact that you were responsible for five deaths - tragic. Knowing your son, through his actions, devastated five families - tragic. So there were never going to be any winners in the courtroom in Timaru yesterday.
But I can’t help thinking that, in sentencing Fleming to two-and-a-half years, Judge Osbourne did the right thing and the wrong thing.
He did the right thing, because there had to be some sort of consequence. You can’t do what Fleming did and get away with the old slap-on-the-wrist with a wet bus ticket.
If that did happen people like victims advocate Ruth Money, who thinks the two-and-a-half year sentence is light, would be calling for the judge’s head-on-a-plate.
She says she's tired of hearing the argument that an 18-year-old’s brain isn’t developed enough to make good decisions and how that’s some sort of excuse for bad behaviour.
She says a sentence is supposed to punish someone and put others off doing the same sort of thing, and she doesn’t think two-and-a-half years will do that.
But as for sending him to prison? I can fully understand why the parents of the kids who died want this guy behind bars. If I was them, maybe I’d want him dead too. The grief and loss in these situations is just devastating.
So I get it when I see the families being quoted in the news saying the sentence is disgusting and questioning whether Fleming really is as remorseful as he says he is. I get all that.
But is prison really the best place for someone in their late teens? If you take away the families’ desperate need to see some sort of punishment dished out to help them get on with their lives and take away the need to deter other kids from doing what Fleming did on that night, is sticking him in prison for two-and-a-half years really going to do any good?
I don’t think it is. And that’s where I think the judge got it wrong. Because what benefit is really going to come?
Once he serves his sentence, he’ll still only be in his early 20s. Some will say he’ll still have alot of life left to live then, something the other five kids in the car don’t have - because of him.
But how do we know what life in prison is going to do to him? Do for him?
He could come out a far worse person than he is now. I have zero sympathy for him in terms of the appalling way he behaved that night last year. On a restricted licence, drinking, carrying passengers and driving like a lunatic. Zero sympathy and zero...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I want to know what brand of coffee Dr Shane Reti was drinking before he spoke to Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB this morning. Because, whatever it was, the National Party’s health spokesperson came out firing like never before. And he was brilliant.
Initially, he was talking about the health boards warning the Government 12 months ago that they were facing significant problems because of staff shortages.
As it’s been reported, all the boards wrote a letter to the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (or MBIE) saying that when the borders re-open (as they have done since), the system is going to struggle with an increase in demand for services.
They also talked about the need to get more doctors and nurses in from overseas ASAP.
Shane Reti said this morning the letter didn’t just go to MBIE, it also went to the Ministry of Health. Which is a key point because Health Minister Andrew Little has been saying he didn’t know about the letter until last month.
He’s got no voice today because he’s crook. So, once he’s got the voice back, it will be interesting to hear what he does have to say.
But as Shane Reti said this morning, the Health Ministry and the Government were warned, did nothing and now we’re seeing the consequences.
But he didn’t stop there, and he moved on to the health reforms which kick-in the day after tomorrow (Friday), with all the health boards around the country disappearing and the new Health NZ and Maori Health Authority taking over.
Like Shane Reti, I’ve never been able to understand why the Government thinks pressing on with reforming the health system when we’re still dealing with a pandemic, is a good idea. My confusion about its enthusiasm is even greater, now that we’re dealing with this flu situation which is seeing people drop like flies all over the place.
Things have got so bad, in fact, that we've seen after-hours medical centres closing the doors because they can't cope with the demand.
But despite all this - hospitals over-run, after hours medical centres over-run - the Government still thinks it’s a good time to press on with the biggest health reforms in 20 years. It’s nuts.
But, as Shane Reti said this morning, the Government is driven by ideology and, when that happens, balls get dropped and the focus goes on project planning, team meetings, Gantt charts, consultants - not on what the health system is actually there for.
As he put it, when you’re re-structuring health the way the Government is, the re-structuring is where the money goes (and we saw that in this year’s Budget). It’s where the attention goes, and anything else pretty much becomes an inconvenience.
I’ve seen this happen myself. Like many people, I’ve worked in the public service and I have always been dismayed at how the focus of government organisations gets lost when there’s a big project on-the-go.
People working at these places start referring to the organisation as “the business”. And they get all excited and drink the Kool Aid and bang on about how much better things are going to be because they’re doing God’s work. But, from my experience, these project people couldn’t be more removed from the purpose of the outfits they work for if they tried.
And that’s how I feel about these health reforms. There’s been a series running on One News over the last few nights looking at the reforms - and you can see how the people running these new health entities have signed up to the ideology.
I suppose they have to be, because they’re the ones who have to lead their people into the brave new world. But whenever I hear all that ra-ra, it just leaves me cold.
Because all the talk, the whiteboards, strategy meetings, planning sessions, project managers and change managers count for nothing when your surgery’s being cancelled and when you’re waiting six-hours to see someone at the after-hours (if it’s still open that is, and hasn’t had to shut...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to Professor Simon Kingham of Canterbury University regarding studies the Human Geography team had found regarding fast food outlets in Canterbury.
A number of factors contributed to more fast food options being available in lower socio-economic areas of Canterbury, and MacDonald asked what he felt would help curb the rising rates to help with healthier eating options.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When I first heard on Saturday about the killing in the Christchurch suburb of Sockburn, I made the assumption that it probably involved people who knew each other.
I think that’s because we’ve been so conditioned in recent years to think that. Because of the stats that get thrown around all the time about the high percentage of people who are murdered knowing those responsible.
So come yesterday, and seeing the news that the killing on Saturday was completely random, I was horrified.
Here was a woman who’d been at work on Saturday, finished up, got the bus home, had a 300m walk from the bus stop to her house, was nearly there - it was about 4:20 - but she didn’t make it home. She was attacked in broad daylight by a man with a knife. Emergency services got there, but they couldn’t save her and she died at the scene.
People who knew her are saying she was kind, supportive and a lovely community mum.
The police are saying the man allegedly responsible for the killing was known to them. It’s also being reported that he was in the care of mental health services.
It seems he was arrested pretty shortly after the incident - he was nearby and was with his brother who was also arrested but released later in the piece.
The Police have been saying since they arrested the man that they’re not seeking anyone else in relation to the killing. Which is police-speak for “no one else was involved, so don’t panic thinking there might be someone else out there”.
Which is a good thing. But I do think people will be thinking twice. And, if they’re not, they should be. I should be. You should be. Because while, technically, what happened on Saturday was a random, isolated incident - it doesn't mean it can’t happen again.
It’s happened before. It was only on Thursday that we had that guy stabbing people on the North Shore in Auckland. There was the attack on shoppers at the Countdown supermarket in Dunedin too, wasn’t there?
And now it’s Christchurch’s turn. And this time it’s a woman in her 50s walking home after work on Saturday in Sockburn.
But let’s not forget either the people living in the area where this terrible thing happened. As one of them told The Herald - “It’s really upsetting. Just the worst thing to happen in your street.”
Especially for the residents who saw what was going on and who helped her while the emergency services were on their way. You never hear much about these people in cases like this, but they will be so traumatised by it all.
And, as it always does after something like this, the world feels less safe.
Under that beautiful blue sky we had on Saturday, I was getting sheets off the line when it happened. It was nearly 4:30 - you might have still been out in the garden. Or out for a walk or a run or a bike ride. Or out having a drink with friends in the last of the winter sun.
But under that same beautiful sky, this poor woman’s life was being ended in a suburban street by someone she didn’t know from a bar of soap, armed with a knife. It is chilling, isn’t it?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Following Thursday's knife attack in Auckland, Massey University Lecturer Rino Lovreglio spoke about New Zealanders needing to be prepared for the possibility of knife attacks and what to do in the event of one to defend yourself.
In the following two days Christchurch saw two knife-related incidents, including one where a woman sadly lost her life when she was attacked in Sockburn by a stranger on her way home from work on Saturday afternoon. Rino spoke to John MacDonald about how we can be more aware and prepared for this kind of unfortunate event.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Memo to Elton John: sorry is no longer the hardest word.
Because it seems we have apologies coming out of our ears at the moment. The latest one is from retailer Babycity.
It's saying sorry for promoting a Matariki sale. Matariki, of course, is the Maori New Year which we are celebrating with the public holiday tomorrow - the first time there’s ever been a Matariki holiday.
But Babycity is in hot water because it decided to have a sale and promoted it as its Matariki Sale. Not allowed - it seems.
There’s been a bit of commentary around this during the week with a clear message coming through that retailers and businesses shouldn’t be cashing in on Matariki.
It’s even been coming from the Government - via its Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (or MBIE).
But have you ever heard the Government or any of its agencies saying the same thing about Christmas, or Easter, or ANZAC Day? I haven’t. Sure, there are trading laws but I have never heard a government agency telling businesses they shouldn’t be trying to commercialise these significant days.
Although the horse has already bolted on that front, hasn’t it? I can’t imagine MBIE coming out and telling retailers not to commercialise Christmas.
But Matariki is brand new and there seems to be quite a bit of zealousness around the place, which maybe we should‘ve expected given it’s the first time we’ve had a public holiday to celebrate the Maori New Year.
There’s been the “Matariki is not for sale” campaign. Which really feels to me like some sort of Matariki-police thing going on.
And that’s why we’ve got Babycity today putting out this apology.
“We have received feedback from our lovely Babycity community that our decision to promote our sale under the name Matariki was in extremely poor taste. We sincerely apologise for being culturally insensitive and for any distress this may have caused. Please know that it was never our intention to offend or disrespect the sacred celebration of Matariki.”
Talk about over the top. Well, that’s what I think anyway. And I’m not saying that out of any disrespect towards the meaning and purpose of Matariki. I think it is brilliant that we are recognising and celebrating it in a way we never have before, as a country.
I’m saying it’s over the top because do we ever get retailers and other businesses getting the same sort of pressure about having Christmas sales, or Easter sales or ANZAC sales? No we don’t.
For example, Noel Leeming and Nood are a couple of places that have ANZAC sales. Sleepyhead and Farmers - they have Chinese New Year sales. Does anyone kick-up a fuss about that? Not that I’ve heard.
And if anyone did, do you think retailers would give in and issue heartfelt apologies like Babycity is doing today? Of course they wouldn’t.
And what about Briscoes' "Long Weekend Sale”. Talk about the Matariki sale you have when you’re not having a Matariki sale.
Which shows how ridiculous this has all become.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There’s a video doing the rounds on social media at the moment of two students at Otago Boys’ High School in Dunedin giving another student what could only be described as a “hiding”.
It seems it’s mostly kids in Dunedin who have been sharing the video but these things can end up anywhere, can’t they?
It lasts just over a minute, but the description of it and the impact it’s had on some people who have seen it has made me question whether we here in New Zealand are being honest with ourselves in terms of just how violent a country we have become.
Politicians, for example, seem to be quick to call everything a crisis these days, but I’ve never heard one of them say that we have a violence crisis across all sectors of society in New Zealand.
They talk about gang violence. They talk about criminal violence. They talk about domestic violence. But I’ve never heard a politician stand up and say ‘we’re a violent bunch us kiwis, and we should be ashamed that we haven’t faced up to it and done something about it’.
And when I say violent, I’m talking physical violence, verbal violence, racial violence. The whole lot.
But let’s start with physical violence and this video of what happened at Otago Boys’ High School a week ago today.
It starts with two students cornering the victim in the toilets. One of them turns to the camera and smiles when the victim asks “why are you doing this?”.
Straight after that, there’s a punch to the chin. After a second punch, the kid being attacked pulls out his wallet - which may have been some sort of attempt to offer money to try and stop what was going on.
“I don’t wanna fight,” he says, appearing to lose balance after another hit. But he’s punched two more times, knocking his head against the wall.
He tries to walk away, using the wall to keep his balance. But he’s kicked in the leg and gets punched two more times - his head slamming against the wall again.
And what do these awful awful kids doing this, say to him before he staggers off?
"You won’t snitch, aye? You won’t snitch?"
Now it’s not just kids who have seen this video. Some parents have too. And one of them is saying today that he hasn’t been able to sleep after seeing it.
Which I can understand, because the description of what happened is bad enough. Let alone actually seeing what happened.
And let’s not pretend that this is an isolated incident. This stuff happens everywhere. There may even be some poor kid at a school who will have something like this dished out to them today. It makes me sick just thinking about it.
Just like there’ll probably be at least someone who’ll be attacked at home by their partner. Or yelled at by another motorist, or yelled at by their neighbour. We can’t deny it. We are an incredibly violent society.
The question is: are we more violent now than we used to be?
On the face of it, it could appear that we are. But that might just be because we hear about stuff more and see stuff more - like this terrible video doing the rounds on social media of the attack at Otago Boys’ High School last week.
I grew up in Dunedin and went to a high school there that was terribly violent. It wasn’t Otago Boys’ but it was a violent outfit. And it was one of the reasons I dropped out of school for a while after the fifth form.
It’s no longer around. It was called St Paul’s High School, but it’s since been merged with another school and it’s called Kavanagh College these days.
Although, that name is changing because the Bishop it’s named after is now considered not to have done enough about teachers sexually abusing students.
But St Paul's was an awful place for violence. And I remember the teachers and the principal seeming to be more than happy to turn a blind eye. In fact, after being away from school for a while, I went to another high school in Dunedin and I couldn’t believe how non-violent it was there.
So, from...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National Party leader Christopher Luxon joined Canterbury Mornings and spoke about violence in NZ, he thinks it starts at home. Charlotte Bellis receives and apology, but National believe all New Zealanders affected by the MIQ lottery of misery should be apologised to, dangerous Canterbury roads and Waka Kotahi's lack of response on roading safety.
Luxon also discussed his views on New Zealand leaving the Commonwealth, saying he's comfortable with the current arrangement but it may be something he sees happen in his lifetime.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If Crusaders coach Scott Robertson and All Blacks coach Ian Foster were TV sets, Foster would be black and white and Razor Robertson would be high-definition full colour.
And that’s why New Zealand rugby is going to be a lot less colourful between now and January, when Robertson will resume transmission with the Crusaders.
I was reading today that he’ll be having some knee surgery between now and then and, because of that, he’ll be spending quite a bit of time on the couch thinking about rugby.
The fact he needs a knee operation makes the breakdancing on Saturday night even more remarkable, doesn’t it? I just smiled big time when I saw him busting the moves at Eden Park on Saturday night. I do every time - I think it’s brilliant. It’s why people love him. He’s in the moment.
And so when Scott Robertson is on the couch at home recovering from the knee operation, we know he’ll be thinking about rugby and next year’s Super Rugby season. As he’s quoted saying today in the news today: “I don’t stop”. That’s what he says about himself. He’s thinking ahead all the time.
And he doesn’t just think - he thinks deeply. Which is why we saw the Crusaders decimate the Blues in the Super Rugby Pacific final at the weekend.
As Blues coach Leon MacDonald said after the game, it was as if Razor had seen the Blues game plan and knew exactly what needed to be done to pull it apart. Because that’s exactly what the Crusaders did.
And so the Blues are licking their wounds and Razor is already thinking about his plan for next year.
Here’s how Crusaders captain Scott Barrett describes it: “In the off-season, that’s when Razor gets his beautiful mind working. I’m sure he’ll be thinking up plans of how we can get better next season.”
But how much of a waste is it going to be having Scott Robertson sitting on his couch thinking deeply about rugby? Thinking deeply about next year, when there is an awful lot of rugby to come before then.
Especially, when we’re talking about someone I think could easily be described as the best rugby coach in the world right now. The very best. That’s what Razor is.
And what do we do with the best coach in the world? We park him up for the next six months and put what some might describe as a “safe pair of hands” in charge of our national rugby team.
Although, after last year, I’m not even sure we can call Foster a safe pair of hands anymore. Which is why I was delighted to see a piece on nzherald.co.nz this morning by Cameron McMillan, Deputy Head of Sport, saying that Foster needs to get on the phone to Scott Robertson and ask for some help.
He’s saying that the more Super Rugby titles the Crusaders win, the worse the decision to give Ian Foster the All Blacks coaching job instead of Scott Robertson looks.
McMillan says Robertson may have been asked already and he may have said no, but New Zealand Rugby needs to get him involved in the All Blacks in some way, shape or form ASAP. And I couldn’t agree more.
He says Razor has a brilliant rugby brain and it’s wasted between July and January. Again, I couldn’t agree more.
Scott Robertson is signed up with the Crusaders until 2024, but has an option to leave if he misses out on the All Blacks job after the World Cup next year. And it was to his credit, wasn’t it, that he didn't up-sticks when he missed out on the top All Blacks job last time. And Canterbury rugby has been the richer for it.
But don’t expect him to stick around if he doesn’t get the gig next time. Why would he? He’s the best rugby coach in the world - he could go anywhere he wants.
Which is why I can’t believe New Zealand Rugby isn’t going all out to get him involved in the All Blacks as soon as possible.
The thing is, though, there seem to be plenty of people around the country who don’t think he’s the person for the job because he’s not serious enough for their liking.
This all started to come through on...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to Christchurch mayor Lianne Dalziel regarding the changes to this year's Santa Parade, which is now an indoor event with a ticket price of $15 per person.
MacDonald asked if there would be a parade to celebrate the Crusaders winning yet another Super Rugby Championship and discussed Dunedin's plans around coastal retreat and sea level rises - should Christchurch be following their lead here?
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How likely is it, do you think, that the people at Waka Kotahi are at work today thinking twice about those stupid road safety ads they’ve been pouring money into?
Do you think any of them arrived at the office this morning, after that absolutely horrific road smash on State Highway 1 yesterday, and sent around an email saying let’s get together later today and think about how we can do this better?
Nope. That won’t be happening today. Despite the fact that we had the worst road accident in the South Island in more than 20 years and one of the deadliest ever in this country.
Seven people dead after a van apparently crossed the centre line and ploughed head-on into a truck, south of Picton. An absolute tragedy. For those killed and injured - but also their wider family who, we understand, had already been dealing with bereavement before yesterday morning.
You will have heard that those involved in the crash yesterday were returning home to the North Island after being in Dunedin for a funeral.
And let’s not forget the truck driver who got away with minor injuries but imagine being that person today. This will stick with them for the rest of their life. And it’s possible, isn’t it, that they’ll never be able to get behind the wheel again. What a traumatic experience.
In the meantime, Waka Kotahi and the Government will press on with their “Road to Zero” campaign, despite the likes of motor racing legend-turned-road safety campaigner Greg Murphy saying today that zero road deaths will never happen. It’s “unachievable’ - that’s the word he used when he spoke with Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB.
This is what he said about Waka Kotahi. Quote: “They’re spending millions of taxpayers money on horrible advertising campaigns that are not making one iota of difference. They’re scared to go down the path of actually providing people with a better base level of understanding, training and awareness to actually understand why it’s so important to pay attention and do the things that we should be doing.”
He says the likes of Waka Kotahi are stuck in the same tunnel vision they’ve been stuck in for decades.
But Greg Murphy will know, like the rest of us, that there isn’t a single answer to all of this. Sure, I get what he’s saying about driver training. I’m not saying drivers don’t have to play their part too but, let’s face it, as long as there are humans behind the wheel, there will always be crashes.
No amount of TV advertising or “Road to Zero” slogans or even driver training will change that. Pretty much everybody will say they have the best intentions whenever they get behind the steering wheel. Who doesn’t?
But as you know, and as I know, we all get distracted. We all do, whether we like to admit or not.
So, because of that, there are other factors that need to be thought about - and I think the state and design of our roads is another thing that needs our attention.
As Greg Murphy himself was saying, State Highway 1 - which is supposed to be the roading equivalent of the main trunk line - it would be a secondary road in other parts of the world.
Narrow. 30km/h corners, 20km/h corners. Cars sharing the road with trucks that are designed in the US and Europe to be used on freeways and motorways and autobahns. Not the toytown roads we have in the country.
So the challenge is trying to do everything we can to stop all these vehicles ploughing into each other. That’s where I think median barriers come into it. In fact, I’ll go further than that - I actually think median barriers are a no-brainer.
I know one commentator has already come out today and said if there was a median barrier where that crash happened yesterday, then chances are seven people wouldn’t have died.
Who knows for sure? But if there had been a median barrier there - then the chances of that car coming into contact with that truck would have been much less.
Which is why I’m...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A friend of the seven people killed in a horror crash near Picton has spoken of spending the night with them in Christchurch before they made the fateful drive to return home.
"You spend every spare moment thinking of the what-ifs and the whys," said Bill, who contacted Newstalk ZB this morning.
Three generations of the Auckland family, which includes members of the Filipino community, died in the crash. Bill revealed what they did when they came to stay with him on Saturday night.
"They spent some of their last hours on earth with me on Saturday night, Sunday morning," Bill told NewstalkZB Canterbury Mornings host John MacDonald.
"This was a vibrant family - my friend was a high school teacher ... his wife started an online business and he was really proud of her.
"They had four boys and girls ... One of the boys had married a Taiwanese young lady and it was their baby that died.
"I was really taken with this young woman, she was so nice and it really hits home at my heart that she's gone and the baby's gone.
"Her husband survived … he's going to wake up and find that he's now alone."
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Chances are, at some point in your life, you’ve been to and you have loved a Santa Parade.
Most likely it was when you were a kid, but you may have also had the wonderful experience of taking your own children or grandchildren to the Santa Parade.
You might have even been involved in one at some time yourself, or your kids might have been.
Ours were quite a few years ago. On the back of a truck, snaking down the road in the blistering sun. And the brilliant thing about Santa Parades is that anyone and everyone can go.
Because they’re held out on the street - and anyone can rock up to them - it doesn’t matter what part of town you live in or what the family budget is like, because they are a truly public event and it costs nothing to go.
Well, until now that is. Because things are about to change in Christchurch, with news that, after a two-year break, the Santa Parade is coming back but, this time, it won’t be free.
It’s going to cost $15 per person and it’s not going to be outside - it’s going to be indoors at the Christchurch Arena.
I should point out that there is apparently going to be a free show for charities and community groups. But that’ll be a minority and the vast majority will have to pay $15 a head if they want to go.
Ridiculous.
The Christchurch Santa Parade has been a bit of a hot potato over the last couple of years with Covid putting a dampener on things - but there have also been money issues with the city council cutting the funding it puts into it.
Health and safety requirements have also been a bit of a headache, as you can well imagine. It’s lucky Santa has the sleigh, isn’t it?
Imagine the health and safety nightmare if he couldn’t land on the roof? He wouldn’t be allowed to use a ladder these days and he’d have to arrange to have scaffolding at every house in the country. It’d be a nightmare.
I don’t know what he’s going to make of this new Christchurch Parade, but I tell you what I make of it - I would rather there was no Santa Parade, than have one that’s only available for people who can afford to pay $15 a head.
You think things are tough financially now, think ahead to December when making ends meet gets even harder for so many people. Presents, holidays - the pressure to spend is immense. But at least there’s been the old Santa Parade where you can take the kids without it costing a bean, and everyone gets to enjoy a bit of pre-Christmas fun together.
But not anymore. Instead, you’re going to have to fork out $15 a ticket. And, if you can’t afford that, then you won’t be there.
And I’m picking a lot of people won’t be there. If you’ve got three kids - it’ll be $60 if you want to take them. That is not the kind of money people have lying around spare at Christmas.
And this is not me having a go at the guy who’s taken over the running of the parade, Jason Reekers is his name.
As he’s saying in the news today, a lot of the floats have fallen into a state of disrepair and need some attention - and that all costs money. So I’m not having a go at him personally, but I think the idea of people paying $15 a head to go to a Santa Parade is ludicrous.
It’s going to be a concert - not a parade.
And where I think he’s really over-thinking things, is what the kids themselves expect from a Santa Parade. He’s saying today that, in recent years, it’s been as much about businesses promoting themselves as it has been about the traditional Christmas things.
And, sure, there have been times when I’ve gone along over the years and thought the same sort of thing. But I have never heard a young child come back from the Santa Parade saying “it was all a bit too commercial”.
The kids don’t give a damn about that.
But Jason Reekers is saying that this new parade is going to be next level.
“We are creating something really spectacular and new. It’s still a city parade, but it’s going up a step. We have gone...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to Labour's Tracey McLellan and National's Gerry Brownlee on Politics Friday.
They discussed today's big news that the Christchurch Santa Parade will now be an indoor event, with a $15 ticket price. John asked if it's time we change our Covid isolation rules, given the widespread impact of influenza at the moment, and the GDP figures - what needs to be done to help New Zealanders now?
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Ahead of tomorrow's huge Super Rugby Championship Final against the Blues, Crusaders prop George Bower took time to talk to Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings.
John MacDonald asked him how the team has been preparing for the final, his pre-game rituals and how being named in the All Blacks has impacted his own mindset for focusing on the game this weekend.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When I got up this morning, I thought for a second that the old throat was feeling a bit scratchy. Nothing major, just that little feeling that makes you think there might be something brewing.
So I popped a couple of Vitamin Cs, it’s disappeared and I am good as gold.
I don’t know how many people I’ve spoken to recently who’ve said they’ve had the same thing happen to them. And, generally, we’ve all agreed that it’s probably because we’re on the lookout more because of the pandemic and, half the time, we’re probably imagining the aches and pains anyway.
But sometimes we do a rapid antigen test, just to be sure. The thing with the rapid testing, though - as many of us have found out - is that you can get a negative result, even if you’re positive. And even if you’re feeling as lousy as anything.
This is why people coming here from overseas have been forced to do the full PCR test before they jump on a plane. But, as we’re hearing today, that requirement is set to be scrapped from as early as next week.
So pretty soon, anyone coming here will be able to do so without paying for and tracking down a PCR test before they travel to New Zealand from another country.
Justin Watson from Christchurch International Airport was saying on Newstalk ZB this morning that, just by doing away with the pre-departure testing requirement, we are likely to see more people choosing to come to New Zealand.
He says that’s been the experience in other countries around the world - so there’s no reason to expect anything different here in New Zealand.
But when all these people get here, they are going to discover that while we’ve caught up with the rest of the world in terms of ditching the pre-departure testing, there’s still a way to go with the approach we take within New Zealand.
I’m not talking about the testing regime. I’m talking about the isolation rules that, I think, have reached the point where they are completely redundant.
Completely redundant because, now, we‘re not just dealing with Covid, we’re also dealing with seasonal influenza.
And what I’m seeing, is that the flu that’s doing the rounds at the moment is, generally, much worse than Omicron itself. Much, much worse. This is what people who have got it are telling me.
I know people who had Covid recently and who now have the flu, and they’re saying that Covid was a walk in the park compared to what they’re dealing with now.One of them was able to get up and shower and pot around and do stuff with Covid. A completely different story with the flu.
And, by the way, this is not me diminishing Covid and pulling out the old “it’s not much worse than the common cold” cliché. It’s me telling you what people are telling me about their experience with
Omicron versus their experience with the flu. They’re being bowled over by the flu, while Covid was nowhere near as bad.
And this is why I think we have reached the point here in New Zealand that the Covid isolation rules that are still in place here have become completely redundant, because they are a huge contradiction.
If you have Covid - even Covid with very mild symptoms - you still have to lock yourself away at home. But if you have this awful flu that so many people have at the moment, you may not feel capable of getting out of bed let alone doing anything else. But, if you want to, you can go wherever you want and do whatever you want.
And if you live with someone with the flu, it’s full steam ahead, no isolation required. But, again, a completely different story if you live with someone with Covid.
A huge contradiction.
Which becomes even more of a contradiction when you think that the Government’s priority throughout this whole pandemic experience has been trying to prevent hospitals getting over-run with sick people.
And here we are forcing people with a mild dose of Covid to stay home but allowing people with the flu to decide for...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Even if you know nothing about bowls, chances are you'll know the name Gary Lawson.
I'm in the "knows-nothing-about-bowls" camp, but I know Lawson's name just from hearing it mentioned so often over the years in the sports news.
And from that, I know that he's pretty handy on the bowling green. He's a former world champion and he's been New Zealand champion 14 times.
But I also know, from what I've seen and read, that he's a bit of a loudmouth too. He's probably wishing today that he'd learnt over the years to pull his head in a bit, because he's just been slapped with a 16-week ban which means he's out of this year's Commonwealth Games.
Probably one of our best bowlers ever, and he can't be selected for the Games because he's banned from competing for 16-weeks. And the reason for the ban is homophobic abuse towards another player at a competition in May last year.
As well as that particular incident, Lawson has said things and behaved in ways over the years that were pretty awful and the impression I get is that he's not a very nice person to be around.
It seems he's only got away with it - up and until now anyway - because Bowls New Zealand and Bowls Canterbury have reportedly turned a blind eye to his behaviour. I think the bowls organisations have denied that, but make of it what you will.
Nevertheless, that all appears to have changed and yesterday Gary Lawson was told that he's out for 16 weeks which means he's out of the Commonwealth Games.
Now whatever we might think of Gary Lawson as a person, the question in my mind is this: Is he being treated fairly?
And the reason I ask that, is because last week we heard about Auckland Blues rugby player Dalton Papalii being caught driving at excessive speeds well over 100 kilometres per hour and not being charged because of some sort of technicality.
But a few days after that was in the news, Papalii was selected for the All Blacks squad for the test series against Ireland next month.
Bad behaviour, no legal consequences, but can still play.
Gary Lawson. Bad behaviour, no legal consequences. But, unlike Dalton Papalii, Gary Lawson can't play. Where's the justice in that?
And think back to the Olympic Games in Athens in 2004.
That year, we had a member of the New Zealand team who was a convicted criminal. Boxer Soulan Pownceby was selected to represent New Zealand, despite the fact that in 1995 he was convicted for the manslaughter of his five-month-old daughter and spent four years in prison.
So, a criminal conviction, very clearly legal consequences, but he was still selected to compete at the Olympics.
This is why I'm asking whether the penalty imposed on bowler Gary Lawson, which effectively rules him out of competing at this year's Commonwealth Games, is fair when you compare his case to the others.
Yes, anyone who says the kinds of things Gary Lawson has been saying - and who behaves the way Gary Lawson has been behaving for many years - of course they shouldn't be held up as shining examples of the human spirit.
And when I saw that he'd got this 16-week ban I thought he'd got his come-uppance, because if there's one thing I can't stand it's loudmouths who think they can say and do whatever they want. Even if they're brilliant at something - like Gary Lawson is at bowls - it's not a licence to run roughshod over everyone else.
But, despite all that, I think Gary Lawson has been hard done by.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Two big things happened over the weekend. The Crusaders qualified for the Super Rugby Pacific Final and the National Party finally announced a policy.
But what a ham-fisted policy it is, and just goes to show that Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis’ great “reset” has turned into just the usual barking at passing cars.
The party announced at the weekend that, if it becomes the Government at next year’s election, it will ban gang patches and insignia, stop gang members from gathering and charge people who put gang-related content online.
One of the most depressing aspects of all this is that most of it is nothing new, or original. Just a bunch of ideas nicked from Australia lumped-in with a regurgitation of a failed idea that a former National Party MP tried about 15 years ago.
Chester Borrows was the MP, and he got a law through Parliament that made gang patches illegal in Whanganui. He’s saying today it didn’t achieve anything because it was too difficult to enforce. And it would be exactly the same today.
Do you really believe the police would have time to go on patch patrol? Dream on.
What’s more, in 2011 the High Court ruled that the Whanganui council’s own by-law banning gang patches in public areas was unlawful, invalid and breached the Bill of Rights Act. That was after the Hells Angels asked for a Judicial Review of the by-law.
And then there’s Christopher Luxon’s absolutely ridiculous idea to ban gang members with criminal convictions from speaking to each other. Have you ever heard anything like it?
And as for making it illegal to put gang-related content online. That’s the only original idea and, I’m no expert on this, but if the National Party thinks it’s going to be able to enforce any law to do with online content then it’s dreaming.
Because New Zealand laws only apply in New Zealand, don’t they? We’ve seen that with court suppression orders being ignored online. This would be no different - the gangs would get around it easily by either having connections in other countries post their stuff online or using things like virtual private networks which are based overseas.
It’s just dumb and shows how out-of-touch National is with these things.
So, it’s heading down a dead-end street. And as one of its former MPs is saying today, the policy will get all the big headlines but it will have “negligible impact” on crime. That’s what Chester Borrows is saying - “negligible impact”.
The ACT Party is saying similar things, accusing National of just making policy on the fly. Which of course it is.
There was a gang expert from Queensland talking on Newstalk ZB this morning, and he was saying that, generally, a ban on gang patches would be a good thing because they’re very intimidating and we might feel a little bit safer. And it would work for motorbike gangs like the Comancheros - but it would be a different story with the likes of the Mongrel Mob.
Because as you know, and as I know, a person doesn’t have to be wearing a patch for us to know they’re in the Mob. You see them all over the place dressed head-to-toe in red.
And when you do see them, you know they’re either a member of the Mongrel Mob or they work at The Warehouse. And you can generally tell the difference.
Now I hate gangs. The whole scene totally depresses me. It terrifies me as well. The whole initiation process. The violence. The fact these people see no other way in life. It’s just awful.
But, as far as I’m concerned, there are two courses of action we could take. And neither of them are what Christopher Luxon is talking about.
The first option is to beat the gangs at their own game - and for the Government to legalise all drugs and set up its own production lines. So you’d have government departments making methamphetamine, growing weed…all of the stuff the gangs do. And they’d sell it for much cheaper prices. Undercut the gangs on price and drive them out of the...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to mayor Lianne Dalziel about her upcoming trip to Adelaide which will commemorate 50 years of Christchurch and Adelaide being sister cities.
He also pressed the mayor on the situation with the stadium, after 3,000 submissions were received on the first day on consultation after a $150 million budget blowout recently. Did the Mayor ever want a stadium built?
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The National Party released it's Law and Order Policy over the weekend, the policy would extend a current insignia ban to all public places including any location visible from a public place - such as the exterior of a gang clubhouse. This includes posts to social media, which gangs are continuously using to market themselves and target younger members.
John MacDonald asked sociologist and gang expert, Jarrod Gilbert, if these measures would actually make a difference, or is it simply an act to try to get votes for next year's election.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I had a bit of an epiphany last night when I was driving across town listening to Te Tai Tonga MP Rino Tirikatene on Newstalk ZB talking about the Canterbury Regional Council Ngāi Tahu Representation Bill.
Which is the official name of the legislation that’s going through Parliament at the moment to allow Ngāi Tahu to appoint two representatives to Environment Canterbury regional council.
Rino is the MP responsible for the Bill. And the plan is for these appointments to happen after this year’s local body elections.
So the Ngāi Tahu representatives won’t be elected, they’ll be appointed - over and above the 14 elected council members. And they won’t be appointed by ECan, they’ll be appointed by Ngāi Tahu.
But just like the ECan councillors who are elected, the non-elected Ngāi Tahu representatives will have full decision-making and voting rights - just like any other elected councillor.
Now the fact this Bill is going through Parliament wasn’t news to me. I’ve known about it for a while, as you probably have. And I’ve seen and heard some of the anti-sentiment that’s been coming through about it being undemocratic etc, etc.
I suspect some people have been opposed to it just because it’s Ngāi Tahu or because it’s Māori and they think it’s all part of “Jacinda Ardern’s communist regime”.
Tongue firmly in cheek there, by the way.
As for me, I’m all for iwi being part of some of the big decisions facing our country. An example, iwi representation on the new water authorities the Government wants to set-up as part of the 3 Waters reforms.
I think the reforms are flawed, but I’ve had no issue with iwi representation on the water authorities. And I still don’t have an issue with it.
But the epiphany I had last night came when I realised that this legislation to allow Ngāi Tahu to appoint non-elected members to the Canterbury Regional Council - and give them full voting rights - is completely unnecessary.
It’s unnecessary because, already, ECan pretty much doesn’t do anything without talking to Ngāi Tahu about it first. And if Ngāi Tahu puts the kibosh on something, it generally doesn’t happen.
This is largely due to the local government legislation that ECan operates under but also due to a formal partnership ECan has had with Ngāi Tahu since 2016, which is known as Tuia.
As ECan says on its website, Tuia is about the regional council recognising that its work is “inextricably linked” with Ngāi Tahu and its ancestral land.
And I’ve got no qualms with that because, of course, ECan exists to oversee management and protection of Canterbury’s natural air and water resources which are sacred to Ngāi Tahu .
They should be sacred to all of us but I think it’s fair to say that air and water are well and truly in Ngāi Tahu's DNA.
But I think that this legislation is completely unnecessary and, in fact - I’ll go further than that - and say that I think it’s wrong.
I think it’s unnecessary because ECan already has this deep relationship with Ngāi Tahu. I think it’s wrong because legislation will reinstate an arrangement that was in place when the previous National government kicked out all of the ECan councillors and brought in commissioners.
Remember that?
As part of that arrangement, there were a couple of Ngāi Tahu reps on board, which made perfect sense when everyone else around that council table was appointed. The place back then was being run by appointed commissioners, not elected councillors.
But things are different now - and ECan is being run by elected councillors.
So bringing in a little bit of the old set-up makes no sense. And it makes even less sense to be appointing people from Ngāi Tahu to sit on the regional council with full voting rights (without being elected) when, already, ECan doesn’t do anything without Ngāi Tahu saying “yes” first.
And it’s wrong, simply because it’s cherry picking from a time when regional...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour's Sarah Pallett and National's Matt Doocey joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday.
They discussed the situation with Te Kaha, the new Christchurch Stadium, and John asked them both how they felt about the budget blow out and where the money should come from to get the project underway finally.
A Bill has been voted on in the house around Ngāi Tahu representation with Environment Canterbury, Sarah Pallett spoke to the Bill and voted on it, as did Matt Doocey with National against the move.
And truancy at schools has been in the spotlight this week, MacDonald asked what can actually be done to encourage more kids to attend school.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Something quite extraordinary happened yesterday.
With 10 Christchurch City councillors writing to the head of Environment Canterbury regional council, asking her to get the mayors of Christchurch, Selwyn, Waimakariri, Ashburton and Hurunui into a room to talk about putting money on the table for the new Christchurch stadium, Te Kaha.
By the way: are we still calling it the ‘new’ stadium - or is it time we started calling it the ‘beleaguered’ stadium. We can’t be far off calling it that, can we?
We’ve been talking about it for 11 years but there’s nothing to show for all the talk - other than a big piece of empty land in the centre of town.
And today there’s more talking, with city councillors meeting to decide the next steps in this whole torturous process - which is consulting the public on whether it should put another $150 million of ratepayer money into the stadium after last week’s budget blowout announcement; or scale back the design to keep it in budget; or put the whole thing on hold for a bit.
But what was extraordinary about yesterday, was that - even before today’s meeting - we had ten councillors taking it on themselves to get negotiations underway with the other local councils about having some skin in the game.
This is something the mayor and deputy mayor should have done months, if not years, ago. But obviously these ten councillors are so frustrated that they’ve gone to ECan themselves and asked it to get all the councils in a room together.
And they’ve done it without involving the mayor and the deputy mayor.
If you want to know who these councillors are: they are Sam MacDonald (who we’ll be talking to shortly), Jake McLellan, James Gough, Phil Mauger, Aaron Keown, Pauline Cotter, Yani Johanson, Tim Scandrett, Jimmy Chen and Catherine Chu.
And let’s not kid ourselves that these councillors are doing this solely for the benefit of the community. All but two of them are seeking re-election later this year, so we could easily make gags about them “grandstanding” and playing “political football” with the stadium issue.
And I see that some of the councillors who didn’t put their name to the letter are saying that their colleagues are jumping the gun because Lianne Dalziel has a meeting lined up with ECan next week. But these ten want all the councils brought into the tent.
As they absolutely should be. There is no way Selwyn, Waimakariri, Hurunui and Ashburton should get away with putting nothing into the stadium.
The other thing these ten councillors want ECan to do - as well as bringing the councils together to talk turkey - is to introduce a regional rate or regional tax to cover some of the costs of building the stadium.
So that would mean any property owner living within ECan’s area of jurisdiction - which is north of the Waitaki River up to the Clarence River, just up from Kaikoura and inland to the boundary with the West Coast.
Anyone who owns a property within that ECan boundary would pay a compulsory regional tax to help pay for the stadium.
This sort of thing was done to help pay for Forsyth Barr stadium in Dunedin and the Caketin in Wellington - so it’s not unheard of, and I think it’s a brilliant idea.
Because, let’s face it, Waimakariri, Selwyn, Hurunui and Ashburton aren’t going to commit money overnight, are they? We’ve already had one of the mayors in the news this week saying “ooh, we’d have to talk to our ratepayers before we made any sort of commitment”.
Which has election year written all over it, doesn’t it?
If ECan just went ahead and introduced a regional tax for the stadium, we’d be on much firmer ground financially, and the Christchurch City Council could box on and get things underway.
You may have seen in the news too that even if it decided to scale-back the design to keep it within budget, the extra design work that would have to be done would cost an extra $30 million anyway. This is in...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Do you think Police Minister Poto Williams is the root cause of rising gang tensions and escalating crime? And do you think she needs to be replaced ASAP?
I’m asking because National Party leader Christopher Luxon has made the big statement that she isn’t up to the job of Police Minister and needs to be given something else to do.
And, get this, he thinks she’s the problem when it comes to the current situation with drive-by shootings, ram raids…all of the stuff we’re hearing about in the news on a daily basis.
“Poto Williams is struggling and she now needs to be removed by the Prime Minister and replaced with someone else,” is what Christopher Luxon has been saying.
He’s not the first person to make this call, of course. Back in April, the head of the Dairy and Business Owners Association said the same thing.
And I know as much as anyone that the way she conducts herself sometimes – especially in her capacity as Police Minister – she seems to be a million miles removed from what’s actually happening out on the streets, and what her police officers are saying.
The arming of police, for example. So many cops say they think they should be carrying guns more regularly. Poto Williams doesn’t seem to hear that. Or doesn’t want to listen.
When it comes to what’s operational and what isn’t, she seems to pick and choose the things she pokes her nose into and the things she doesn’t.
And then she just does and says stupid things. Like the time we asked her about the Covid vaccination status of police officers who had to track down and arrest someone with Covid who’d escaped a managed isolation facility.
Instead of answering the question, she said we should make a request using the Official Information Act.
They’re just a few examples. And because of all these things, I’ve probably said at some stage too that I think she’s a hopeless Police Minister. But is she really at the root of the current crimewave – like Christopher Luxon thinks she is?
That the root cause of rising gang tensions and rising crime stems from Poto Williams being Police Minister.
Do you really think Poto Williams is to blame for gangs taking pot-shots at each other? Do you really think she’s to blame for gang members moving into a neighbourhood near you?
Is Poto Williams really the one to blame for some young people seeing no other option but to follow their fathers and uncles into the gang lifestyle?
According to Christopher Luxon, she is. Because she’s not providing the leadership and support frontline police officers need. And because she’s the face of the Government’s soft-on-crime approach. That’s what the National Party leader thinks.
But who’s the one banging on day after day, saying the Police and the Government are soft on crime? Who’s telling the crims and the gangs out there every day that they’ll get away with whatever they want to do, because there are no consequences? That the Government and the Police are soft on crime. Who’s telling them that?
It’s not the Police Minister. Nor is it the Police Commissioner.
It’s politicians like Christopher Luxon who see the misery caused by crime – and the misery that leads people into crime – as their political meal ticket. Just like the cost-of-living crisis. What was it he said at that conference a couple of weeks ago?
“The cost-of-living crisis – that's how we'll win this election".
Well, he may as well just go all-out today and say “out-of-control crime – that’s another way we can win the election”. He may as well say that because he’s effectively doing it with these comments today about Poto Williams being the root of the problem when it comes to gangs and crime.
But there is one thing I do agree with him on; and that’s the need for the Prime Minister to get someone else to look after the Police portfolio.
Because, as we all know (and it’s a bit of a cliche), perception is...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Freshwater ecologist Mike Joy has been forthright in his opinion about the nitrate levels in Canterbury waters, stating that herd sizes and unsuitable farm land is a major cause of our high nitrate levels in our water.
He's proposing that our herd sizes need to be diminished 12-fold to be able to combat the levels, even suggesting a government buy back of land to reverse the effects in Canterbury.
Mike Joy joined John MacDonald on Canterbury Mornings.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Christchurch City Council is a walking disaster. Or, more to the point, it is a sleepwalking disaster.
And just like Boris Johnson, I think it needs to be tested with a confidence vote.
But, unlike Boris Johnson - who won his confidence vote - I don’t see the city council being quite so lucky.
The thing is, with an outfit like the Christchurch City Council, where do you begin?
The people at the Council were probably hoping that I wouldn’t be commenting about this today. But I can’t help myself. Especially after what it did on Friday.
I’ll get to that. But first, let’s tick off the reasons I think a confidence vote is needed.
Number 1: The stadium cock-up. Yes, costs have gone through the roof around the world but the fact the council doesn’t have a cost-sharing arrangement with the other local councils sewn-up is absolutely shameful. Does that instil confidence?
Number 2: The Bromley smell shambles. I’m sure the $200 pressie cards are making a world of difference. The mayor thinks it’s all to do with poor communication. Dream on.
Number 3: The ridiculous consenting delays. It wasn’t that long ago that the council had its control over consents taken away from it, until it upped its game. But it seems to have gone back to its old ways.
Number 4: Ridiculous, petty behaviour such as what it’s done with the South Christchurch Farmers Market. The Council’s told organisers they have to move because the dead-end road they’ve been using isn’t technically a road - it’s an esplanade - and markets aren’t allowed on esplanades.
Number 5: Trying to hide bad news, as it did on Friday.
The day before the long weekend, the Council released the findings of its latest resident’s survey - which asks ratepayers how they think the Council is doing.
No wonder they wanted to hide it, because it’s come out with an approval rating of 42 percent. Down from 49 percent last year.
In plainspeak, it means 3 out of 5 people in Christchurch think the city council is doing a poor job. And that’s probably putting it way too politely.
So a 42 percent approval this year, a 49 percent approval last year. Way down from the 62 percent approval rating in 2019.
And think back to those days after the earthquakes when we had protests outside the Council building about then-council chief executive Tony Marryatt. Despite all that, the approval rating was around 64 percent.
So 64 percent back then. And it’s got progressively worse to the point where this latest survey has found a 42 percent satisfaction level.
I was reading an article about this yesterday and the council’s chief executive Dawn Baxendale had the gall to imply that the result wasn’t as bad as some other councils.
Which is a bit like the Queensland Reds saying their 37-15 loss to the Crusaders on Friday night wasn’t as bad as the Fijian Drua’s 61-3 loss to the Crusaders a couple of weeks earlier.
Three out of five people think the Christchurch City Council is failing to deliver. Stop trying to dress it up as anything else.
It gets worse, though. Because on Friday, the Council tried to pull one of the oldest PR tricks in the book. In fact, it is so old - and so old hat - that anyone who tries this sort of thing these days always gets caught out. And I can’t imagine why the Council even thought about doing it - let alone went ahead and did it.
It’s that age old trick of putting out bad news on a Friday. Especially on a Friday before a long weekend.
The fact that it did try to pull this stunt on Friday tells me that it is not just a walking disaster, it is a sleepwalking disaster.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke firstly about the stadium woes in Christchurch and asked Labour's Megan Woods and National's Gerry Brownlee what they thought of the situation.
Woods said that no more government money would be available for the project.
They also discussed China's reaction to the comments raised during the Prime Minister's visit to the White House and the comments made by Ardern and Biden.
And following a recent petition to Parliament, should New Zealand be holding a referendum to decide on a name change of our country to Aotearoa?
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m seeing all the reports about Queen Elizabeth’s jubilee celebrations and I’m feeling very disconnected from it all.
I feel like someone who’s turned up at a party a few hours after it’s started and not feeling the vibe like everyone else because they’ve already got a few drinks inside them.
There have been all the reports about people lining the Mall in London, which leads up to Buckingham Palace, hoping to get a glimpse of her.
A couple of New Zealand women were on the TV news last night, setting-up their tent and sounding all very excited.
One of them was wearing the obligatory Kathmandu puffer jacket, of course. And they were telling the reporter how they’d always been big fans of the Queen and the Royal Family - and good on them.
But I’m looking at all this going on and seeing it as something that’s happening “way over there” - in the UK - and not something at all relevant to me here in New Zealand.
Which is strange in a way, really, isn’t it? Because the Queen is not just Queen of England, she’s Queen of the Commonwealth, which means she’s our Queen too. She’s my Queen. She’s your Queen. But I’m not feeling it, at all.
And in theory, we should be having street parties here and putting up the decorations just as much as the people in Britain.
But I’m not; chances are you’re not either.
Now I’m not saying I don’t like the Queen. I couldn’t say I love her or I’m nuts about her, but I know she has had a remarkable tenure - the likes of which we’ll probably never see again.
And you can’t help but feel sorry for her with all the nonsense that’s gone on within the family over the years.
Princess Margaret wasn’t the easiest to deal with, was she? I know that from my passive viewing of The Crown.
Then there was all the stuff with Diana and Charles, and Diana’s death. Andrew’s shenanigans and his appalling sense of entitlement has been a nightmare for the Queen, hasn’t it? And then there’s the ongoing situation with Harry and Meghan - who, to their credit, have turned up in London for the celebrations. Not “on the balcony” at Buckingham Palace, though.
Speaking of the balcony, I don’t think I’ve ever seen as few members of the Royal Family on the balcony at Buckingham Palace as there were overnight when the Queen came out to see the start of the jubilee celebrations.
Charles was there, with William and Kate, and the kids. That was it.
And I see that the Queen won’t be attending the thanksgiving service at St Paul’s Cathedral tonight. The official language the Palace is using is that she experienced “some discomfort” during the time out on the balcony, and it would be a bit of a stretch for her to travel to St Paul’s and take part in that service.
So, we will see how much more of the Queen we see during the official jubilee celebrations which are due to go the whole weekend.
But irrespective of whether the Queen does manage to get out and about and take part in the festivities, it won’t change my feeling of being disconnected from it all.
In fact, I suspect most people in New Zealand would say that the last time they felt really connected to the Royal Family was when Diana died in 1997.
But as for these jubilee celebrations - it’s not doing it for me. Yes, she is New Zealand’s Queen. Yes, she’s been remarkable. But I won’t be going out and celebrating.
I won’t be begrudging anyone who wants to and, if I was still living in London, I’d probably go out and have a nosey at it all. But for me, sitting here in New Zealand, it is not something I feel a part of, at all.
And I would probably go as far as saying that I have never felt as disconnected to the Queen and the Royal Family as I do right now. And no amount of flyovers, carriages, horses and Union flags will change that.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
So, the Christchurch City Council is asking us what it should do about the new stadium, Te Kaha, now we know that the cost has blown out to nearly $700 million.
So far, it’s spent about $40 million on the project. As of yesterday, it’s looking like it’ll cost $150 million more than expected.
And because it’s looking at spending a truckload more money, it’s required by legislation to consult the public and so there are three questions it wants to get our thoughts on whether it should just press on even though the budget has blown out by at least $150 million; scale-back the design to try and keep it within the existing budget; or, press the “pause” button – if not the “stop” button
Very interesting to see that city councillor and mayoral candidate Phil Mauger thinks it should press pause until at least Christmas, maybe longer, to see if there’s a prospect of the costs coming down before the Council commits to something which, in all reality, could still blow out to a billion dollars by the time the thing is built.
He’s saying that once the design work is finished and the site is ready, things should be paused, so they can see if there’s any chance of costs coming down. Because, at the moment, there are all sorts of global supply issues sending costs through the roof all over the world.
But as well as the questions about whether the Council should press on and spend the big bucks, scale the thing back so it costs less, or just stop the project (for the time being anyway), I think there’s another question we have to ask ourselves.
Is the Christchurch City Council up to the job and should it still be responsible for the stadium project from here on in?
Based on its management so far, I don’t think it is. Mainly because it’s got politics written all over it. I remember laughing out loud last year when I saw Mayor Lianne Dalziel crowing on the TV news about the council committing to a 30,000-seat stadium and banging on about Christchurch being New Zealand’s sporting capital.
I laughed out loud because I think it’s generally accepted that Lianne Dalziel was never a fan of the stadium project and it's part of the reason why the council kept kicking the thing into touch for so long. And here we are, 11 years after the earthquake, and we still don’t have a replacement for the old stadium.
Another factor was the Council holding out for a final agreement with the Government as to how much money it was going to put into the post-earthquake anchor projects. This was called the Global Settlement and that’s where the Government’s $230 million for the stadium comes from.
But back to the politics. I remember in the years after the earthquake, the city council fell over itself telling the Government it wanted local control back in Christchurch and didn’t want people flying in and out from Wellington running the show.
The Council hated Gerry Brownlee when he was Earthquake Recovery Minister. The feeling was mutual for Gerry Brownlee too. And that’s coming through in comments he’s making about the stadium blowout.
“They were the people who constantly said they could do better and it should be left to them.” This is the council Gerry Brownlee’s talking about
“And look at what they’ve done. Just made a complete hash of it.”
Now, as we know, the Council eventually got what it wanted and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) was shut down. But the Government didn’t pull out completely and some smaller agencies were set up to take on some of the work CERA had been doing. And one of them was Ōtākaro Limited.
Ōtākaro is a Crown-owned company which has been delivering some of the central city Anchor Projects funded by the Government.
So far, its completed work includes the Bus Interchange, the Te Pae Convention Centre and the National Earthquake Memorial.
Other things it’s working on include the big Metro Sports Facility, the Te Papa...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Following today's verdict in the Amber Heard and Johnny Depp case, Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings spoke to General Manager of Operations at Aviva, Gwenda Kendrew, regarding domestic abuse.
Aviva was formerly Women's Refuge, but changed their name in recent years to reflect the need for support for both men and women suffering from domestic abuse, which can come in the form of physical violence, emotional abuse and financial abuse.
They discussed how both men and women can get help, and the fear some men face in speaking out about their situation.
For anyone wanting support, they can visit their website www.avivafamilies.org.nz
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You know how at Christmas time we all run around like headless chooks in a panic buying stuff and organising things. We do it every year even though we’ve known for 12 months that Christmas is a thing and it happens every year.
I’ve never heard someone at Westfield Mall, for example, screaming that no one told them this was about to happen.
“I had no idea about this. Why didn’t you tell me?” I’ve never heard it – because we all know it’s coming. Nevertheless, we still leave things to the last minute and we still get into a bit of a spin when it all gets a bit overwhelming at the last minute.
Which is a bit like the situation at the Canterbury District Health Board at the moment. And just like Christmas, the story is similar – no room at the inn.
With high admission numbers, Christchurch Hospital is running at more than 110 percent capacity.
Because what’s happening is we’re now into winter, more people are getting seriously unwell and they’re taking up beds that would otherwise be used for people having non-urgent or elective surgeries.
Christchurch Hospital is overrun with patients and people are getting the calls every day to say their surgeries have been delayed. This includes cancer patients.
In one 24-hour period at the start of this week, 380 people turned up at the Emergency Department at Christchurch Hospital and 30 percent of them had to be admitted. That’s 114 new patients, just like that.
And, as a result, there are more patients than beds at the hospital. Specifically, what the health board calls “resourced beds”. Now I’m not a doctor, but I’d say that a “resourced bed” is a bed that comes with the staff and equipment to look after a patient.
You can have as many beds as you want at a hospital but if they’re not resourced, then they’re just a piece of furniture, aren’t they? And what use is a piece of furniture to someone who desperately needs hospital care and treatment? It’s useless. You may as well check into a hotel.
The immediate past president of College for Emergency Medicine, Dr John Bonning, talked about this on Newstalk ZB this morning.
He can’t understand either why, every time this happens, the crowd that run the hospitals look all shocked on it. “We never saw this coming. We’re being overrun with patients. Please stay away.”
And Dr Bonning says it’s clear to him that more funding needs to be pumped into acute patient care. Because what’s happening here in Christchurch, and elsewhere too, is that people that need treatment are being bumped off the surgery list because the hospitals can only just cope with the urgent stuff.
The other factor here too is the number of health board staff off-sick at the moment – especially with Covid. More than 170 health board staff are at home with Covid at the moment.
But just like more people getting sick because it’s winter, having less staff available to work was another thing the health bosses would have known about. But again, patients are paying the price – especially the ones waiting for non-urgent surgeries and things like that.
So, who is to blame for all this? If any Tom, Dick or Harry knows that hospitals get busier every winter, and if every Tom, Dick or Harry knows that more health staff are likely to be off sick this winter with Covid – who has cocked up?
You could point the finger at the health board because it runs things and has all manner of planning people on the payroll thinking about this sort of thing. So, if it’s their job to prevent this sort of thing happening – but it still happens – then surely it rests on their shoulders, doesn’t it?
They’re responsible for delivering the healthcare services and if that’s compromised, they're to blame.
You could say that. And you might say that. But my finger is pointed fairly and squarely at the Government. Because, just like the health bosses, the Government also knows that more people need...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A school-based health education researcher says new sexuality curriculum will allow conversations about healthy relationships from a young age.
The Government has this year provided resources for teaching new relationships and sexuality education - which includes consent, digital safety and healthy relationships.
It's split into a volume each for years 1-to-8 - and for years 9-to-13.
Canterbury University's Rachael Dixon told Canterbury Morning's John MacDonald for five year olds, it includes being able to name body parts.
She says it's really important to know the words so that people can recognise if someone is doing something to their bodies that isn't okay.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I think I’m going to be the only person in New Zealand today who’s going to say ‘stop beating up on the supermarkets’.
The Government has released details of what it’s going to do to try and help us pay less for our food and groceries at Pak ‘n’ Save, Countdown, New World, Four Square, Fresh Choice and Super Value.
The whole lot of them.
It comes after the Commerce Commission looked into how the supermarket companies have been operating here. You’ll remember it found things like supermarket companies holding on to big blocks of land so competitors couldn’t set-up shop nearby and suppliers living in fear they’d be cut loose if they didn’t sell their products to the supermarkets at the cheapest prices possible.
If you’re a supplier to the big supermarkets it’s been a bit of a mixed blessing, because we know that they tell their suppliers ‘hey, we’d like to put a special on your product but we’re only going to do it if you drop your price’. And they do that so they can look like they’re doing us all a big favour with the special without having any impact on their profit margin.
It’s been an absolute rort, hasn’t it? And the sooner that sort of stuff stops, the better.
And I’ve been quite happy to bag the supermarkets over all of this because it’s just been bullying behaviour. And so the Government is saying now it wants more competition, and it wants more of an even playing field.
So, for example, if a new outfit wants to set up shop here they will have guaranteed access to the wholesale prices the supermarkets have access too. So too will dairies and Night ‘n’ Day stores which, currently, have to buy their products at the same price we do at the supermarkets - and then add their profit margin on top of that.
Which is why things are more expensive at the dairy and Night ‘n’ Day.
So rort, after rort, after rort.
But I think we - the shoppers - are to blame as well for the grocery bills going through the roof. It’s not all the supermarket’s fault because we - as shoppers - are part of the problem.
For example, it seems we’ve stopped worrying about what is in season and what isn’t.
We demand access to products like fruits and vegetables all year round and so the supermarkets, naturally, respond to customer demand which means we can pretty much get whatever we want all year ‘round - and we are paying through the nose for it.
Whatever happened to waiting until things are in-season? It wasn’t that long ago, was it, that you could only buy a punnet of strawberries in the summer. You see them all year round now because we, apparently, need them in our smoothies and on top of our muesli in summer, autumn, winter and spring.
Buying things when they’re in-season is so old-hat now. But it’s not the supermarkets forcing that on us - we’re demanding it and the supermarkets are responding to our demands. So, of course, things are going to be more expensive.
Some of us get all hung-up about whether the eggs we buy have come from hens living the dream out in the fresh air, instead of being stuck in a cage in a shed with the lights on 24/7. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing but the minute our conscience has a say in what’s on the shopping list, the price goes up.
We also seem to think that we have to be able to get a park right outside every time we go to the supermarket. We couldn’t possibly walk a few blocks or get a bus.
And so the supermarkets have to have these huge pieces of infrastructure to maintain. Each parking space is worth tens of thousands of dollars. And who pays for that? We do - at the checkout.
We have created these monsters ourselves. And if you think the Commerce Commission and the Government’s going to have all the answers, then you’re dreaming.
We are part of the problem. Therefore, we have to be part of the solution.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
With China working its way around our Pacific Island neighbours, and three islands already signing deals, Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings spoke to Professor Anne-Marie Brady from the University of Canterbury about what it means for us.
Professor Brady did not hold back on her thoughts, stating that peace in the Pacific was about to end and we should be very wary of any moves that China is making at the moment close by.
They also discussed if there was a need for New Zealand to invest more in military response, such as missiles and drones to protect our borders.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to Mayor Lianne Dalziel about today's news that Christchurch may have chlorinated water for years to come, and asked the Mayor if she felt we could have it removed sooner.
They also discussed the ongoing saga with Bromley, and John pressed the Mayor on information that was circulating regarding the cause of the fire and potential insurance delays going forward.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I was stunned when I saw someone who keeps a close eye on China saying that New Zealand needs to think about upping our defence spending to protect us from the superpower.
It’s 2022 and we’re being told that we need to get serious about what we’re seeing from China in the Pacific at the moment and up the defences here at home with drones and anti-ship missiles.
The person who made these comments is Rodney Jones, who is a China analyst with an outfit called Wigram Capital Advisors. He spoke on TVNZ's Q&A show yesterday morning and his comments were on the six o’clock news last night.
He was speaking about China’s Foreign Minister flying around the Pacific drumming up what’s being described as “greater collaboration” with countries in the Pacific.
Before the delegation from China flew in, they already had a deal signed up with the Solomon Islands. But, over the weekend, we found out that Samoa has signed up too. Niue is looking like the next one to sign.
The details are pretty hush hush but we know from a draft document leaked last week that China wants economic and security arrangements with these countries.
And, as we’ve seen so far, if there’s money on the table these countries are going to sign the dotted line.
So, Rodney Jones thinks New Zealand needs to accept that it’s been gazumped by China on the diplomatic front and we need to get ourselves prepared for defending ourselves against China. Incredible stuff.
He says China’s been building up to this for the past five years and New Zealand needs to better protect itself and he reckons we’re not going to be able to do it with words.
He says China’s motivation is “raw power”. And we need to fortify our independent foreign policy and increase our defence spending and buy things like drones and anti-ship missiles.
Remember Australia has signed up to a deal with the UK and the US to buy nuclear-powered submarines. Rodney Jones isn’t saying we need to do anything like that but he is saying that we need to spend more on defence so that China gets the message not to even think about pushing us around.
Which is a pretty astounding thing to say, isn’t it?
Now I don’t think Rodney Jones would be saying this sort of thing if we didn’t have the absolutely hopeless foreign affairs leadership we have at the moment in this country.
I think Nanaia Mahuta is the worst Foreign Affairs Minister New Zealand has ever had. Especially when you think about some of the people who have done the job previously. Here are some names for you: Norman Kirk, David Lange, Mike Moore, Phil Goff, Don McKinnon, Gerry Brownlee and Winston Peters.
But even without comparing the current minister to her predecessors, I think on her own Nanaia Mahuta is showing herself to be completely useless.
Can you believe that she has had absolutely nothing to say about China flying around the Pacific these last few days? There have been interview requests – but total silence.
Can you imagine Don McKinnon saying nothing? Can you imagine Gerry Brownlee saying nothing? Can you imagine Winston Peters saying nothing? Of course not.
And what about the Associate Foreign Minister, Aupito William Sio? Well, he’s not hiding completely, he did put out a media release yesterday. Was it about China in the Pacific?
No, he was making a statement about it being Samoan Language Week this week. To be fair, he is the Minister for Pacific Peoples. But he is also Associate Foreign Affairs Minister and, just like Nanaia Mahuta, he is saying absolutely nothing about what China is up to in the Pacific.
What’s more – he is originally from Samoa and you would assume that he is the associate foreign minister because of his connections in the Pacific. Well, if that’s the case, it’s all token because his birth country has signed-up to China’s offer of “greater collaboration”.
It is an embarrassment and the...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m going to do a bit of a Sesame Street and say that today’s comment is being brought to you by the letter C and the number 96.
C for Christchurch. C for City. C for Council.
C also stands for contempt. Because that is what those 'lucky enough' to qualify for the Christchurch City Council’s support payments for people putting up with the smell from the burnt-out wastewater plant in Bromley will be feeling, after that pitiful announcement yesterday.
One headline I saw said the Council was spending $1 million supporting the people in Bromley. Another said it was dishing out $200 one-off payments.
But here’s the number that really matters - 96.
Because 208 days since the fire, the Council’s $200 equates to 96 cents a day.
This time next week it’ll be 93 cents per day. By the start of September, when the job of removing the stuff that’s causing all the smell should nearly be done, the daily rate for the council’s one-off support payment will be down to 6 cents a day.
What an absolute embarrassment.
And I say that as a Christchurch ratepayer who thinks the Council’s decision yesterday has Scrooge written all over it.
96 cents a day to compensate for all the washing and drying of linen at the laundromat. 96 cents a day to help with the cost of constantly burning incense and candles to try and hide the smell. 96 cents a day to go towards all the doctors’ visits. 96 cents a day to help deal with the mental anxiety we know the people in Bromley are dealing with.
The council would have been better to have done nothing, in my view. Because what it’s come up with is just insulting.
Part of the problem is the city council people turning up to the community meeting a fortnight ago and the mayor, the council chief executive, other councillors and council staff all nodding their heads and obviously feeling they had to say the right things. Which, at the time, probably provide some comfort.
For example, reports I saw talked about one councillor saying they were looking at putting together a support package for residents that would be practical - and they talked about things like paying for doctors’ visits, getting clothes laundered and providing vouchers for people to get out of the city for a bit.
So if I was someone in Bromley and I had been at the meeting and heard that, I would’ve been quite heartened by that.
But I can only imagine how I would have felt yesterday after all the warm fuzzy talk and all the head nodding and the mea culpas from the mayor at the meeting, finding out that I was going to be getting 96 cents compensation for every day I’ve put up with that stench since November last year.
And that every day it continues, the value of this one-off payment will diminish to the point that - in a few months - it’s worth will be about 6 cents a day.
I would’ve been gutted. And I would’ve wished that the councillors and the mayor and all the other council people had kept their mouths shut at that meeting and just listened because, as we see now, it was just all the usual lip service Christchurch has been getting from its city council.
And I say Christchurch, because this is not just a Bromley thing. Everybody is affected by this. But none more so than the 3000 households the city council is limiting its support package to.
3000 households that have every right to feel abandoned by the Christchurch City Council.
This so-called support package is absolutely shameful. There is no other way to describe it.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by Labour's Poto Williams and National's Gerry Brownlee.
Williams was questioned about the response to the recent ram raids around the country, including those in Christchurch recently and asked what will come of it.
Also discussed was China and their movements into the Pacific, and if our Foreign Minister is taking enough action.
The Bromley compensation of $200 for residents affected by the wastewater plant fire was also on the agenda, as questions were raised as to whether council have done enough by offering this.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Whenever I see something like that awful school shooting in the United States yesterday, I always think back to March 15 in Christchurch. And, every time, it still staggers me that it actually happened here.
It wasn’t the first time in New Zealand, of course. We’ve had Aramoana and there was also Stanley Graham killing eight people on the West Coast in 1941 – and that’s just a few.
But we have never, thank goodness, had someone go into a school or onto a university campus and open fire on as many people as possible. I’m not saying that would be any worse or more tragic than the mosque shootings – March 15 was horrific.
But as details started coming through yesterday about what happened in Texas, with this 18-year-old going on the rampage at a local primary school and killing at least 18 people – I said to a colleague here at work that it amazes me something like that hasn’t happened here in New Zealand.
When I say something like that, I’m talking about a mass shooting at a school or a university. The kind of thing that happens so regularly in the United States – there have been 27 already this year, according to one website I was looking at. But never here.
And I’ve been thinking about why that is. Is it because we have the best gun controls in the world? Or is it because the New Zealand psyche just doesn’t make people even consider doing it?
I don’t know about the psyche thing because, remember a few years back when the Police announced they had discovered a teenager in Dunedin had been planning to go on the rampage at a school?
He was 17 at the time and planned to shoot teachers and fellow students – but police were tipped off after he’d been online talking about blowing up a school and carrying out a shooting, and posting what the police described as "inflammatory and extreme views".
And when they raided his home, they found he had a pistol-grip shotgun and a military-style semi-automatic rifle in his bedroom, and some explosive devices made from gas canisters filled with gunpowder.
They also found a diagram of the school building with "prime targets" marked with an X, including staff offices, and arrows showing how he planned to move around the corridors. So, for all intents and purposes.
This all happened before March 15 and, since then, we’ve had the gun buyback scheme and other changes to firearms laws here in New Zealand which all came about following the March 15 attacks in Christchurch.
And the Government has been emphasising, hasn’t it, that – unlike the United States – owning a firearm in New Zealand is a privilege, not a right.
Which Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern talked a bit about on The Late Show in the United States yesterday.
And I suppose when you’re in the United States and you see these shootings happening time and time again, you look at a country 12,000 kilometres away that had a mass shooting and pretty quickly started changing its gun laws and probably think we have it all sorted on the guns front.
But when you’re 12,000 kilometres away, you won’t know about the taxi driver in Christchurch having a gun pointed at his head last Friday. When you’re 12,000 kilometres away, you won’t know about the seven drive-by shootings in Auckland on Tuesday night.
You won’t know about the shots fired at the house in New Brighton last Saturday.
You won’t know about the teenager shot dead outside a party in Christchurch late last year.
And, from where you are in America, you’ll certainly have no idea whether the people who actually live in New Zealand feel safe and are satisfied with the level of gun control here.
Do our dairy owners feel safe? Probably not. Do our taxi drivers feel safe? Probably not.
So, from a distance, it might look like we’ve done something amazing here in New Zealand with gun control – and it probably will look amazing if we compare ourselves against the United States. But have...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Christchurch City Council has a real dilemma on its hands.
It decided once-and-for-all last month to move its composting plant out of the suburb, of Bromley. This is the plant where our food scraps, grass clippings, hedge clippings, all of the green bin stuff – that’s where it goes (if you live in Christchurch). And, as we know, it smells to high heaven and the people living in the area have had a gutful.
This is not to be confused, by the way, with the burnt-out wastewater plant which is also in Bromley and also causing significant distress for people with the awful smell that’s been coming out of it since the fire late last year.
The composting plant is completely separate but, like the wastewater plant, it stinks. Which is nothing new – the people of Bromley, and elsewhere too, have been putting up with the composting stench for years.
But it’s come to a head recently because with the wastewater plant smell on top of the composting plant smell, some Bromley residents are at breaking point.
So last month city councillors decided a couple of things. First, they agreed to move the composting plant somewhere else – instead of trying to make improvements to the one in Bromley. They also asked for a report ASAP on what it would mean if the plant was closed immediately, without an alternative site operating.
Well, that report has been done and this is where the dilemma comes into it.
Because the report says if the Council just shuts down the composting plant without having a replacement up and running somewhere else, it will cost the council – or should I say, it will cost ratepayers – $41 million.
This is not the cost of building a new composting plant. That would be on top of the $41 million.
The $41 million would be the additional costs associated with transporting all the organics from your green bin to the landfill at Kate Valley, near Waipara, north of Christchurch.
There’d be 55,000 tonnes of green waste that would have to be transported. It would take 2,756 truck journeys, which would mean more gas emissions and would throw a complete spanner in the works for the Council, which wants its emissions to be down to net zero by 2030.
So, bad for the environment and bad for the finances.
Now because of the $41 million additional costs and all of the emissions, the report that’s been prepared for councillors – which they will consider tomorrow – says the Council shouldn’t shut down the compost plant immediately and should wait until it’s built a new one somewhere else.
They don’t know how long that would take but I remember they did say last month that it could take up to five years. So, that’s how long the people in Bromley could have to put up with the composting smell – another five years.
When the Council was discussing this last month, I asked how people would feel about all the organics from their green bin going to landfill for five years – instead of being composted – if it meant the people in Bromley didn’t have to put up with the composting smell any longer.
And the overwhelming view was: ‘yes, shut it down now’. The vast majority of people said it was a trade-off they could live with, if it meant relief for the people in Bromley – and elsewhere too for that matter, because the smell from that composting plant goes further afield. Just like the smell from the wastewater plant.
But now that we know it would cost more than $40 million – over and above whatever it’s going to cost to build a new composting plant – is our empathy for the people in Bromley as strong as it was last month when we didn’t have this very important piece of information?
I don’t think I’m going to make any friends in Bromley. My empathy hasn’t changed. I still really feel the people affected by this composting smell. But I don’t think there is any way the Christchurch City Council could justify spending $41 million just to shut the plant...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The leader of the National Party has come out against lowering the voting age to 16.
Justice Minister Kris Faafoi's announced a review of the electoral law that will include discussing the voting age.
The independent panel will also assess other election rules - with changes planned before next year's election.
Christopher Luxon told John MacDonald on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings he's looking forward to the panel's recommendations on changing the voting age.
He says while he doesn't support lowering the age, he'll discuss the issue further once the panel's views are released.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Sometimes I think we do too many trials in this country and we just need to get stuck in more and get on with stuff.
The latest example is the trial Waka Kotahi is running in Auckland, where it’s using safety cameras to find out how much of a problem there is with drivers using mobile phones while they drive. It also wants to get an idea of how many of us aren’t wearing seatbelts.
It’s a six-month trial costing $380,000.
I could have told them how much of a problem it is – especially the phone thing – for free. There are countless drivers on their phones while they drive. Not necessarily talking, but texting.
In fact, I actually think texting is way more of a problem and way more dangerous than people talking on the phone behind the wheel because you have to take your eyes off the road to text, don’t you?
The number of people I see driving, especially through intersections of all places, not looking where they're going but looking down at their phone terrifies me.
And instead of doing this trial in Auckland, Waka Kotahi and the Police just need to get on with the job of stamping this stuff out. People on their phones are a menace on the road.
Waka Kotahi says, because it’s a trial, there won’t be any penalties for drivers it films using their phone or not wearing a seatbelt. But, really, does it not already understand how much of a problem this phone thing is on the roads? Really?
In 2020, there were 24 fatal crashes and 111 serious injuries where distraction was a contributing factor.
And I bet if you’ve been on the road already today, you will have seen someone texting behind the wheel. You may have even done it yourself.
If not, I bet you saw someone yesterday or the day before doing it.
And I’m not going to claim that I’m squeaky clean on this front. A few years ago, I was in a queue of traffic at a roundabout and my phone was sitting on the front passenger seat.
I was scrolling through emails while I waited – not actually holding it, the phone was on the passenger seat – and there was a tap on the window from a traffic cop on a motorbike who gave me an $80 fine on the spot. Stung.
So, if I’ve done it before, and you’ve probably done it before and the person in the car behind you has probably done it before, then we know it’s a problem – so flag the trial Waka Kotahi and just crackdown on it
Don’t worry about a six-month trial in Auckland. Wherever in the country, there is a safety camera, start filming people who are using their phones behind the wheel now and start pinging them for it.
And while you’re at it, stop mucking around with piddly fines. Do what they do in some parts of Australia, if you’re really serious.
In New South Wales, if you’re caught using your phone while driving, you’re fined $350 – or $470 if it’s in a school zone.
Western Australia takes the cake, though. If you’re caught there using a phone while driving, they ping you $1,000. That’s called taking things seriously. And I think we need to follow Western Australia’s example here in New Zealand.
Because, as Simon Douglas from the AA is saying on The Herald, using a phone while driving is a habit that needs to be broken.
He says: “Phones have become such an important part of our daily lives that we find it difficult to function without them.”
He says it’s almost got to the point where keeping in contact with people is more important than the driving itself for some drivers and it’s become so bad that some people see driving as a disruption to their gas-bagging on the phone – instead of it being the other way round.
“It’s a habit we need to break because, when it comes to driving, you need to be 100 percent focused on that task.” And I couldn’t agree with him more.
I could stop at just saying this six-month trial is going to be a waste of time and money because we already know it’s a problem.
But I’m going to...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Imagine this: you’re really keen to move to another country. Not just visit – you want to go and live there. In fact, you’re so keen – you’ll do anything to make it happen.
So, you think to yourself, “mmmm, what would pretty much guarantee me getting in and being allowed to stay?”
So, you ask around and you go online and you find out that if you’re married to someone who comes from the country you want to move to, then you’re sorted.
The only sticking point is that you’re not married to someone from that country. So, do you give up there?
Of course you don’t because, remember, you’re so keen to move to that country you’ll do whatever it takes.
So, you decide to try pretending that you’re married to someone who lives in that country. And the first thing you do, is you get someone who knows what they’re doing to make you some false documents. A false marriage certificate and whatever other papers you’re going to need to get into that country.
Then you send them off and hope it’ll trick the customs people and you’ll get a visa and be away laughing.
Again, imagine going to the letterbox one day and finding out you’ve managed to pull it off and there’s a visa sitting there that will let you get into and stay in that country.
So, you book a flight and nervously touch down and make your way through customs. Heart pounding – because you know you’re trying to get in on false pretences. The fake marriage certificate and other documentation.
You work your way up the line and it feels like the Customs people are staring at you a bit more than everyone else – but eventually, they wave you through. Time to breathe again.
Then you go into the arrival hall at the airport and there to meet you is your fake husband, whom you’ve actually never met before in your life. You pretend to look delighted to see each other but once you leave the airport you go your separate ways and never see each other again.
You’re a complete phony and you’re entering that country illegally. You’ve got a visa, yes, but you’ve got it under totally false pretences. A fake marriage certificate and other fake papers. You’re a fraud.
If it was France, Germany, Russia, the United States, Australia – in fact pretty much any country you might want to name – that you’d got into using false documents, what do you think they would do if they found out?
You’d be on the first plane out of there wouldn’t you? No niceties, no compassion, you’ve broken the rules and you’re out on your ear.
But what if someone else did exactly the same sort of thing to get into New Zealand? Would the same thing happen to them?
You’d like to think so. But someone who did exactly what I’ve just described to get in to New Zealand isn't being asked to leave, they’ve been given refugee status and is going to be allowed to stay here. Even though they got in on false pretences.
She met her pretend husband at the airport when she arrived here – and hasn’t seen him since walking out of the airport. A complete phoney.
I once described New Zealand as the People’s Republic of Pushovers. That was sometime last year and it looks like we still are.
Because this woman who came here from China two-and-a-half years ago using fake papers, has now been given refugee status by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal.
She is a divorced mother-of-one and is a follower of the Falun Gong spiritual movement, which has been declared an illegal cult in China.
And she has told the Immigration and Protection Tribunal that if she goes back to China – where her former husband and son still live – she could face serious harm because of her involvement with Falun Gong.
So, a year after she arrived here with a visa obtained using fake papers, she applied for refugee status. Last year, she was told her application had been declined so she tried again and, this time, she’s been successful – and so she’ll be...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour has turned its back on its people and the days of the Chardonnay Socialists are well and truly back.
When I say “its” people, I’m talking about the people I’ve always thought could rely the most on the Labour Party to be on their side. Those on benefits, superannuitants, the sick, and those who might’ve been called working class back in the day but are probably better known these days as low income.
And it seems to have turned its back on these people in a relatively short time.
If you go back to the Speech from the Throne at the opening of Parliament after Jacinda Ardern became Prime Minister in 2017, this is what Labour said:
“Join us in creating a better future together. A future with a fair and unified New Zealand, where the wellbeing of all New Zealanders is at the heart of all we do.”
I didn’t see the wellbeing of all New Zealanders being a priority in yesterday’s Budget.
I saw the wellbeing of the bureaucrats being catered for very nicely. And I’ve tried to resist the temptation to give it a nickname like the Opposition parties were quick to do yesterday, as they always do on Budget Day.
National says it had thought about a few options but is calling it the “Backwards Budget”. ACT is calling it the “Brain Drain Budget”.
But I’m going to give in to temptation and call it the “Bureaucracy Budget”. Because some of the spending beggars belief, as far as I’m concerned. A truckload of money is being poured into bureaucracy - driven by blind ideology.
First, there’s the $11 billion going into health. Is that to hire more doctors and nurses? Is that to put more money into intensive care units? No. It’s $11 billion over four years to bail out all the health boards around the country so that the new National Health Authority can start out with a clean financial slate.
Then there’s the $200 million for a report on establishing a deepwater port in the Manukau Harbour - which just sounds to me like the Harbour Bridge cycleway project in a wetsuit.
But the one that really gets me is $327 million to be spent on something I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone demanding.
I haven’t seen any petitions calling for this. I haven’t seen any marches on Parliament demanding this. Nothing.
Yet, the Government thinks now is the time to be spending $327 million merging state radio and state TV. Have you ever sat in your chair watching The Chase waiting for the news to come on and thought to yourself ‘what this country desperately needs right now is to spend a truckload of money creating a new media company’.
I’ve never thought it - and I bet you haven’t either.
But that’s what it is going to do. Spend $327 million merging RNZ and TVNZ - at the same time as you’ve got cancer patients at Parliament yesterday demanding more funding for life-saving and life-extending medications.
How this Government can justify blowing $327 million on something that is nothing more than ideological - and certainly not needed - and, at the same time, limit the amount of extra money it puts into Pharmac’s drug budget beggars belief.
The cancer patients who went to Parliament yesterday, went there hoping there’d be $417 million in the Budget so Pharmac could buy 78 drugs it wants to buy but doesn’t have the money for.
Instead, Grant Robertson gave Pharmac half that and, as the NZ Herald is reporting today, those cancer patients are “bitterly disappointed”.
“Patients will continue to die here, whereas overseas they don’t.”
That’s what the Chairperson of Patient Voice Aotearoa said after the Budget came out yesterday.
It is criminal that the Government is failing to deliver for these desperate people and is pouring money into merging its two media companies.
As I said a few weeks ago when we were talking about funding for cancer drugs, it’s appalling isn’t it that in between their chemo sessions, women in headscarves have to travel all the way to...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to Labour's Megan Woods and National's Gerry Brownlee in the aftermath of yesterday's budget announcement.
MacDonald questioned the value of spending $327 million on the RNZ and TVNZ merger, when there are so many sick New Zealanders pleading for more money to be allocated for life-saving and life-increasing medications to be funded.
Also covered were other key points of the Budget, and followed up on the debt that Three Waters authorities will be seeking reimbursements for from councils over the coming years due to the reform.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
As with every Budget Day, everyone hopes the Finance Minister is going to throw something their way.
And every Budget Day there are the so-called winners and the so-called losers. But the one constant – every Budget Day – is the Government (whether it’s Labour, National or whoever) doing the proverbial high-fives and looking very pleased with itself because its delivered 'exactly what the country needs’.
“We couldn’t have done it better. Absolutely brilliant. Let’s head down to Bellamys to celebrate.”
Health is always a big component of every Budget. And this year is no different. But there never, ever seems to be enough money to go around for health, does there?
I heard Dr John Bonning on Newstalk ZB this morning. He’s a specialist in emergency medicine and he was saying that health is a bottomless pit.
And so, it’s safe to assume, isn’t it, that the country will never have enough money for the perfect public health system?
We’re living longer, we have higher expectations in terms of quality of life, technology is getting better – which means it’s also getting more expensive – and if we need it, we want that technology used on us to make us better. As the doctor says, health is a bottomless pit.
That’s just physical health. Mental health funding is another bottomless pit.
And, just like on Budget Day, there are winners and losers too when it comes to health services. And not just one day a year, but every day of the year.
Every day of the year, people all around the country are told there is something wrong with them, it needs treating, but who knows how long it’ll take to get the treatment. In other words, join the waiting list and see ya later.
Or, in the case of mental health services, “yes, you’re in a pretty bad way but there are others way worse than you so sorry, no room at the inn. Maybe you should try some exercise, that might help”.
In the last couple of years here in New Zealand – and Covid will have had something to do with this – the number of people waiting longer than four months for their first appointment with a hospital specialist has doubled. And the number of people waiting longer than four months for treatment has more than trebled. This is in the public health system.
The Government, of course, has got a taskforce on the job to sort it out but let’s not hold our breath for any major change anytime soon. And let’s remember too that waiting lists have been an issue forever – not just since Covid started causing havoc for health systems around the world.
And I bet that, by this time next year, the likes of Dr John Bonning will still be talking about the bottomless health pit – and the health spend announced in today’s Budget still won’t have been enough and more, more, more will be needed and expected
So, what’s the answer? Is there an answer? I think there is, and it’s not endless increases in government spending. It’s Kiwisaver.
I think most of us know that people can dip into their Kiwisaver account to come up with a deposit for their first home.
But I don’t think many of us know that you can do the same for health reasons. Although the rules are pretty tight and it generally comes down to severe financial hardship.
But imagine if you could use your Kiwisaver to pay for a hip operation privately and not hang around waiting on the public waiting list. You can’t at the moment, but what if you could?
Imagine if you could use your Kiwisaver to buy medications that aren’t publicly-funded but would do wonders for your quality of life. You can’t at the moment, but what if you could?
Imagine if you could use your Kiwisaver to get private mental health treatment for yourself or someone in your family. Again, you can’t at the moment, but what if you could?
I could go on, but you get the idea of what I’m talking about.
As I say, the rules at the moment are pretty tight and from what...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Christchurch City Council opened a can of worms yesterday.
It’s decided – 199 days after the fire at the wastewater plant in Bromley – that some residents are going to get some sort of compensation.
It hasn’t had final sign-off, but that’s expected to happen tomorrow week.
I don’t think anyone is going to complain about the fact that the Council is going to do something – even if it’s been embarrassed into doing it, with the community meeting happening the other night and the fact that pretty much everyone in Christchurch has smelt the stench at some point and pretty much everyone in Christchurch is talking about it.
Nevertheless, by doing the right thing, the Council has opened a can of worms because how on earth is it going to decide who gets compensation and who doesn’t?
The statement it put out yesterday said residents living close to the wastewater plant would be the ones who qualify for compensation.
The mayor was quoted as saying: “Residents living near the plant are bearing the brunt of the stench. They have told us their power bills have gone up because they are using dehumidifiers and fans all the time because they cannot leave their windows open.’’
She went on to say: ““Councillors have indicated that they want to make support available to households in the immediate vicinity of the plant.”
And this, I think, is where the can of worms is going to come into it – because smell can go anywhere, can’t it? The stench doesn’t think to itself “ooh, I’m getting close to Linwood Ave, I better turn around and go back to the immediate vicinity of the wastewater plan”.
It doesn’t think: “ooh, if I don’t watch it, that easterly will have me in the central city in no time. I might just lie low for a bit.”
That doesn’t happen, does it? Smell goes wherever it wants. The smell from that wastewater plant has effectively got a key to the city, and it is loving it.
And for the Council to think it’s going to be able to limit any sort of compensation to people in the “immediate vicinity” – as it said yesterday – well, tell them they’re dreaming.
And I’ll tell you now, the can of worms isn’t going to be limited to working out who should and shouldn’t qualify for compensation on the basis of where they live – and what “immediate vicinity” actually means.
It’s also going to be a can of worms when the Council starts getting bombarded by the compensation claims and has the job of working out what’s legit and what isn’t.
It’s not just the smell stopping people from enjoying their day-to-day lives that people are upset about. There are also photos popping up on social media from people who think their houses have been damaged too.
Peeling paint, all that stuff. How the hell is the Council going to work all that out? It could be another EQC all over again.
And we know, don’t we – through the earthquake experience – that some people will try anything on.
Now this is not me saying that the Bromley residents who are saying their paint jobs and other things at their houses are packing a sad because of the wastewater plant fire, are trying to rip off the system. I’m not saying that
But the minute some people get a whiff of an opportunity, they’ll try it on. And I think it won’t be long before the city council finds itself overwhelmed trying to deal with this compensation issue.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you haven’t read the Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan, don’t panic. Because I’ve done a summary for you: it’s a dog’s breakfast.
It’s the first of its kind here in New Zealand. The purpose of it is to set out the targets that need to be achieved for us to have net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Which doesn’t mean no emissions at all – it means zero emissions once the emissions trading scheme is factored in. Buying carbon credits from overseas. So, net zero.
I was in contact last night with someone who had a minor involvement in putting the plan together and they said one of the problems is that there have been too many cooks in the kitchen. Every Tom, Dick and Harry had to have their five cents worth.
Treasury was involved, of course, and what that means is economics – as always – has trumped the environment when push comes to shove. And I reckon, as a result of that, we will see James Shaw getting the shove too from his Green Party colleagues.
I think he is toast as far as co-leadership of the Green Party is concerned. Because the rabid greenies within the party will be very dark on James Shaw after yesterday.
They were already getting dark on him before yesterday and I think this emissions plan will be the final straw, especially when it comes to agriculture getting what appears to be a ‘get out of jail card’ from the Government.
Economics has won the day over the environment.
And so, instead of targeting the farmers, the Government is targeting motorists. And with more than 50 percent of emissions in Christchurch coming from transport, there could be far-reaching implications for us here in Canterbury.
Essentially, the Government wants more of us using electric vehicles and more of us using public transport and riding bikes. But how realistic is that here in Canterbury?
The Government also wants all public transport buses to be zero-emission by 2035 – with only zero-emission buses allowed to be added to the country bus fleet from 2025.
The big thing missing yesterday was any announcement about ongoing subsidies for public transport. No commitment in the plan to continue the half-price public transport fares that have been running for a while.
But like so many of these types of plans, this one’s short on detail – although money appears to have already been allocated to help low- and middle-income earners dump the petrol guzzlers and get into electric vehicles.
The question, though, is – when it comes down to it, are we really prepared to put climate change ahead of convenience? I don’t think we are.
I’ve got to be honest with you and say that I’m a hypocrite when it comes to climate change.
Yes, I believe the scientists who say climate change is a thing. I’m not in any way, shape or form a climate change denier.
But what did I do yesterday afternoon when I went home from work? I boiled the jug and settled in to have a read through the Emissions Reduction Plan.
But before I got too comfortable, I put a couple of logs on the log burner. A dirty, smoky log burner. Hypocrite.
And to get home, I’d ridden my old 1968 two-stroke Vespa.
Yes, I’m a believer when it comes to climate change. But it hasn’t been enough to stop me lighting the log burner and it hasn’t been enough to stop me blowing blue smoke into the atmosphere every day on the Vespa? Of course, it hasn’t.
And that’s why the Government is going to have a real uphill battle on its hands when it comes to reducing emissions.
Because people will always prioritise convenience over climate change. Always. That’s just how it is.
I’ve heard a lot of people say since the plan came out yesterday that there’s a lot of carrot but not enough stick.
For example, there are a couple of transport engineers in the news today saying Christchurch is a city of vehicle commuters and just getting more of us driving electric vehicles...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Residents affected by the stench from Christchurch's fire-damaged wastewater plant may get their healthcare and laundry paid for by the council.
Tensions ran high and Christchurch City Council workers were booed at a public meeting on Friday over the area's ongoing Bromley stench.
Councillor Anne Galloway said proposals around how to provide relief for residents are being put to the council in an informal briefing tomorrow.
She said a community pop-up health centre, rates reductions and paid trips out of town for affected residents are also on the cards.
Residents on the eastern side of the city met to address the smell the council's wastewater plant has been giving off since it was damaged by fire six months ago.
The meeting was attended by local and regional councillors, MPs and the mayor. Paid healthcare, relocating schools and insurance claims were all discussed, RNZ reported.
Mayor Lianne Dalziel profusely apologised to the packed-out Bromley Community Hall.
She told John MacDonald on NewstalkZB that the council "completely screwed up."
She said prior to New Year's Day, the council's communication to the public was great but as Omicron and more lockdowns hit the country, things slowed down.
Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel. Photo / George Heard
"We should've been out there with a lot more front-facing communications.
"What I've undertaken to do, is the council will now be completely front-facing and we will be responding to the needs of the community as we go through this four-month period while the biomass is removed," she said.
Dalziel said they have yet to settle their claim with the insurance company.
"In many respects, we won't know the significance of the damage to the outward structures until we remove the biomass media.
"We have taken samples from the concrete, the structure that supports the trickling filter, and we will know the results of that in the next few weeks."
If the concrete has not been damaged by the fire, Dalziel said the repair option will most likely be looked into as opposed to a rebuild.
RNZ reported one Christchurch resident said her children have stopped going to school because they constantly feel ill from the stench.
The resident said the Ministry of Education has said her children have had too much time off school.
She wants more resources for nearby schools to do what they can to lessen the smell on their grounds.
The council admitted it hasn't contacted any local schools about the smell and has promised to do that on Monday.
Another Christchurch resident asked the council to provide extra mental health support for children. They said children in Christchurch had grown up with a constant stream of disaster from the earthquakes to the mosque attacks.
She said mental health services are hard to access but are desperately needed as kids struggle to cope with the pungent stench.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Is the long-term damage that can be caused by a win-at-all-cost approach to sport really worth it?
This is the question that a lot of us will be asking today with the release of the findings from a review into high-performance sports by Cycling New Zealand.
It’s the review that came about after cyclist Olivia Podmore – whose parents both live here in Christchurch – died last August in a suspected suicide.
Olivia was a very talented athlete. She represented New Zealand at the Rio Olympics but was gutted when she wasn’t selected to compete at the Tokyo games.
And even before the release of the Cycling New Zealand report, it became apparent that she’d been caught up in all sorts of internal politics within the sport – which happens so often, doesn’t it?
Someone takes on a sport, loves it, realises they’re pretty good at it, others realise they’re pretty good at it, but then things go pear-shaped – and not always because of what happens on the race track, or in the pool, on the field or on the running track. Internal politics can ruin so many things.
I remember when Olivia died last year that I didn’t really want to talk about it on the show, for a couple of reasons.
The first reason was that I just wanted to do my bit towards respecting her family's privacy at such a traumatic time.
The second reason was that I only realised after Olivia died that I’d met her father before and that he was someone who’d really made an impression on me.
Our family’s had an involvement with rowing. Our twin boys took up the sport quite late in the piece – becoming novice rowers just last year, when they were in Year 12, rowing for Cashmere High School.
They had a pretty successful first year in the sport. And I remember one day, in particular, when they powered their way to winning a gold medal at the South Island champs. They’re twins and they row together in the double.
And I remember how we were all over the moon but there was one parent there, in particular, who just seemed to really understand how we were feeling, seeing our kids go across the finish line first.
This guy was the partner of one of the Cashmere parents, whose daughter was involved in the rowing programme.
It’s quite hard to explain, but I remember getting the sense at the time that this guy really understood why we were so excited and so proud of the boys.
And that’s why I suppose I was a bit embarrassed when I eventually discovered who he was and what a sporting star his daughter had been. And that I only realised this after she had died.
But it also clicked with me as to why he was so in tune with how we were feeling that day when the boys won gold on Lake Ruataniwha, in Twizel. It was because he’d seen his daughter win time and time again. He’d seen her compete at the Olympics. And he knew what went into getting to that point.
And it’s the path athletes take to ‘getting to that point’ – getting to compete at the highest level – that’s what the focus is on now in light of Olivia Podmore’s death
Her mum Nienke told the NZ Herald over the weekend that the priority given to performance and winning medals over everything else made her sad.
"I'm just really sad, because Liv is the cost of this."
And who wouldn’t be.
I can think back, and it wasn’t that long ago when people were saying that Australia had it all over New Zealand in sport because the Aussies were more mongrel than we were.
The Aussies wanted to win at all cost, and that’s why they won things.
I remember listening to Muray Deaker on the radio banging on about New Zealand sending athletes to the Olympics to compete, when what it should be doing is sending them to the Olympics to win.
‘We’re not hungry enough’. He’d say. ‘Why’s the Government pouring all this money into sport if it doesn’t expect them to win?’ Win, win, win.
And it was within that environment that the whole...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’ve got that old saying about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing in my head today.
And it’s why I think we need to seriously consider creating a Super City by merging the Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri councils.
I’ve thought this for some time and I’m thinking about it again today for a couple of reasons.
The first, is the uproar in Lincoln over this new housing development - 1700 new houses.
The Carter Family is behind it. They want to increase the number of houses in the Lincoln area by more than 50 percent and chew up a huge chunk of farmland in the process.
So a truckload more houses and people, in an area with one high school and one medical centre which is already full and not taking on any new patients.
And this is why people already living in Lincoln aren't happy about it.
This is where the ‘left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing’ comes into it.
You may have heard about the Greater Christchurch Partnership. This is a group that all of the councils have an involvement with - plus all the usual agencies like Christchurch NZ. And its job is to think about the long-term growth and development of the Greater Christchurch area over the next 30 years.
How the population is going to grow, where all the extra people are going to live. All that stuff.
Now this proposed development at Lincoln is in an area outside the Greater Christchurch Partnership’s urban boundary, so it’s going to be up to the Selwyn District Council and only the Selwyn District Council to decide whether this thing goes ahead or not.
Which is nuts, especially when you’ve got the Christchurch City Council competing with Selwyn - and Waimakariri too for that matter - trying to get more people to come and live in the central city in Christchurch. Left hand-right hand. Working in isolation.
The other reason I’m thinking about merging the three councils and creating a new Super City council is the new stadium, Te Kaha.
As we know, it’s looking like the Christchurch City Council is going to have to come up with a truckload more money - possibly as much as $50 million.
The Government isn’t interested in putting more into it. So the Council’s going to have to front up, if it wants the thing to become reality.
Surely, it would be in a much better position if the rating bases of Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakaritri were brought into one big pot by merging them all into one?
We’ve heard this week from some people living in Selwyn and Waimakariri who don’t think their rates money should be going into the stadium - so you can bet your bottom dollar that some of their local councillors won’t be voting in favour of that. Because, as we know, politicians get spooked about brassing people off - especially when there’s an election on the horizon.
So get all the councils under one roof and that wouldn’t be an issue. It’s a no-brainer, as far as I’m concerned.
The Auckland Super City brought together seven city and district councils, and the regional council.
There was a bit of noise when it happened nearly 12 years ago. But I think over time it’s shown that it can work.
Auckland these days has a mayor and 20 councillors. Christchurch city has a mayor and 15 councillors. Waimakariri has a mayor and 10 councillors and Selwyn has a mayor and 11 councillors.
So Auckland, a mayor and 20 councillors. Greater Christchurch - three mayors and 36 councillors. A bit over the top for the size of the place, don’t you think? I think so.
Here in Canterbury, there were once all manner of borough councils - but they were swallowed up over time. Another amalgamation we’ve had here happened in 2006 when Banks Peninsula council joined up with Christchurch City.
The issue then was that Banks Peninsula didn’t have a big enough population to get the rates it needed to operate properly. Selwyn and Waimakariri don’t have that problem - they’ve...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
My heart sank last night.
It sank when I saw a headline saying the Christchurch City Council is going to consult residents before it puts any extra money into the new stadium – Te Kaha.
As we heard earlier this week, material costs have gone through the roof thanks to global supply chain issues and it’s now looking like the Council is going to have to come up with another $50 million to pay for the stadium.
The Council has been at pains this week not to confirm that figure – saying that it won’t know until it gets the final bid for the project from the lead contractor. I don’t think I’ve heard it deny the figure though, just quietly.
But the Council has obviously been spooked enough to let Treasury know about it. So, I think it’s safe to assume that we’re not talking chickenfeed, and more money is going to have to come from somewhere if we are going to eventually get a new stadium in Christchurch.
Yesterday, the National Party’s deputy leader and finance spokesperson Nicola Willis made it pretty clear she doesn’t think more money should be coming from the Crown for the stadium. And we know that when the City Council raised the idea of more money with the Government last year, it wasn’t interested – and it certainly wouldn’t appreciate being asked a second time.
So, the Christchurch City Council is on its own and needs to decide what it is going to do.
Now, the reason my heart sank last night when I saw the headline about the council planning to consult residents before it puts more money into the stadium, was that I thought we were well and truly past the stage of consultation – even over significant matters like investing another $50 million into this significant project.
Think back to 2011 when the Council ran its “Share an Idea” campaign. Remember that? Six weeks of sticky notes and writing ideas on big sheets of paper. It was exactly what Christchurch needed at the time.
Then we had all those other agencies pop-up and they were desperate to “consult” and “engage” as well and find out what we really wanted in our new city. Again, it was great – for a while.
But I remember things reaching a point and people saying ‘we are sick and tired of all your consultation. Just get on with stuff.’
And that is exactly how I’m feeling about the prospect of the Christchurch City Council doing another round of consultation about the stadium.
It is 11 years since the big earthquake. You probably don’t need to be reminded of that.
But 11 years down the track, if the Council is so hellbent on consultation – there are other things it can consult us on, surely. A key project in the city’s recovery from the 2011 earthquake isn’t one of them.
Now I know I’m probably being somewhat hypocritical today, because I took the mayor to task last year when the Council decided in a single day to reduce the seating capacity at the stadium to keep it in budget. And not letting the public have some sort of say as to whether we’d be happy with a smaller facility.
But that was then and this is now – and I’ve moved on, and I just want them to get on with it.
In Central Government, they talk about voters giving parties a mandate and letting them get on with the job for three years. We don’t always like the decisions they make – and we tell them about it when we don’t – but that’s how it works.
So why should it be any different with local government? We put the city councillors in the chairs for three years, and we put them there to make decisions. Just like Central Government.
And you know what will happen with this. The Council will do its consultation and all the naysayers will come out in force and it’ll be left with an outcome that says the majority of people who took part in the consultation process don’t want more ratepayer money going into the stadium, so we’ll have to build a smaller one.
Or, they’ll have the same outcome and ignore it...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Daniel Pilgrim is one of the former Gloriavale residents who took on the West Coast community in the Employment Court and won yesterday.
Daniel Pilgrim spoke to Newstalk ZB’s John MacDonald about why he went ahead with the legal action and how his life has changed since leaving the community.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There is no place in New Zealand for an outfit like Gloriavale.
It cannot be allowed to continue operating. And it is absolutely shameful that we have pretty much turned a blind eye to what’s been going on there for so long. Absolutely shameful.
It’s in the news again today because of the Employment Court ruling that three former members were technically employees when they were forced to work all sorts of ungodly hours from the age of six.
As the court ruling says, the work carried out by these people from the time they were 6 to the time they were 14 couldn’t be described or passed-off as “chores” for three reasons:
- The commercial nature of the work they were doing - The fact the work was carried out over an extended period of time, and - Because the work was strenuous, difficult and sometimes dangerous
And then when they got to the age of 15, they were still legally obliged to be at school but the powers-that-be at Gloriavale had them working – which the Employment Court judge said couldn’t in the least way be described as “work experience” or “volunteering”.
The judge didn’t say it as bluntly as this, but these people were abused and exploited big time and if anyone else tried to do what Gloriavale did – and still does, as far as we’re aware – then all sorts of agencies would be coming down on them like a tonne of bricks.
Gloriavale seems to get away with whatever it wants to get away with but, in my view, the time has come to crack down on this outfit big time. The time has come to go in there, shut it down and rescue those poor sods who are stuck there.
Because the decision by the Employment Court released yesterday is just the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg, isn't it?
It was interesting to hear Liz Gregory from the Gloriavale Leavers Support Trust speaking on Newstalk ZB's Early Edition this morning.
She seems to think that one of the reasons the creeps at Gloriavale have been able to get away with things for so long is that the West Coast community has been prepared to turn a bit of a blind eye to what’s going on. When I heard that I went looking for evidence and, guess what, I found it.
Can you believe that, as recently as 2015, even the local West Coast MP Damien O’Connor was standing up for them?
This was when former MP Dr Liz Gordon – who is an education researcher – came out and said Gloriavale should be closed because she thought it was loony that they force kids to finish school at 15 and make the girls do the cooking and cleaning and make the boys work on the farm.
Loony tunes alright. But what did Damien O’Connor say about that? He said the place didn’t ring any alarm bells for him.
He said Gloriavale had built a new school facility which (as he put it) “looked pretty amazing” and that there were many schools throughout the country that had variable levels of education and expertise and “I guess they’re just another one of those”.
That’s what Damien O'Connor said seven years ago about Gloriavale. I wonder how he feels about that today. If he’s not acutely embarrassed then he can go-ahead and appoint himself spiritual leader of the wilfully ignorant.
Because what’s happening at Gloriavale is nothing short of modern-day slavery. The people there are slaves to the outfit’s ideology and slaves to its money-making ventures which – by the way – made a surplus of nearly $2.8 million last year.
And as we know, if anyone dares to think for themselves and gets themselves out of it, they leave with nothing and they are cut off forever. I watched those former members on the TV news last night who’d been to the Employment Court and couldn’t help thinking how tormenting it must be for them knowing that they have family members still trapped there.
And there’s no other word to use (as far as I’m concerned) – people are trapped there. And why the hell we’ve just let it keep going, beggars' belief.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Dr Liz Gordon is a former MP and is currently an educational researcher. For 25 years she has been pushing for the closure of the school within Gloriavale, and to make public education possible for its residents. She spoke to Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings', John MacDonald, and strongly pushed for a change.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to National Party Deputy Leader, Nicola Willis, today on Canterbury Mornings.
The pair discussed Gloriavale and the community's future in our society, and if she feels there is a place for them anymore. National are pushing for a longer stay in hospitals for mothers following giving birth. And John asked if more Crown money should be made available for the new Christchurch stadium.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The budget for the new Christchurch stadium – Te Kaha – has blown out again, by another $50 million.
And it’s being reported that city councillors are going to have to decide soon whether to increase the budget, go back to the drawing board or press pause on the project.
Memo to Council: ‘Please don’t go back to the drawing board. Please don’t press pause. We know you like to overthink and agonise over things – but please, don’t stand in the way any longer. Yours sincerely, John.’
Let’s hope they’ve got a bit more fortitude to deal with this blow-out than they had when the same thing happened last year and they all suddenly became experts on stadium design and thought we could get away with building a smaller facility.
Remember all the hoo-hah when they got all knee-jerk on it and in a single day decided to reduce the seating capacity from 30,000 to 25,000? I remember challenging the mayor on the transparency of that decision – all done in a single day – and she tried to say that it was transparent because anyone could’ve turned up to the council meeting.
Let’s hope there is a bit more transparency this time around.
But when you think back to all the panic last year, it was such a short-sighted response. Especially when you consider how it took our bean-counting councillor, Sam MacDonald, just one night of staying up late and working out that the cost over-run wasn’t as bad as council staff had been saying.
And so, as a result of that excellent piece of work, the councillors changed their minds again and decided to press on with the 30,000-seat design.
Since then, though, material costs have gone through the roof thanks to global supply chain issues and it’s now looking like the council is going to have to come up with another $50 million to pay for the stadium.
Not that they’re talking about it. I see the project’s independent chairman hasn’t responded to media enquiries. The council’s general manager of citizens and community has responded – but only to say “no comment” for now.
We invited mayor Lianne Dalziel onto the programme this morning – we were told she was at an off-site meeting and then heading straight into Annual Plan hearings.
Lianne Watson from the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce is talking, though. She’s a big supporter of the 30,000-seat stadium and is saying today that cost increases aren’t a huge surprise and the longer it takes to build the stadium, the more expensive it will be.
The key thing, though, is to keep our eye on the return on investment. Because the numbers tell us that the stadium is expected to bring $16 million of visitor spending to Christchurch every year.
And I know the anti-stadium brigade will say ‘how do they know that? Are they just numbers they’ve plucked out of thin air?’
They’ll probably say too that Covid has shown that stadiums are a bad investment. Which could very well be the case – but is that a good enough reason not to press ahead and build the thing?
Of course, it isn’t! It’s a risk – but it’s calculated and it’s one worth taking – as far as I’m concerned.
It’s been 11 years since we last stood in the stands at Lancaster Park. You don’t want to think about that too much because it’s the sort of thing that reminds you how fast life just disappears. But it’s a fact.
And, after 11 years, we still don’t have a world-class stadium in New Zealand’s second-largest city.
But I’m not that blind to see that the Council isn’t going to have to prioritise a few things to pay for it. The budget was always going to blow-out – especially at the pace this thing is going.
But I can tell you one thing – there will be no more money coming from the Government. That’s what the Government said last year when the project went over budget and it will say exactly the same thing if Lianne Dalziel goes cap in hand again.
The thing that amazes me, is that it appears...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Yesterday, the Government announced that it’s going to do what governments do best – putting ambulances at the bottom of cliffs.
The latest one is a $600 million ambulance at the bottom of the crime cliff.
More money for more police officers. More money to crack down on gangs. More money to keep an eye on gun ownership.
Governments do this because they think it’s what we want. And, in some respects, it is because it’s fair to say that doing something is better than doing nothing – especially when it comes to crime.
But, as I say, when it comes down to it – it’s pretty much nothing more than another ambulance at the bottom of another cliff.
Now before the Government made this big announcement yesterday, I’d seen two reports about kids committing crimes here in Canterbury.
The first was about groups of kids – some of them as young as 10 – stealing cars and driving around Christchurch and bragging about it all on social media.
The second report was about a mum wanting the police to take action against a bunch of 11- and 13-year-olds who took to her 13-year-old son in an unprovoked attack in broad daylight at a Christchurch park.
He was riding his scooter and they just pushed him off it and started kicking and punching him in the head while he was on the ground. He was taken to hospital with a concussion and he’s still recovering – physically and emotionally. He can’t understand why it happened and he’s scared to go out now.
This happened about a fortnight ago and, according to the report I read at the weekend, the police have spoken to the kids who did it but that’s about it. And so, this mother feels she and her son have been let down by the system. She wants them punished.
The problem is, though, that by the time a 10, 11, 12 or 13-year-old is out stealing cars and attacking kids in the park, they’ve reached a point where their respect for authority (let alone respect for others) has gone by the wayside. And even if the police did take some action against these kids involved in the attack at the park, chances are they wouldn’t give a stuff because the rot has already set in.
When I think back to when I was 11 or 12, I would’ve been terrified of getting into trouble with the cops. That doesn’t seem to be the case these days, does it?
And the Government can throw as many millions of dollars as it likes at training up more police, cracking down on gangs (whatever that means) and setting up a gun register – all of that stuff – but it’ll do nothing towards getting to the nub of the problem.
Which, as far as I’m concerned, is that so many of these kids are victims too.
Now, before you start thinking I’m some sort of criminal sympathiser, I’m not. When our place was broken into years ago, I wanted to throttle the creep that did it.
But I also saw another side of things a couple of years ago when I visited Oranga Tamariki’s youth justice facility here in Christchurch.
I went there with a journalist who was interviewing one of the kids locked up there. He was a big guy, a real tough dude, intimidating as. As most of the kids there were. It was pretty feral, to be honest.
But when this big, angry, intimidating guy sat down and started talking to the reporter – I tell you what – it was heartbreaking.
This guy was so emotionally damaged. His arms were crossed the whole time, eye contact was sporadic and when the reporter asked him one question in particular – the few words he said, said it all.
She asked him how often his family visited him. And he said: “They’ve never visited”. They’ve never visited.
And at that moment, while I had no sympathy for him as a criminal, I had a truckload of sympathy for him as a person.
Which is not how I was expecting to feel when I went there that day.
And he is why I’m convinced that the Government can do whatever it wants and put as many ambulances at the bottom of the...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you started the week not knowing the name Simon Henry, you probably know it now.
He’s the rich-lister who is the founder and chief executive of chemicals company DGL Group who is under fire - quite rightfully, might I add - for saying some appalling things about Nadia Lim, whose name I’m guessing you did know at the start of the week. Masterchef winner and judge, co-founder of My Food Bag, creator of the lockdown TV cooking show, organic farmer - she’s done and is doing a whole lot of things.
And she is somewhat reluctantly in the news today because of what Simon Henry said about her in a media interview - calling her “Eurasian fluff”.
He was talking about My Food Bag not performing well since it listed on the sharemarket with a journalist from the National Business Review. Here’s what he had to say about the company’s sharemarket prospectus document.
"When you've got Nadia Lim, when you've got a little bit of Eurasian fluff in the middle of your prospectus with a blouse unbuttoned showing some cleavage, and that's what it takes to sell your script, then you know you're in trouble."
And he suggested that Nadia Lim uses her "sensuality" to sell her products. He said she was "a TV celebrity showing off her sensuality".
By the way, just for clarification, the only picture of Nadia Lim in the My Food Bag prospectus has her standing around a barbecue in a casual v-necked camisole top with jeans. The top has no buttons.
So he’s talking out of his backside, or his rear cleavage.
I think I said this yesterday, I think (in my honest opinion) that Simon Henry has shown himself to be a complete turkey with these comments.
And I don’t appear to be alone. The response has been pretty swift.
KiwiSaver provider Kiwi Wealth has added Henry’s company, DGL Group, to its investment exclusions list. So Kiwi Wealth has blacklisted it.
Nadia Lim herself has said overnight that she didn’t want to get involved in this whole thing but that changed on Wednesday night when she found herself sitting opposite a young flight attendant on a trip from Christchurch to Queenstown.
Here’s what Nadia Lim said about that overnight on social media: "I smiled at her and she smiled back at me and I actually felt a little bit emotional. She was a young woman of Asian descent, like myself, and I thought 'How do you feel when you hear things like that? Or read things like that?'"
And what she’s commenting on there, in particular, is Simon Henry’s description of her as “a bit of Eurasian fluff”.
I don’t think I’ve heard anyone refer to a woman as a “bit of fluff” since the 1990s. In fact, I’ll tell you the year - it was 1997 and I was in London and this media company guy I was working for was going on about “bits of fluff”.
So these comments from Simon Henry in 2022 feels very old-school to me and, in my opinion, he deserves everything that’s coming to him.
But I know there will be others too who think there’s nothing wrong with what he said. They’ll look at the fact that he’s successful and rich and probably be quite willing to turn a blind eye, because….well, because he’s successful and rich.
Yes, he’s successful (whatever that means). And yes, he is rich. He’s also shown himself through these comments to be an arrogant turkey. There are a lot of arrogant turkeys around, I know. He’s not alone. But most of them limit their sexism and misogyny to drinks with the boys on Friday night. That doesn’t excuse it.
But when someone tells a reporter to quote them, and then goes on to say what Simon Henry said about Nadia Lim - and not just Nadia Lim, about all women of Asian descent - then that takes it to next-level ignorance and arrogance.
Now, even though I’m condemning Henry, it does raise the question whether these types of things get blown out of proportion these days due to the simple fact that, as a society, we are very quick to get outraged on behalf of other...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald was joined by National's Gerry Brownlee and Labour's Megan Woods regarding the big topics of the week.
MacDonald asked if Speaker Trevor Mallard should be removed from his role, they covered Government funding of Three Waters following last Friday's announcement and if tax cuts are on the agenda in future.
They also covered the news of Countdown's winter price freeze, and if they thought it was simply a PR stunt.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Christchurch City Council seems to be outdoing itself on an almost daily basis at the moment.
And today, it’s flying the flag on behalf of the over thinkers and the paranoid.
Because it has decided that it isn’t going to install a new flagpole at the civic centre in Sumner because it's worried the locals might offend China by flying insensitive flags.
Which has got the Sumner-Redcliffs Historical Society outraged - especially its secretary Topsy Rule, whose late husband raised and lowered the flag at the Council’s Sumner headquarters for more than 40 years.
He died in the mid-1990s. And after he died Topsy - who’s 85 now - took over the flag-raising job and did it until around the time the Council building was damaged by the earthquakes.
That building came down and six years after the big quake, in 2017, a new council building was built and opened - it’s now known as Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre. But a new replacement flagpole has never been erected there.
Originally, the Council had planned to have a flagpole on the new building and it even said it would give the Sumner-Redcliffs Historical Society a $10,000 grant to do it.
But the money has never shown up and now the Council is saying it has no intention to reinstate a flagpole in Sumner because it thinks if a community group is looking after it, it could fly flags that brass-off China.
The focus on China is because Christchurch has sister-city relationships with Wuhan and the Gansu Province. So, the council wants to keep things sweet and not run the risk of the Sumner locals causing an international diplomacy crisis by flying the wrong type of flag.
The wrong type of flag, by the way - according to a Council memo - would be the flags of Taiwan, Tibet and West Papua. And that’s why the Council thinks it couldn’t possibly trust the locals not to cock things up by deciding it might be nice to have one of those flags flying high over Sumner just for a change.
The issues behind the flags are the fact that China doesn’t recognise Tibet as a country and so flying the Tibet flag would be frowned upon by Beijing.
And it also thinks Taiwan should be part of China - so, again, it wouldn’t be fussed if the Sumner-Redcliffs Historical Society had a rush of blood to the head and ran the Taiwan flag up the flagpole.
“Flagpoles need to be centrally-managed”, according to the Council - which is sounding a bit like China itself, don’t you think?
“Community groups may wish to fly a particularly sensitive flag, but Council’s flag network needs to avoid impacting our city and country’s international relationships,” someone wrote in a Council memo.
Well, Topsy from the Historical Society isn’t having a bar of that.
“It’s tripe,” she says. And she’ll get no argument from me on that one.
She’s saying today: “All of a sudden we are not good enough. We are responsible people. Do they think we are going to fly off it or something?”
And she says the only flag the Historical Society wants to fly in Sumner is the New Zealand flag.
Like I say, the City Council is just showing itself to be the headquarters of the over thinkers and the paranoid.
And I’m with Topsy and the Sumner-Redcliffs Historical Society on this one. I think Sumner should definitely get its flagpole back and I think the over thinkers at the City Council need to find something more important to agonise over.
The Council promised $10,000 and it needs to deliver on that promise. Because these sister-city connections with China were in place well before the earthquakes and were, certainly, in place when the Council originally said it would front up with the money for a new flagpole in Sumner.
And brassing off the powers-that-be in China obviously wasn’t a concern back then. So why should it be a concern now?
It is an absolute joke.
As Topsy is saying today - she wants the flagpole back so she can fly the flag at...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Has anyone checked whether Trevor Mallard has been wearing any blue or red bandanas recently?
In case you don’t know, blue is Black Power and red is the Mongrel Mob. Or, if you’re in America, blue is the Crips and red is the Bloods.
The reason I ask this is that the Police are apparently planning some sort of crackdown on gangs – and one of the things they’re going to be targeting is intimidating behaviour.
And I reckon if it’s going to have any hope in hell of working, they’re going to have to start at the very top and crackdown on the Chief Intimidator himself, the Honourable Trevor Mallard, Speaker of the House.
Because, as we’ve been hearing in the news, he’s been doing some weird things lately.
Irrigating the lawns – even though it’s raining – and even though he’s got guests camping outside.
Playing music loudly at night. All night. Not inside – but outside.
Real intimidating stuff.
But now, he’s gone above and beyond and he’s picking on a poor-old 77-year-old retired man who is facing the prospect of not being allowed to go to the place he loves for the next two years.
A place this 77-year-old retired man has been going to since 1979. 43 years. And now, he’s been told he’s been trespassed for two years and to stay away.
You imagine being that 77-year-old retired man. You’ve paid your taxes. You’ve always had a smile on your dial – even when you’ve fallen out with your mates or been given the boot by your boss.
You’ve always made sure that you’re dressed up to the nines and you certainly haven’t let yourself go. The way you’ve looked after your hair is a real credit and has been an inspiration for silver foxes up and down the country.
You imagine being that 77-year-old retired man who, when you discovered you were getting more of the pension than you were entitled to, you paid it all back. It was nearly $20,000 – but you paid it back. All of it.
You’ve always been the life and soul of the party. Sometimes you’ve kept us waiting – but you’ve always eventually turned up.
And like every New Zealander worth their salt, you’ve stood up for this place. You’ve put this country first. New Zealand First – that’s what you’ve always said. New Zealand first.
And even though you’re 77, and probably entitled to take things a bit easier, sitting in front of the TV all day is not for you.
“Make sure you stay curious and try to learn new things”. That’s what the ageing experts say you should be doing – even when you get to 77. And that’s exactly what you’ve done. But the old bully boy’s telling you off for it.
You saw something was going on at the place you’ve been going to day-in, day-out for the past 43 years – the place you love. And so, you put your suit on, put a comb and some Brylcreem through your hair, and went down there and had a chat with a few people. You were curious and active – a poster boy for old age.
But now, at the age of 77, you’re being told off like a naughty schoolboy.
And who’s the bully boy who’s told you off? It’s old Trevor again – waving the big stick yet again. Old Trevor – irrigation enthusiast and Barry Manilow fan.
And he’s told you, Winston Raymond Peters, that you are banned from going to Parliament for two years. And do you know what? I think old Trevor has well-and-truly lost it this time.
And he’s not just picking on you Winston Raymond Peters. He’s told another ex-MP – Matt King – that he’s trespassed from Parliament for two years.
Former ACT MP Stephen Franks is another one too.
All were banned for two years because they had the gall to turn up to the anti-mandate protest at Parliament.
I said it at the time when he used the sprinklers on the protesters, that Trevor Mallard was a national embarrassment.
But this latest behaviour takes it to the next level, doesn’t it?
And if Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern doesn’t sack Trevor Mallard from the...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It’s often said that marketing plays on people’s fears.
You know what I’m talking about - things like those ads on TV that talk about the house being full of bacteria we can’t see and if we really want to be good parents and keep our family safe we should be spraying this or spraying that on every surface every five minutes.
Create the fear and present the solution. All in 30 seconds.
Elections are the same. Politicians love to get us all worried about something. Even better if they can get us worried about a whole lot of things.
Think back to the last election when some voters were apparently so terrified about the Greens getting into government that, instead of voting for National like they normally would, they voted for Labour which, as we know, walked away on election night with a landslide victory.
And so we have it that, more than a year away from the next election, some political parties are already trying to get us all scaredey-cat about taxation.
It’s come to something of a head in the past 24 hours after Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern got herself well-and-truly tied up in knots yesterday when she was interviewed about taxation.
She was asked if she stood by the reassurance she gave back in 2020 that a wealth tax would not be introduced while she was Prime Minister or, whether she had gone back on that and Labour would be including a wealth tax in its policies for next year’s election.
Even if you’d wanted to believe her, she was pretty unconvincing - dancing on the head of a pin as politicians always do - going on about the need to review taxes and work out whether everyone is paying as much tax as they should.
And then going on to say that Labour hasn’t even worked out its tax policy for next year’s election.
As I say, pretty unconvincing. And, not surprisingly, it’s been interpreted - and portrayed by some - that she’s about to do, or has done, some sort of U-turn on her previous reassurances that a wealth tax will not happen “on my watch”.
The National Party and the ACT Party have jumped in boots-and-all because the Prime Minister has given them the perfect opportunity to do what politicians do best.
They love us being scared about anything and everything, because that’s how elections are won and lost.
“If you’re not scared about this, you should be. And then, once I’ve convinced you to be scared about it, vote for me - because you won’t need to be scared anymore’.
And so today it’s taxation and, in particular, whether or not Labour has plans to introduce a wealth tax.
There were two interviews on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning - one after the other - that I thought highlighted a problem and delivered a potential solution.
The problem was the lack of money in this country to get our infrastructure up to scratch. The potential solution was the wealth tax idea.
And, on the face of it, I thought ‘yeah, more revenue for the government, more money to spend on infrastructure’.
But then I read of a report by the OECD done back in 2018 which said wealth taxes do not collect as much revenue as you might think, because property values can go down, and people go to great efforts to avoid them. The OECD wasn’t making this up, it said this because it’s seen it happening in countries that already have wealth taxes.
Another issue too pointed out by the OECD is you can be rich on paper, let’s say via having a highly-valued house, but that doesn’t mean you have a truckload of money to splash around.
And so that’s why I think introducing a wealth tax here in New Zealand would just be virtue-signalling, and the level of bureaucracy that would be required to make it work, and the effort that would have to go into it wouldn’t be worth the return the government might get.
Put simply, I think it would be a waste of time.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
No one can tell me that the climate isn’t changing. Yesterday, it was 1 May and it was around 23 degrees in Christchurch.
Which is brilliant for getting stuff done and getting out and about. But it’s also another tiny little piece of evidence that the Earth is definitely getting warmer. So, no one can tell me that climate change is fake news.
And now we’ve got more bad news about the climate and the environment. Courtesy of what’s called the SeaRise Project – a five-year project involving 30 local and international experts.
This time it’s to do with rising sea levels which are having a double whammy impact here in New Zealand because of the rate the land here is falling – and earthquake activity is a major cause of that.
So, we’ve got the sea level going up and the land going down. And when we combine the two, it means more water on the land sooner than we thought. In fact, it means that effectively the sea level is rising at twice the rate that scientists thought it was before now.
They’re talking about a rise of 31-centimetres in just eight years in some parts of the country.
One report I’ve read says Canterbury has the most infrastructure at risk from coastal hazards such as flooding, erosion and rising groundwater, of any province in the country.
25,000 properties, mainly residential and worth about $6.7 billion, could potentially be at-risk.
This is something we’ve had a bit of experience of here in Canterbury over the past 10-or-so years since the earthquakes. There’s been all sorts of talk about coastal suburbs like New Brighton, South New Brighton and Southshore facing the prospect of inundation because of how the coastal land dropped after the earthquakes.
But it seems to have been something the Christchurch City Council has preferred to pussy-foot around over. Increasingly so, as time has gone on.
Remember all the head-scratching that went on back in 2011 after the big earthquake about why the council had historically allowed building to happen in certain parts of town? Parts of town where things really went pear-shaped after the quakes.
Well, I’ve been scratching my head recently when I’ve seen the council still allowing building to go ahead in places like New Brighton and North New Brighton, where those apartments are going up. People were scrambling to buy them a couple of months ago.
There are 37 apartments and the developers had nearly 350 offers in one day!
I asked Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel about this about a month or so ago and she seems quite comfortable with the council giving the go-ahead for building on the coastline.
Since then, I've spoken with Dr Bronwyn Hayward from the University of Canterbury who has written some of the reports that have come out from the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change.
I asked her if she could understand why we’re still putting houses in New Brighton and South Brighton – and other areas at just as much risk of inundation – and she said she couldn’t understand it at all.
Maybe the fact the Christchurch City Council is quite happy to issue building consents for that part of town gives people some sense of security. I’d call it false security – especially in light of this news out today.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald was joined by Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel.
He asked the Mayor about today's sea-level rise reports, and why Council would still give permits to build on land that could be at risk in years to come.
They also discussed the fallout from the Bromley compost and wastewater plants, and how Council will look after residents in the area.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today John MacDonald spoke about the rising sea levels, following the release of an online tool to view projected level rises around New Zealand's coastal areas.
We sought further information from Massey University Professor, Bruce Glavovic.
Glavovic has degrees in economics and agricultural economics, environmental science, and urban and environmental planning. His research focuses on building resilient and sustainable communities.
He led the team that designed and facilitated South Africa's coastal policy formulation process that culminated in the Government’s White Paper for Sustainable Coastal Development in 2000 and the world’s first Integrated Coastal Management Act.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How would you feel about everything in your green organics bin and all your garden waste going into landfill for the next five years, instead of it being used to make compost like it is now?
So all your food scraps, all your grass clippings, all your hedge clippings - all of it - just being chucked in landfill for the next five years.
This is the conundrum Christchurch has on its hands after yesterday’s city council meeting where councillors tried to suss out where-to-next with the smell situation in Bromley.
Although, as we know, it’s not just Bromley - it’s affecting the whole city. But it’s Bromley residents who are bearing the brunt on a couple of fronts.
First of all, there’s the wastewater plant which went up in smoke back in November last year - 178 days ago - and the smell that’s been coming from that ever since because of the rotting stuff stuck in the filter system. Which is the smell that seems to be wafting right across the city at different times of the day and night.
The city council’s handling of that, I think we can all agree, has been a shambles.
But there’s also this issue that’s been around for years with the smell coming from the separate composting plant - which is also in Bromley. It’s separate, but it’s got people living in Bromley feeling like they’ve been hit with a double-whammy on the smell front.
So yesterday, people living there had their chance to front up to City Hall and tell city councillors about the impact these smells are having on their lives, and tell councillors exactly what they think of the council.
They didn’t hold back. It was emotional and you could see the people who turned up yesterday have just had a complete gutsful. Of course they have.
They talked about feeling trapped in their own homes and being let down by the council which has been told time and time again by Environment Canterbury that the smell coming from the composting plant is unacceptable.
One of our local Labour MPs was even there. Banks Peninsula MP Tracey McLellan told councillors yesterday people in Bromley will have them “on the clock” - and she handed over a petition from residents calling for the composting plant to be moved somewhere else.
There was also a councillor from Environment Canterbury there - Nicole Marshall - who demanded that the city council close the composting plant immediately.
How about this for fighting talk. She said: “You are spending millions of dollars a year on a facility that is poisoning a community. The council is a bad neighbour and the community wants you gone.”
That’s a regional councillor talking to city councillors. Quite something.
So it was a big day in the Council chamber yesterday and, at the end of it all, city councillors decided on a couple of things in relation to the composting plant.
First, they agreed to move it somewhere else - instead of trying to make improvements to the one operating in Bromley.
They also asked for a report ASAP on what it would mean if the plant was closed immediately without an alternative site operating
And this is where we get to the conundrum. If the composting plant is closed pretty much immediately, it could be another five years before a new plant is up-and-running somewhere else.
And, during that five years, the only place our organics could go to is the landfill at Kate Valley, up Waipara way.
So all of those things you do at the moment with your green waste - keeping it separate from your other rubbish, putting it in your green bin, taking it to the greenwaste section at the dump - all of that would be a complete waste of time.
Because it would just end up at the same place as all the other stuff that goes in your red bin. For five years, until a new composting plant was built somewhere else.
Which would fly in the face of Christchurch City Council’s climate change and waste minimisation policies.
But should policy come...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to National's Gerry Brownlee and Labour's Poto Williams about the latest issues.
MacDonald pressed them on the current problems in Bromley with the compost plant and council's decision to move it, and also the wastewater plant that caught fire over 170 days ago and is contributing to horrific living conditions for people nearby.
They discussed the Rotorua Council Māori Ward situation, and John asked who this could impact the likes of ECan going forward with their situation, and also asked why there is such a large rate of youths involved in crime at the moment.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In the past five months, three friends of ours - all in their early 50s - have died of cancer.
One of them died just 15 months after diagnosis, leaving behind a husband and two boys. Another - whose funeral I was at last week - died five years after being told she had ovarian cancer.
The third fought her cancer for 15 years. And when I say fought, she fought the disease and she fought the system, which - as we are hearing in the news today - is letting cancer patients here in New Zealand down big time, compared to what is happening in Australia.
If she was with us today, this friend of ours would probably just shake her head and say ‘told you so’. Because, while she was someone who didn’t want to be defined by her cancer, she was someone who was prepared to stand up with, and on behalf of, other cancer patients.
She stood up time and time again, pointing out that so many lives were ending earlier than they should just because New Zealand’s drug-buying agency Pharmac doesn’t have certain cancer medications on its shopping list.
And, as we’re finding out today, there are at least 18 of them that Australia is providing for its people, which we aren’t providing here.
This friend of ours even marched on Parliament to make the point loud and clear that we could and should be doing more when it comes to the funding and delivery of cancer medications in this country.
These are medications that may not get rid of the cancer, but which may prolong someone’s life. What’s so wrong with that?
Despite living with cancer for 15 years, this friend of ours still didn’t live long enough to see the report that’s out today from the Cancer Control Agency which is saying in black and white that New Zealanders are missing out on potentially life-saving treatments.
It’s telling us that there are 18 cancer treatments publicly-funded in Australia that aren’t available here. And they’re being used to treat nine different types of cancer. If you’re in Australia you can get them. If you’re here in New Zealand, you can’t.
When you think about it, it’s appalling isn’t that women in headscarves have to travel all the way to Wellington and stand on the steps of Parliament to try and make the powers-that-be sit up and pay attention.
Even then, the powers-that-be just nod their heads, make sympathetic sounds but - when it comes down to it - they do nothing.
And these brave people, who go public with what they would probably prefer to be a private battle with cancer, go back home and just try to make the most of the life they have left.
Already today, we’ve heard the story of a man whose wife was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2018. Drugs were available to extend her life, but funding was unavailable. And so the family had to go into fundraising-mode.
She died last year. She was just 43.
He’s an academic and he’s looked into it and he’s saying there is a “medicine crisis” here in New Zealand. As he puts it: “There are a host of drugs that aren’t funded here, that are funded overseas”. And he thinks the 18 identified in this report is conservative.
But, you know, the bean counters at Pharmac know what they’re doing.
I don’t think there will be anyone reading this who doesn’t - at the very least - know of someone who has had cancer.
Most likely, it won’t just be an acquaintance. Most likely, there will be a friend of yours or someone in your family who has either had cancer, or who has cancer. You might even have had cancer - you might have it right now.
Which brings me back to this report out today, which is highlighting the fact that there are 18 cancer drugs publicly-funded in Australia, that aren’t publicly-funded here in New Zealand.
Some of these drugs help people get rid of their cancer; others just help them live a bit longer.
The Government has been making a lot of noise, hasn’t it, about wanting to restructure the health system and get rid of...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
On Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings John MacDonald asked National Party leader Christopher Luxon about David Parker's Tax Bill and his reaction.
MacDonald further asked Luxon why he and his party feel the Government is 'soft on crime.'
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
We are looking forward to the ski season big time at our place.
But, I tell you what, there is one thing about the ski season that I don’t like - and that’s driving through some of those intersections on the way to Mt Hutt.
I know it’s slightly quicker turning off State Highway 73 before you get to Darfield - but I don’t. I go all the way to Darfield and take State Highway 77 through Glentunnel and Coalgate. And I do that to try and avoid some of those awful rural intersections which are in the news today following a Coroner’s inquiry into a terrible crash that claimed the lives of a woman and two of her very young children.
Sadly, it’s a very familiar story and it’s prompted the Coroner to say that some sort of review needs to be done to try and make rural intersections safer. And I couldn’t agree more.
The case in point dates back to April 2019 when Chante Harmer ploughed through an intersection near Ashburton and collided with an oncoming ute.
The inquest into their deaths heard from the Police that the Give Way sign at the intersection could be seen clearly from 120 metres away, but they reckoned it could easily be missed because of hedging and poplar trees and irrigation culverts on both sides of the road.
The Coroner concluded that she didn’t stop at the intersection because she didn’t see the Give Way sign and wasn’t aware of the intersection and the other vehicle until it was too late.
After hearing and considering all of the evidence, the Coroner is saying that instead of a Give Way sign there should’ve been a Stop sign at the intersection. But he’s saying that wouldn’t necessarily have prevented the crash happening either.
I think this quote from Coroner Marcus Elliott paints the terrifying picture that all of us can imagine: “This crash illustrates the danger that drivers on long, straight rural roads may not identify the presence of an intersection in sufficient time to stop”.
That is chilling, isn’t it? And it’s chilling because we’ve probably all driven on those roads. And I don’t know about you, but every time I take those roads I am so mindful of the potential for other drivers just to sail through those intersections. I hate those intersections, but you’ve just got to stay alert, don’t you?
Not that I’m having a go at this poor woman for what happened. We weren’t in that car that day and so we will never know what actually happened in the lead-up to that terrible crash.
But we do know that the Coroner has looked into it and thinks we need to be taking a close look at rural intersections. And I couldn’t agree with him more.
A few years ago something was done by Selwyn police officer Dan Harker, who got behind a trial of some flashing signs at a couple of intersections after that tragic crash on one of the intersections with Thompsons Track.
You’ll remember this one. 12-year-old Abi Hone was killed, as well as Sally Rumble and her daughter Ella Summerfield, when a tourist was driving in the area, missed a stop sign and crashed into the car they were travelling in.
That was May 2014 when that crash happened. The other one we’re talking about happened five years after that. And, as far as I’m concerned, those intersections are no safer now in 2022 - which is an absolute shocker.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’ve been thinking about our MPs and whether they have any idea what life is like at the moment for so many people in this country.
I think they are way out of touch.
Let’s start with the 6.9 percent inflation rate and all the huffing and puffing we’ve had from MPs.
Now there’s a line that gets trotted out now and then which says: People don’t care what you know, until they know that you care.
Which means, if you’re an MP, you can bang on about CPI this and CPI that, inflation this and inflation, but you’re wasting your time if people hear you and just walk away thinking 'they’re a bright spark, but I don’t think they understand what that all means for me'.
People don’t care what you know, until they know that you care.
So 20 minutes after the inflation figure came out yesterday, we spoke with National’s Finance Spokesperson and Deputy Leader Nicola Willis.
I thought she was very good. She talked about the five things she thinks the Government could and should be doing to get on top of inflation.
Stop adding costs for businesses like the new unemployment insurance scheme
Grow the workforce by getting more high-skilled workers into the country so employers don’t have to pay exorbitant wages and salaries to hire and keep people
Spend less - as she pointed out, government spending has gone up by around $52 billion since 2017
Review the spending in this year’s Budget - which Grant Robertson will deliver next month. She wants him to go through the Budget line-by-line to make sure every dollar he wants to send needs to be spent
Cut income taxes so people have a bit more in their pockets
As I say, I thought she was very good and I thought she definitely sounded like a Finance Minister-in-Waiting.
But when I say that I mean that she sounded like an MP who knew what she was talking about. Which is the least we should expect from all our MPs, isn’t it? It doesn’t always happen though.
But is it enough just to say a lot of stuff and sound like you know what you’re on about? I don’t think it is - and it’s why I think our MPs are out of touch with reality.
Let’s move on to the Finance Minister, Grant Robertson.
There he was on the radio this morning talking to Tim Dower, saying that high inflation is a global problem and that New Zealand isn’t particularly special on that front. And he’s right - the US, UK, all over the place inflation is going through the roof.
Just like Nicola Willis, he was reeling off numbers at the drop of a hat - banging on about tradeables, non-tradeables, supply chain constraints,
When he was asked to comment on beneficiaries cutting back on food, he went on about “targetting low and middle income people”.
He said “it is tough” - but do you think he really knows what “tough” is? Really?
I read this morning about families here in New Zealand deciding each night which of them are going to eat and which of them aren’t. And these aren’t the so-called “no-hopers” that some people like to talk about. We’re talking about families where two people are working but they still can’t make ends meet.
That’s what 6.9 percent inflation looks like. It’s not five-point plans and supply chain constraints and all the other economic-speak politicians of all colours rattle out.
Again - people don’t care what you know, until they know that you care. And all I’ve heard from all politicians since that 6.9 percent inflation figure came out, is the “know” bit. I haven’t heard the “care” bit.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Gerry Brownlee and Tracey McLellan were asked if MPs really have a grasp of the realities New Zealanders face in today's world on the back of record CPI numbers.
They discussed the situation in the Solomon Islands and their relationship with China, and Labour MP Sarah Pallett has cancelled her involvement with a community group meeting in Christchurch around housing intensification and the Three Waters Reform.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When I walked out the door just after six this morning, it was beautiful.
Still and warm – about 17 degrees I think it was here in Christchurch.
It was beautiful – for a few seconds anyway – and then I realised our mate from Bromley had turned up again.
You know, the one who works their way inside your house – all over town it seems some days. But I suppose when all your neighbours in Bromley can’t stand you, then you will spread yourself around a bit.
Now, I’m not talking about a person here. I’m talking about “it”. The smell. The smell from the fire at the Bromley wastewater plant – the fire that happened way back in November last year.
The wastewater plant that is still sitting damaged and still hasn’t been cleaned up by the Christchurch City Council, which is still scratching its head wondering what it’s going to do to stop that awful stench that’s coming from the site and driving people living in the area nuts.
I don’t think anyone will argue that it is absolutely shameful that the people in Bromley especially – but everyone in Christchurch – still don’t have a clear idea from the Council how and when it’s going to sort this mess out.
But here’s where Bob the Builder himself – Councillor Phil Mauger – comes into the picture.
He’s a real ‘Can we fix it? Yes we can’ kind of guy, isn’t he?
And we all know he wants to be the Mayor of Christchurch and pretty much every time he comes out with one of his ideas, we know it’s probably all part of his election campaign – but I’m fine with that. Good on him.
And so today he’s in the news again because he wants to do another one of his DIY jobs to try and make life more bearable for the people living in Bromley around that wastewater plant area.
The ones who have been all over the media showing off the maggots growing in their backyards. The ones who can’t bear going outside because of the smell. The ones who are saying that when they wake up at night, they can’t get back to sleep because the smell just makes them want to be sick.
Fellow Canterbury residents – many of them paying rates to the Christchurch City Council, most of them paying taxes to the Government.
But for the past 170 days, all they’ve got – from the city council anyway – is a whole lot of lip service and not much else. Sorry, I’ll correct that. A whole lot of lip service – and nothing else.
And so, city councillor Phil Mauger is offering to do something at his own expense, using his own equipment and his own time.
Ooooh, but the big thinkers at the city council aren’t quite so sure about Phil’s idea. You know, it might not actually work.
When I read the quotes this morning from the city council’s Planning and Regulatory Services General Manager, one overarching theme kept jumping out at me: “Difficulty”.
Lord knows how many times she said “It would be difficult”. Difficult this, difficult that. We don’t think it would work. Too difficult. Too difficult.
She was talking about Phil Mauger’s idea of pouring bleach on the rotting organic material inside the wastewater plant filters – which is one of the main causes of that awful smell.
There is so much of the stuff just sitting there that if you took it out, it would fill 10 50-metre swimming pools. It’s just festering and Phil Mauger wants to turn up there with his fire hose and squirt a 50/50 mix of bleach and water to kill the stuff and stop it smelling.
He himself is saying he doesn’t know if it’d work – but he thinks the Council should at least let him have a go. And I agree with him 100 percent.
As he says: “We have got nothing to lose. It may help. If it doesn’t work, at least we have tried.”
He’s already had the hose on his fire truck tested by firefighters to check it would squirt the stuff far enough. And it does.
He’s also prepared to pay for it himself. He reckons it would cost him about $4,000. And if it only stopped...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Annual inflation has hit 6.9 per cent for the year to March 31, the largest movement since a 7.6 per cent annual increase in the year to the June 1990 quarter, StatsNZ said today.
The figure was lower than some economists had feared with forecasts of up to 7.4 per cent.
National's finance spokesperson Nicola Wills joined John MacDonald.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I don’t consider myself to have been affected at all by the MIQ system that has operated here in New Zealand for pretty much the last couple of years.
I’ve got a brother in London who possibly would have visited if MIQ wasn’t operating. But I don’t have a heartbreaking story, like many other people do, when it comes to the MIQ requirements keeping them separated from friends and families during tragic and stressful times in their lives.
And so maybe that’s why I’m not going to be jumping on the bandwagon and condemning the Government over the news that it may have kept the MIQ system running longer than it needed to. 15 weeks longer.
The Government’s getting a truckload of flak over the revelation that it was told in November last year that MIQ was no longer needed, but kept it going anyway for another three-and-a-half months.
And it’s a truckload of flak that I don’t think is justified.
In November last year, Director General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield and Director of Public Health Dr Caroline McElnay told Cabinet that they thought the risk of getting Covid from someone coming here from overseas was no greater than the risk of getting it from someone already here.
Essentially, they were telling Cabinet that MIQ had served its purpose and they didn’t think it was needed any longer.
But the Government didn’t do anything, and kept the MIQ rules in place for another 15 weeks – and it was March before any changes finally happened
What that meant, was that there were about 40,000 more MIQ stays than there might have been if the Government had acted straight away when it got the advice in November. 40,000 stays and seven online lotteries which these people had to take part in to get their spot in MIQ.
A lot of stress, a lot of heartache – which, on the face of it, was totally unnecessary.
And they are the five key words here – “on the face of it”.
On the face of it, the Government ignored the advice – and that’s why people are jumping up and down.
But there’s more to it – much more to it – and I think the Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson explained it well when he spoke with Tim Dower this morning.
He said Cabinet was told on November 15 last year by Ashley Bloomfield and Caroline McElnay that they thought MIQ wasn’t needed because of the reason I mentioned earlier – that we had just as much a chance of getting Covid from someone already here, as we did of getting it from someone coming into New Zealand from overseas.
But he also said that Bloomfield and McElnay emphasised to Cabinet that any change would have to be carefully managed and that they themselves wanted their advice peer reviewed just to double check that they were on the right track.
As Grant Robertson said this morning – Ashley Bloomfield knew full well, that once they got rid of MIQ there’d be no going back.
So, Cabinet said “yes, get the peer review” and that’s what Ashley Bloomfield did. And the advice that came back from that was that if New Zealand was going to do away with MIQ it had to think carefully about the risk of more people coming through the borders, it needed to check that its testing processes were up to scratch, it needed to be sure that vulnerable people wouldn’t be put at unnecessary risk by MIQ shutting up shop. All common sense stuff.
And so, on the back of that, the Government decided it would do away with MIQ in January – but then Omicron arrived and it was pushed out another month.
As I say, this all makes perfect sense to me. But it doesn’t seem to be making perfect sense to everybody.
And that probably will be because some people suffered terribly because of MIQ. It will also be because some people just won’t believe anything the Government says – and I don’t necessarily blame them because, as we know, this current government isn’t as transparent and open as it says it is.
The fact that this information has...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Are facemasks the new cycle helmet?
If you’re of a certain age you’ll probably remember all the noise about cycle helmets not being cool, not being needed, PC gone mad…all that stuff. That was back in 1994.
Today, most people wear cycle helmets, don't they?
The only people who don’t wear helmets – and this is a bit of a generalisation – are people who nick bikes. They don’t tend to pack a helmet before they head out on their bike-nicking missions.
But generally, everyone wears a bike helmet these days. Because we all now understand that they are a good thing and they keep us safe – well, safer than if we didn’t wear one.
And I think the same can be said of face masks and it’s going to be interesting to see if, long-term, New Zealand becomes a ‘face mask nation’.
You think back to before the pandemic hit, the people we tended to see wearing face masks were from overseas.
But now, we’re all wearing them. Largely because the Government has said we have to wear them as part of the pandemic response. The question now is, are we going to keep wearing them?
The move overnight from the red to the orange traffic light setting means some of the mask requirements have been relaxed.
Although, we still have to wear them in taxis, on planes, on the Cook Strait ferries, buses, shops, libraries, museums, local and central government agencies – but not on the dancefloor.
It’s also no longer compulsory for kids to wear masks at school, which is copping a bit of flack.
Epidemiologist Siouxsie Wiles is one of the people not happy about that. She says just like supermarkets and libraries – where masks are still required to keep people safe – schools should also be places where masks are compulsory.
I was talking to a teacher at our school last night who said they’ll be keeping the mask rule in place today for the last day of term, and then easing things back after the holidays.
The thing is, school isn’t the only place where kids hang out is it?
Our teenagers have got a mate who tested positive yesterday – weeks after most of the other people in his family had COVID.
The thinking is, he may have picked it up at a party they were all at last Saturday night. No masks at parties. So, there’s an example where wearing a mask at school didn’t stop this guy from picking it up elsewhere.
The thing for me is, I haven’t had Covid and I’m not actually in any hurry to get it. I had a really bad flu a few years back – and yes, it was the real flu; not man flu – and I really struggled with that. Especially, the really high temperatures.
So, if I can avoid Covid as much as possible, that’s what I’ll do.
And that’ll probably mean keeping the mask in the pocket and whipping it out even when I’m in places where it’s no longer compulsory.
What I’m interested in, though, is whether more of us will still be up for wearing facemasks long term?
As I said before, before the pandemic – here in New Zealand anyway – facemasks were almost seen as a little bit unusual, weren’t they?
If you saw someone in the street wearing one you sort of thought ‘oh, I wonder what’s up with them?’. I did anyway. I probably unfairly judged them as being a bit on the paranoid side of things too.
But I think now we’ve all seen the value in facemasks and I think we are going to see a long-term change in attitudes. Just like we did with cycle helmets.
Here at work, for example, the rules have just changed and we no longer have to wear masks in the office.
I’m still wearing mine. But most of the other people here aren’t. And that’s great if they don’t want to.
But what’s also great, is the acceptance that I can wear mine if I want to. I’ve had no one here say ‘oooh, what’re you still wearing that thing for? Mr Paranoid. Ashley’s best mate’. They might’ve thought it – but no one’s said it.
I’ve got two in my pocket right now. They’re...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The big news in Canterbury today is that we have asbestos leeching into our drinking water.
We’re being told the health impact is uncertain but, I tell you what, it’s enough to make me think the Government’s Three Waters reforms might not be such a bad thing after all.
I know the conspiracy theorists are already smelling a rat, and thinking that the timing of this research by the University of Otago is a bit suspicious, given the fight the Government has on its hands over Three Waters.
Just in case you’ve been living under a rock, the Three Waters reforms are all about the Government taking over control of drinking water, stormwater and wastewater from local councils.
It wants to set up new water authorities – there’d be one authority for pretty much the whole of the South Island, if it went ahead. The Government would also pay councils some money in exchange for their water infrastructure assets.
In Christchurch, for example, it’s talking about paying $120 million in exchange for $6.9 billion dollars worth of assets. Now, that’s a joke, and it’s had a lot of headlines.
But with this news today about the asbestos – plus the debacle over the city council’s handling of the Bromley wastewater plant after the fire 163 days ago – I’m looking at Three Waters through very different eyes.
The University of Otago researchers are saying that asbestos fibres are getting into the water here in Christchurch because all the old pipes made of asbestos cement are corroding.
And, while their study was done in Christchurch, they say it’ll be the same everywhere – all over New Zealand.
Now the researchers, and the head of Water New Zealand who spoke with Mike Hosking earlier this morning, are saying that there’s no immediate health risk.
That’s on the basis, by the way, that any link between asbestos fibres in drinking water and cancer (for example) can only be made if data on the amount of asbestos that’s in the drinking water is collected regularly – and that’s not happening. So that’s their basis for saying there’s no immediate health risk. I see the person in charge of drinking water at the Christchurch City Council is saying today too that there’s no immediate health concern.
What the Water New Zealand person was saying was that the risk she sees is contractors digging up the old pipes and disturbing the asbestos and getting exposed to it that way.
But now that we know about it, there is no way we can sit on our hands and do nothing about it. Something is going to have to be done and I think we’d be dreaming if we thought local councils could afford to sort it out – let alone have the people to sort it out on their own.
Christchurch couldn’t afford to dig up and replace all the old pipes. Selwyn couldn’t. Waimakariri couldn’t. The only outfit that could, is the Government.
And under the Three Waters reform, it would be the Government’s responsibility to sort out the asbestos pipes. Makes sense to me.
Just like the campaign that’s getting underway here in Christchurch to get the Government to tell the Christchurch City Council to stand aside and let it take over the clean-up of the Bromley wastewater plant.
I think we can all agree that it is absolutely shameful that, after 163 days, the people in Bromley especially – but everyone in Christchurch – don’t have a clear idea from the Council how and when it’s going to sort that mess out.
Again, under the Three Waters reforms, it’d be the Government’s job to sort it out. And, at this rate, I’d have much more confidence in the Government – or the new water authority – than I currently have in the Christchurch City Council.
Now you might be thinking that I’ve fallen for the Government’s spin on Three Waters. But I’ve been more than willing to point out some of the absurdities. Parts of it I’ve agreed with, parts of it I haven’t.
But when the scientists are now telling us that...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald was joined by National Party Leader Christopher Luxon.
John questioned the opposition leader about the situation in Christchurch with asbestos in the water, and if it would change this views on repealing Three Waters if National came into power. They also discussed National's stance on the Māori Health Authority, and the calls from various health organisations for them to reconsider.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m getting the impression that the Christchurch City Council is really struggling with its workload at the moment.
Let’s start with building inspections. You may have heard a chap by the name of Peter de Gouw talking to Mike Hosking this morning. He’s from Home Trends Builders, here in Christchurch.
He was talking about the time it’s taking to get building inspections done on residential building sites. Bear in mind too that this just won’t be new builds – it’ll be renovations as well because inspections are needed for extensions and that sort of thing too.
Peter de Gouw was saying that, in September/October last year, you could phone up the Christchurch City Council to arrange an inspection and someone would be there in about three days.
By the end of last year that had gone out to five days. At the start of this year, it was 10 days. And now it’s blown out to seven weeks.
And that’s a seven-week wait for each inspection. If you’re building a new home, there can be up to 15 inspections and you can only book them in as you go – and so this guy was telling Mike this morning that, if things don’t improve, it could take close to 100 weeks before all the inspections are done.
His estimate is that could add another $100,000 to the cost of building a house because of holding costs and material costs going through the roof.
His view is that we need to reduce the number of inspections and even let Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs) do some of the inspections themselves.
Although, let’s remember the cases post-earthquake where even LBPs signed-off work they hadn’t even laid eyes on. I know it happened because I know of a builder here in Christchurch who did that and was hauled before the Building Practitioners Board.
Nevertheless, you get the gist that the likes of Peter de Gouw and countless other builders, homeowners and other tradies must be tearing their hair out at the time it’s taking to get inspections done by the Christchurch City Council.
Seven weeks at the moment – per inspection. And if you’re building a new house – up to 15 inspections are needed. And there’s a seven-week wait for each one. It’s just hopeless.
And then there’s the issue of the time it’s taking the Christchurch City Council to issue building permits.
We heard yesterday from someone in the building sector who said the statutory requirement for a council to process and approve a building consent application is 20 days. But, at the moment, the Christchurch City Council is taking anywhere up to 70 days.
70 days to process a building consent and a seven-week wait for building inspections tells me that the Council is brassing a lot of people off at the moment. And it is simply not good enough.
I’ve got my own council story to tell too. We’re not building or anything but a few months ago council contractors dug up the road and footpath on our street to connect all the houses to the new water system.
Ever since then, we’ve had water leaking onto our property. You can’t see it above ground but we know it’s happening because we have a pump that’s connected to field drains in the backyard – and there’s water trickling into the pump 24/7 and the pump is pushing water out onto the street.
We got in touch with the council as soon as we noticed it. They said it’d be resolved by mid-March and here we are in mid-April. I called them up last week and they couldn’t tell me when they’ll be able to get around and have a look. So much for mid-March.
So, when I heard this morning about the seven-week wait for building inspections, the 70-day blowout for building consent process times and then thought about us waiting weeks and weeks for them to come and have a look at the water situation at our place, I started to get the impression that the Christchurch City Council is well and truly struggling with its workload.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Still no date on fixing damage to Bromley's wastewater treatment plant ... that's causing a stink in Christchurch.
Two trickling filters were destroyed by fire in November.
It's left the community suffering from a distinct smell, described as rotten and very unpleasant.
Mayor Lianne Dalziel told Newstalk ZB's Canterbury Morning's the council's doing all it can.
“This is a multimillion-dollar project. It will be signed off; we will have to get specialised contractors and then we will have an indication of how long it will take.”
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Here’s a question for you: are you just so sick and tired of everything at the moment that, when it comes to the election next year, you might just vote for a change of government even if, in the past, you’ve been a Labour supporter?
I ask that because I’ve been reading about the phenomena emerging around the world at the moment called “incumbency fatigue” – people are just so over the pandemic and everything that they just want to get rid of the government that’s in power, even if they’re half decent.
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced the election date over there yesterday, and he’s expected to have a battle on his hands to stay in office. Not that I’m saying he’s half-decent.
Elections are on in France at the moment for the presidency – they have several rounds of voting over there. It’s looking pretty close and current President Macron isn’t a shoo-in. And I've always thought he is half decent.
And as for back here in New Zealand – well, where do I start?
Let’s start with some numbers. On Friday, the latest Roy Morgan New Zealand political poll came out and it had National at 38 per cent – 6 per cent ahead of Labour who is on 32 per cent. This is the equal highest level of support for National since January 2020.
Support for a potential National/ACT coalition government was at 47 per cent in the poll – ahead of a potential Labour/Green coalition at 42.5 percent.
So, what does that tell us? It tells us there’s a brewing mood for some sort of change.
Of course, polls are just polls and, as we learned after Trump was elected in the United States, people don’t always say what they really mean when they take part in a poll and their actual vote can be quite different. Maybe because they change their mind at the last minute, who knows?
But I don’t think anyone would argue that Jacinda Ardern is going to have to work hard to stay in government next year – just like Scott Morrison is going to have to work hard to stay in office in Australia, and President Macron is going to have to work hard to stay in office in France.
Three very different politicians – but all facing the same threat. And some people are putting it down to the fact that people everywhere are just so sick of their current leaders – that they want a change.
I saw Scott Morrison was telling Australians yesterday when he announced the election date that voters had a choice between the devil they know and the devil they don’t know.
They weren’t exactly his words but I did think he was showing quite a bit of humility.
I think it also shows that Scott Morrison is well aware of the incumbency fatigue that is emerging around the world.
This came through too in an editorial I read at the weekend, which said that New Zealanders are fed up with everything at the moment. Which is not what a government wants to hear.
The editorial said that after two years of being told to be kind, our empathy reserves have run dry and we’re fed up and burnt out.
It quoted a psychologist who said the “be kind” thing was great at the start of the pandemic, but we’re all over it now. And so, we’re seeing people losing it in places like the supermarkets – retail staff have probably never faced as much abuse as they are at the moment.
The article quoted a 35-year-old woman who said that, after two years of being kind, she’s now anything but kind.
“It’s like I’ve used up all my kindness and don’t have anything left to give. It’s made me a really bad person, which I never used to be.”
This is where people start looking around for ways to fix things, and getting rid of the government-of-the-day is what people around the world are apparently seeing as the answer. Incumbency fatigue.
Which brings me back to the question I asked right at the start: are you just so sick and tired of everything at the moment that, when it comes to the election next year, you might...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I don’t think the Government could be more virtue-signalling if it tried.
I’m talking about its crazy idea to ban fizzy and sugary drinks from primary and intermediate schools.
It’s a proposal at this stage and Education Minister Chris Hipkins has given us 8 weeks to provide feedback.
Well here’s my feedback - “you’re too late mate, because the horse has already bolted - on several fronts”.
School principals seem to be nodding their heads and saying it’s a good idea. Some of them are pointing out, though, that it’s nothing new and their schools already only let the kids bring water to school.
The chair of the Board of Trustees at Banks Avenue School here in Christchurch is taking a different approach - he’s saying that educating kids about a healthy diet is the way to go. Not legislation.
Kirk McKay is his name. He says teachers are already being forced to be the “food police” at schools and government legislation banning sugary drinks would be taking things way too far. And I couldn’t agree with him more.
Chris Hipkins is banging on about there being “a myriad of benefits and good outcomes for learning” if school kids keep off the gut rot.
The dental association is more plain-speak and upfront about it. I saw a dentist on TV last night saying he’s pulled out thousands of rotten teeth from the mouths of kids who’ve been brought up on Coke and Fanta and all of that other stuff.
And the dentists don’t want the Government to stop at primary and intermediate schools - they want sugary drinks banned at high schools too.
But I think the point that’s missing from all of the reports that I’ve seen about this is yes, dentists are pulling rotten teeth out of kids’ mouths, but was it only when they got to age five and started going to school that they started drinking this stuff? Of course not!
We’ve all seen toddlers being pushed around in buggies sucking on sweet drinks, haven’t we? For donkey’s years, parents have been giving the wee ones stuff like Ribena, haven’t they?
So is a sudden switch to water on their fifth birthday going to make any real difference? I don’t think so - that’s why I think the Government is just virtue-signalling. It’s a pipedream.
The thing is, though, the Government knows it’s on pretty safe ground with this.
If I’d turned up at our local primary school this morning and asked the parents outside after drop-off if they thought kids should only drink water at school, I bet most would say it’d be the right thing to do.
Who wouldn’t?
But if I then asked them whether it would make one bit of difference, given the likelihood that most kids drink all this stuff well before they get to school - I don’t think they’d be quite as emphatic.
But that doesn’t matter for the Government. Because as long as it comes up with something that sounds like a good idea, something that looks like it’s doing what’s best for the kids as far as most people are concerned - then it’s on pretty safe ground.
And that, in my book, is the definition of virtue signalling. And that is exactly what the Government is doing here.
What’s more, like many things that seem to be a good idea at the time, this one has loopholes.
It’s saying that if this went ahead, only water, milk and non-dairy milk substitutes would be allowed.
I went to the fridge here at work earlier and there was a container of Sanitarium Up and Go in it. Sounds like a milk drink, doesn’t it? Yeah but look at the ingredients, and what’s in it? Sugar!
More evidence that this idea the Government has come up with is just virtue signalling of the highest order and, like many ideas dreamed up by people in Wellington with a whiteboard and markers, there are loopholes left, right and centre.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
On World Health Day, we here in New Zealand are staring down the barrel of losing the head honcho of our public health system in about eight weeks’ time.
Dr Ashley Bloomfield, the Director-General of Health, announced yesterday that he’s standing down. About a year before his current contract ends.
I see fatigue is thought to be one of the reasons behind his decision. And who’d be surprised by that? I heard Chris Hipkins saying yesterday that if he needed to talk to Bloomfield, it didn’t matter when it was - he was always available. Mornings, evenings, weekends - you name it.
Others are also saying that with the Government restructuring the health system - getting rid of all the health boards and setting up two new health authorities - he’s seen the writing on the wall and he’s getting out because his role is about to become significantly different to what he signed up for in 2018.
Newstalk ZB’s Barry Soper is even suggesting that Dr Bloomfield’s relationship with the Prime Minister could also be a factor. Writing in the NZ Herald today, Barry says they’ve had a somewhat “fractious” relationship behind the scenes.
And that wouldn’t surprise me at all - especially when you think back to the times that the Government has made a decision about something which we’ve found out later has been completely at odds with what the Director-General of Health recommended. The shift down in alert levels last year was one of them.
A little bit like Donald Trump and Dr Anthony Fauci in the United States. Although their differences weren’t just behind closed doors were they? How many times did we see Trump say or announce something and the cameras would hone in on Fauci and you could see him thinking ‘what the heck? Did that turkey really just say that?’.
The only time we got close to that here in New Zealand was when mountain biking advocate and former Health Minister David Clark threw Ashley Bloomfield under a bus in front of the TV cameras.
Remember that? Clark said Bloomfield had accepted responsibility for quarantine cock-ups at the border - and poor old Ashley looked very sad indeed. I think a whole lot more people fell in love with him at that point.
Quite rightly, Clark eventually lost the health portfolio, Bloomfield held on to his job and now, as far as we know anyway, he is bowing out on his terms. So too are a couple of his top sidekicks - also getting out apparently because they’re just worn out.
And who can criticise them for that?
The question now regarding Bloomfield is, what will his legacy be when he walks out of the Ministry of Health headquarters in July?
There is no doubt that, over the past two years, he has become the most well-known and - quite possibly - the most well-liked public servant we’ve ever had in this country.
We all know about the Ashley Bloomfield t-shirts, tea towels, coffee cups, paintings, tattoos - quite extraordinary really wasn’t it? The club rugby games that wouldn’t have even got a mention - but Ashley was in the starting line-up and all the news media was there too.
There was a point where it felt like he could do no wrong. If you want evidence, though, that we didn’t go completely ga-ga, I’ve got it. I’ve checked the Top 10 most popular baby names in 2020 and 2021 and “Ashley” does not feature.
Nevertheless, he was idolised by some. Apparently, women especially “loved” him.
But what will his legacy be?
Will he be remembered as the calm, reassuring face of New Zealand’s Covid-19 response?
Or, will he be remembered for overseeing further downgrading of our health system? Particularly the hospital system.
Remember, it was only two days ago that he admitted to Mike Hosking that the hospital system is under a lot of pressure - even without Covid.
Remember too, that one of the main reasons there was no shift in traffic light settings this week was because we have just 0.014 percent of the population in...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I thought I was seeing things last night when I saw that Defence Minister Peeni Henare wants to send anti-tank missiles to Ukraine.
This is the Government remember that gets real tough by allowing Russia’s ambassador to stay put in Wellington even though his embassy is pushing out lies and propaganda on its Facebook account. I’ve checked again today and it’s still pumping it out - banging on about fake news. It’s just unbelievable that we haven’t kicked that ambassador, isn’t it?
But this is the Government remember that, when Ukraine said “help”, sent helmets and body armour. Ooh - and don’t forget the sanctions. They’ve worked a treat so far, haven’t they?
And then, out of the blue, a member of that same Government stands up yesterday and says “I think we should send some missiles but the others don’t want to get involved’.
When I say “others”, I’m meaning the Defence Minister’s Cabinet colleagues who considered his idea and turned it down.
And so New Zealand is sticking with the helmets and body armour - and the sanctions. Don’t forget the sanctions!
Now let’s go back a couple of weeks or so to when the Government announced the helmets and the body armour and sanctions - and the National Party, at that time, supported New Zealand not getting involved in the “hot war”, as it’s called, by sending weapons and things.
Like I’ve said many times, ‘what good is a mind if you can’t change it’. And that is exactly what National’s Defence Spokesperson Gerry Brownlee has done. And he’s saying today that things have reached the point where New Zealand should be sending weapons.
And I agree with him. We have to. And, like our Defence Minister obviously thinks, if we’ve got anti-tank missiles that are going to be past their use-by date next year, then why not send them now to a place where they’re desperately needed and a place that is crying out for our help?
It beggars belief.
There’s a part of me, though, that thinks Gerry Brownlee and National might only be coming out now and saying New Zealand should be sending anti-tank missiles because the Government has considered it and decided not to.
But I’m prepared to put that suspicion aside and support National on this one. And the ACT Party too, for that matter, which has been pushing for this for a few weeks now.
How could anyone not support sending weapons after hearing the reports that have come through overnight of the atrocities happening in Ukraine?
President Zelensky has been talking to the UN Security Council via video about Russian soldiers torturing civilians and then shooting them in the back of the head, blowing them up in their apartments with grenades, and crushing them to death with tanks.
Here’s a quote from what he said overnight about the things the Russian soldiers are doing to civilians in Ukraine: “They cut off limbs, cut their throats. Women were raped and killed in front of their children. Their tongues were pulled out only because their aggressor did not hear what they wanted to hear from them”.
And he went on to say that the atrocities happening in Ukraine right now, are the worst since World War 2. The worst since World War 2.
And what are we doing about it? We’re sending helmets and body armour. ‘We thought about sending some missiles - but yeah nah, we think you’ll be sweet with the helmets and things. Ooh - and the sanctions too. Don’t forget the sanctions.’
Which is probably fine if you’re sitting in your swivel chair in a Cabinet meeting in little old New Zealand. But tell that to someone who has just buried a family member in the backyard wrapped in a piece of carpet. Tell that to a child who has just seen their mother murdered. Tell that to the people in Ukraine living in absolute terror of what might happen next.
And tell them too, that we’ve got some anti-tank missiles sitting here that’ll be no good to us after next year because they’ll be past their use-by...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How many times have you heard someone say something like ‘if there weren’t people involved, it would all work perfectly’?
We’ve probably all said it at some point, haven’t we? Because people aren’t machines or computers. You can’t programme people to think the same way or do the same things. And, generally, what we think and what we do comes down to one thing: selfishness.
We are all selfish. It is a fact. I’m selfish. You’re selfish. We’re all selfish.
And the two most selfish groups of people in society are politicians and voters. Which means pretty much most people reading this are guilty as charged. If you’re over-18 - that’s you.
I had a bit of an epiphany about this earlier this morning when I was listening to Dr Ashley Bloomfield talking with Mike Hosking.
Amid all the chat about traffic light settings - and no change coming from the Prime Minister yesterday - what really struck me was, yet again, it’s the state of our hospital system that is holding us back.
There were two figures that rammed it home for me. We have a population of around 5 million, with about 700 people in hospital with Covid or because of Covid - about 0.014 percent.
That’s it. We have 0.014 percent of the population in hospital either with or because of Covid, and our hospitals can’t cope.
But as Ashley Bloomfield pointed out, Covid isn’t the only reason our hospitals aren’t coping.
Here’s what he told Hosking.
He said: “It’s not Covid and, in particular, Omicron that’s adding to that pressure. The system is under a lot of pressure even without an Omicron outbreak.”
I bet that was music to the ears of the doctors and the nurses who’ve been banging on for years about this. “The system is under a lot of pressure”.
That’s what Ashley Bloomfield said.
And do you know why it’s under pressure? Ashley Bloomfield says it’s not just because of Covid. I’ll tell you why it’s under pressure. It’s because you’re selfish, I’m selfish, and our politicians are selfish. This is the nub of it - I don’t know why it hasn’t occurred to me sooner. But it has now.
It’s not Covid’s fault that our hospitals are struggling. It’s our fault. All of us who are either voters or politicians.
It’s our fault because we only care about ourselves and what’s in it for us. And our politicians only care about themselves and what’s in it for them.
If they weren’t selfish, they wouldn’t rabbit on about a cost of living crisis or they wouldn’t tinker with fuel taxes just to make it a bit cheaper to fill up the tank.
They just care about getting re-elected. If they weren’t selfish, they’d stand up and say 'our hospitals are a disaster, we have failed the people of New Zealand for many years by not investing in our hospital system, and we are going to do something about it. But it’s going to mean spending a truckload of money and it’s going to take a very long time to fix'.
And as for us, if we weren’t selfish, we wouldn’t be demanding tax cuts and cheaper petrol and cheaper groceries.
Instead, we’d be thinking, ‘my God, what sort of hospital system is going to be around for our kids and grandkids in 20 years’ time? We need to invest in that, we need to vote in governments that are prepared to do that. We can’t be selfish about this'.
But do you think people will ever do that? Do you think politicians will ever do that?
Well, right now. I don’t have much faith that we, as a country, are prepared to take a long time view like that when it comes to our hospital system.
And when the next pandemic rolls around - we’ll be in the same boat. And, like Dr Ashley Bloomfield says, it won’t just be because of a pandemic, it’ll be because the hospital system is permanently under pressure.
As the Director-General of Health said this morning: “we are adapting as we go”. Which means flying the plane while we’re still building it.
And that is absolutely shameful. And we are all to...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It is great to be back. We had a brilliant week in Twizel with the teenagers at the Maadi Cup rowing championships.
Cashmere High School did itself very proud – the girls winning silver in two finals (the first-time girls from Cashmere have ever won medals at the Maadi Cup).
And the boys in the Big 8s boat came 4th in the big Maadi Cup final – only the second time Cashmere has qualified for that event, beating schools with a lot more money behind them, just saying.
So, after a fantastic week, it is back to the real world today. For the kids – and the parents.
By the way, congratulations to the organisers for pulling off what they did in Twizel. After planning for having no spectators, they kicked into gear big time when the Government announced the other week that crowd limits at outdoor events were out the window.
So, pretty much at the last minute, they arranged to have a separate spectator zone up-and-running in time for the final's races on Friday and Saturday. So big ups to South Island Rowing and Rowing New Zealand for making all that happen.
But I tell you what, it did bring home to me some of the absurdities we are still dealing with when it comes to COVID-19.
I’ll give you an example. When we arrived at the gate, we had to have a mask on. Despite the fact that as soon as we got past the gate, pretty much everyone took them off. I’ll go as far as saying 99 percent of people did that. Maybe even more.
Which brought home to me the fact that the Government just has to stop tinkering at the edges with this and, when they meet today, Cabinet Ministers have to look around the table and say to each other ‘the time has come’.
The time has come to – at the very least – change the traffic light settings. And I’m not talking about shifting Auckland from red to orange and keeping the rest of the country at red, as I’ve heard talked about. Imagine how people here in Canterbury would react to that?
No, I’m talking about one of two things: shifting the whole country from red to orange, or doing away with the traffic light system completely.
I think a good first-step would be shifting the entire country from red to orange. Not just Auckland. The whole country.
Vaccine passes are voluntary from midnight tonight. Vaccine mandates are pretty much gone too – except for some areas in the public and health sectors.
Omicron seems to have peaked – although Canterbury’s the current hotspot, apparently.
The hospitality sector wants a shift from Red to Orange. Other parts of the business sector do too.
Even Professor Michael Baker from the Otago Medical School is saying he thinks the traffic light system needs to be “reinvented into something more meaningful”. They’re his words not mine.
He’s saying today that the changes to the traffic light system the Government made recently are too “murky”. Again, his words – not mine.
But I think the most sensible thing I’ve heard about all of this today has come from Leeann Watson, who runs the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce.
She’s saying businesses are more than capable of making decisions to manage the risk of Covid-19 in their workplaces.
Which indicates to me that she’d probably go for the second of the two options I mentioned earlier – doing away with the traffic light system altogether.
I think that would be too much, too soon. For a couple of reasons.
First, changing the setting from Red to Orange can pretty much be done with a stroke of the pen. A new Health Order (which is the paperwork the Director General of Health signs to make things like lockdowns happen) can be done in no time.
My second reason for shifting the traffic light setting and not doing away with the system altogether, is based on some research that came out over the weekend about vaccine mandates, which found older people are more unhappy about vaccine mandates going than younger...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, Tyler Adams spoke to Gemma McCaw following the news that St George Hospital will be closing its maternity services, many for many Canterbury women it may mean a trip to Rolleston or Rangiora to give birth.
Gemma spoke about her experiences at St George with her two babies, and just how important it is to keep access available for the welfare of mothers and their families.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
At 12 minutes past seven this morning I just wanted to put my head in my hands. Because what I was listening to was so depressing.
You may have heard it too. It was the conversation Mike Hosking was having with a bar owner in Rotorua, who was talking about homeless people living in motels.
Megan Woods was in Rotorua yesterday to do some cheerleading about a new “hub” the Government is setting up to help homeless people there.
Rhetorical question: When did we become a nation of “hubs”. These “one-stop shop” things that are full of good intentions but leave you walking out the door with not much more than you walked in with. Maybe a few pamphlets.
Someone needs a roof over their head at night, so what does the Government do? It builds a “hub”.
Politicians love setting up “hubs”. They do it all the time, all over the show. Because it means they can say they’re doing something about a problem when they’re actually not doing a damn thing.
“We’re here to help”. Come and see us at our one-stop shop. Yeah yeah…do me a favour.
Have you ever seen those people doing it tough carrying a sign saying “I need a hub”. Of course not, their signs say things like “looking for work”, “need money for food” that sort of thing.
And on the same day Megan Woods was setting up the hub in Rotorua, we heard that New Zealand is currently spending a million dollars a day on motels for emergency housing.
That’s $100 a day for the 10,000 people in this country who currently live in motels paid for by the Government for emergency housing.
And so, Mike was talking to this guy about what’s going on in Rotorua.
Here’s what he said about the scene at the motels where people are living paid for by the Government.
He said: “You see kids running around the streets late at night unattended.” And he wasn’t talking about teenagers - he said these kids are 4, 5, 6, 7.
He also said: “It’s disgusting and way beyond our imagination. And if this terrible underbelly isn’t ripped open and exposed, we’re never going to solve the problem.”
And I just pictured the scene he was talking about. I thought about 4, 5, 6, 7-year olds running around the streets at night. Cooped up living in a motel. The ones who’re at school trying to do their homework amongst all that.
I pictured what these kids are being exposed to - with the types of people that will be living in other units next door, upstairs, and downstairs.
As I said, it was depressing.
Apparently, the Prime Minister thinks having people living in motels is better than having them living in cars. Again - do me a favour.
Of course, living in a motel is better than living in a car. But that’s like telling someone who’s been diagnosed with cancer and told they have a year to live, that it’s better than being told they have six months left to live. It’s meaningless.
What wouldn’t be meaningless - is the Government coming out and saying 'this is an appalling situation we’ve got ourselves into and we can’t keep spending a million dollars a day putting homeless people in motels and expecting the problem to fix itself'.
Because it’s not going to fix itself. It’s just another example of a government playing whack-a-mole - that game where things pop up and you have to bang them down as fast as you can.
Cost of living crisis - bang. Homelessness - bang. Covid-19 - bang. Mental health crisis - bang. Whack-a-mole. Left, right and centre. Whack-a-mole. Labour, National, ACT.
And I’m exhausted by it. Because it feels to me like we are living in a permanent state of crisis and the only thing any of our political parties seem capable of is having the hammer on hand and whacking things down when they pop up. Responding, not leading.
And this appalling situation where we have 10,000 New Zealanders living in motels paid for by the Government, is just the start. If the Government - and the Opposition - are...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald was joined by Labour's Megan Woods, and National's Gerry Brownlee returned.
MacDonald discussed the latest Covid changes to mandates and vaccine passes, and also raised the issue of emergency housing which has been in the news today following Megan Woods' visit to Rotorua yesterday.
They also discussed the advertising of alcohol in sport in New Zealand, and if the time has come to do away with it. Also covered was the gender pay gap transparency, with businesses possibly soon required to publicly disclose the extent of their gender pay gaps.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It seems a lot of people are in a bit of a flurry today – trying to make sense of what the Government’s announcement yesterday – about the changes in the COVID rules – means for them.
One of the things our family has got an eye on is what the removal of limits on the number of people who can gather outdoors means for the Maadi Cup rowing champs in Twizel next week.
Our twin teenagers row for Cashmere High and they’ll be there all next week. And there’s a lot of work being done behind the scenes today to work out whether it’s even going to be possible to allow spectators at this late stage – when all the planning and organising’s been done on the assumption that no spectators will be allowed.
There’s also a lot of head-scratching in the hospitality sector which is, quite rightly, not too fussed about the fact that indoor limits are going up from 100 to 200 – but people still have to be seated and separated. Doesn’t make much sense, does it?
And then there are the genuine health concerns some people are talking about, saying the Government appears to have thrown in the towel – pretty much smack bang in the middle of the Omicron outbreak – and is doing away with a lot of the rules and telling us we’re all part of the great big melting pot of vaccinated and unvaccinated again.
This raises the question, is the Government making these changes because it’s down in the polls? Or because it genuinely believes now is the perfect time? Well, what do you think? I think it’s purely political because so much of it doesn’t make sense.
I thought Covid-19 Minister Chris Hipkins was quite revealing when he spoke to Mike this morning when he said: “The hospital system is very full. The hospitals are “relatively under strain.”
As I’ve said many times, according to the Government’s traffic light system, the red setting means action is needed to protect the health system.
So, by saying today that hospitals are very full and under strain, Chris Hipkins is making it very clear that what was announced yesterday was political – pure and simple – as so much of the Covid response has, and will probably continue to be.
Because if the hospitals are under strain, why is the Government throwing out most of the rules it brought in to protect the hospital system in the first place?
The answer to that is that the Government – like all governments and all politicians – wants to be popular. And that’s why the Government is doing what it’s doing. It’s playing politics.
Nevertheless, that doesn’t excuse the awful way some people have reacted to the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday. Which I think says a lot about where the country is at, at the moment.
I’ve got a theory as to why I think some people say such terrible things about Jacinda Ardern, and I’ll get to that.
Now don’t think for a minute that I have no idea how the pandemic – or, in particular, the way the Government has handled the response to the pandemic – has impacted people’s lives.
Yes, I’ve got a job. I haven’t lost a business. But it’s impacted me and my family in other ways. An old friend was supposed to have a 50th birthday in Auckland last year – but the Government put us in lockdown and the party was cancelled. She died a few weeks ago.
I am well aware of the impact the Government’s Covid response has had. And I’ve been the first to call them a bunch of control freaks, at times. You’ve heard me say it.
But never have you heard me say some of the terrible things that get said about the Prime Minister. And you never will – and not just Jacinda Ardern, any Prime Minister. Any person actually when it comes down to it.
But some people feel so compelled to crucify her with words, and I try on a daily basis to work out why.
Well, I think that, even though it’s 2022, a fair amount of people in this country still can’t cope with the fact that we have a young female Prime Minister....See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I remember the day after the big Christchurch earthquake in February 2011, listening to the battery-powered radio and hearing all the talk about the risk of water contamination.
That was because they reckoned at the time that about 50 percent of the city's underground water and sewerage services had been damaged. I can’t remember if that figure about the extent of the damage changed much over time - especially once they started digging up the roads to fix things - but that was what they were talking about in the early days after the quake.
And so we were boiling the water before we drank it then, weren’t we? Some of us were also busy tracking down those springs around the place which let us get our hands on some of the purest water anywhere. The water that Christchurch people are so passionate about protecting.
So, one of the first things the council in Christchurch did to deal with that risk of contamination after the quake was to put chlorine in the drinking water.
And it kept doing that until December 2011, when mayor Bob Parker (now Sir Bob Parker) announced that Christchurch’s water was “absolutely chlorine-free".
He said: "The beautiful purity of the city's water supply is back,. Regaining the quality of our water is a major step forward in the recovery."
It was early days in the recovery, wasn’t it? December 2011. But that was when the chlorination of the water stopped.
I say “stopped”, not “ended”, because fast-forward to early 2018 - which was when the Christchurch City Council decided to bring the chlorine back after it reviewed its underground wells and pumping stations and found that things weren’t as they should be.
And so, in March 2018 they, somewhat reluctantly, agreed to use chlorine to treat the water at the 56 pumping stations in Christchurch because there was an issue with the wellheads which needed to be sorted.
This, of course, came after the situation in Havelock North in 2016 when three people died and 5500 got crook because of a disease in the water supply there. That very unfortunate incident has become - and I’m not wanting to sound crass here - but it’s become the Government’s poster child for its Three Waters reforms, hasn’t it?
But, back to Christchurch, where we still have chlorine in the water in some parts of town. Despite some of our local body politicians banging on about getting rid of it.
Now all of that stuff with the chlorine started way before the Covid pandemic. And it happened at a time when, I think, people were far more willing to just go along with whatever they were told needed to be done to protect the community and our health.
It is a very different environment today, because most people are sick and tired of being told what to do.
And it’s the environment in which Christchurch City Council is having to work out how it is going to go about putting fluoride in our drinking water. So we won’t just have chlorine - we’ll have fluoride in our water too, because the Ministry of Health says we have to.
Until now, councils have decided for themselves whether to fluoridate their drinking water. And Christchurch hasn’t done it. Hasn’t thought it’s needed. In fact, Christchurch is the largest city in the country not to be fluorinated.
But late last year, the Government passed legislation which takes that control out of council hands and gives the Director-General of Health, Dr Ashley Bloomfield, the power to force councils to fluoridate their drinking water.
And that’s exactly what he’s doing - and early next month Christchurch city councillors will be told what it’s going to cost. The estimates are being done by council staff right now.
The money for fluoridation of Christchurch’s drinking water won’t be coming from the Government, by the way. The council is going to have to pay for it - although I see Mayor Lianne Dalziel is pushing back on that, saying whatever it costs, the...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I need your help today with an answer to a question that the Prime Minister seemed unable or unwilling to answer yesterday.
I suspect you may be more forthcoming than Jacinda Ardern. Well, I hope so anyway.
It’s to do with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, and his appalling ongoing invasion of Ukraine.
The Prime Minister was asked by a reporter yesterday, “Is Putin a war criminal?”
This was at the announcement by the Government that it’s sending $5 million and surplus stock of used helmets and body armour to Ukraine.
Which, just as an aside, is such a New Zealand response, isn’t it? “We can help, we’ve got these helmets and some body armour. We don’t need them anymore, Grant was just going to put them on Trade Me. But hey, you have them. They’ve been through the wash…they’re all good to go.”
So, it was following the announcement about the helmets and body armour when a reporter asked the Prime Minister this question: “Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal? Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?”. This was the Prime Minister’s response:
Quote: “It’s not for me to make a judgement - that is for our international bodies to undertake. Is what he’s doing morally wrong and reprehensible? Absolutely. Should he be held to account by the world? Yes.”
Yes, but is he a war criminal? Arrrr….talk about putting the Arrrr into Ardern.
And so this is where I need you to jump in today and answer the question that the Prime Minister was unable or unwilling to answer yesterday. “Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?”
I’ll tell you what I think. It pretty much comes down to two children I saw on the TV news last night.
After all the images we’ve seen and all the reports we’ve heard, the whole thing came crashing home to me big time last night watching a report about two children, lying in beds side-by-side in hospital, recovering from their physical injuries and facing what will probably be a lifetime of emotional injury.
One was a two-year-old boy with a belly full of shrapnel. And a 15-year-old girl who had her right leg amputated after being hit by a Russian shell last week.
The head of the hospital where these kids are being treated was so honest when he spoke to the BBC.
Here’s what he said. Quote: “I hate Russia. The girl who lost her leg was so traumatised, she wouldn’t eat or drink for days. She couldn’t mentally handle it”.
The doctor went on to say this: “Another boy - a six-year-old with shrapnel in his skull - described without tears or emotion, watching his mother burn to death in their car after it was hit."
Gut wrenching. Heartbreaking. Call it what you will. But this is the reality behind all the diplomacy, all the political walking-on-eggshells. The reality behind Joe Biden jumping on Air Force One and going to Poland to sit around another big table talking to other guys in suits.
But it’s all charades, isn’t it? It’s all very grave - and they’ve all got their serious faces on. But it’s still all very comfortable for the politicians and the diplomats. There are no 15-year-olds having legs amputated where these politicians hang out. The diplomats are nowhere near the two-year-olds full of shrapnel. It’s all just talk, talk and more talk.
And as long as we have politicians like our Prime Minister refusing to just tell it like it is, refusing to say ‘yes, actually, Putin is a war criminal. I know he hasn’t stood trial, but I don’t care…because, in my eyes, he is committing horrid crimes on an hourly basis.”
As long as we get this dribble and diplomatic niceties - what is going to stop Putin or any other nutcase like him from doing the same thing all over again, somewhere else?
If we’re going to get all tongue-tied and talk about it not being our place to make judgement - as Jacinda Ardern did yesterday - then just leave the helmets and the body armour in the cupboard…or just stick on TradeMe.
Because unless we are...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
"We are right on the border of losing control."
That’s what epidemiologist Rod Jackson has been saying ahead of Cabinet deciding what to do with vaccine passes, vaccine mandates, traffic light settings … all of that stuff.
And he wants to see all current public health measures kept in place until the current Omicron outbreak is over. He’s talking another two-to-four weeks.
So, if Rod Jackson had his way, we’d be at Red for up to another month, we’d still have to flash the vaccine passes at restaurants and other venues, and we’d still have to wear a mask pretty much anywhere and everywhere.
I think he’s pushing that one uphill. Because, as we’ve seen in the past couple of weeks, the Government – like any government that’s come before it and any government that will follow it, whatever colour it is – will pull out all the tricks if it gets a whiff that it’s going out of favour.
The problem Jacinda Ardern and her ministers have, though, is if you look at the traffic light system, you see that one of the conditions of us being at Red is a hospital system under pressure.
And I don’t think anyone could argue that the hospital system is currently under the most pressure it’s ever been since the pandemic began. Hovering around 1,000 COVID patients in hospital every day at the moment – with a lot more people in ICU than we’ve seen a lot of the time. Here in Canterbury, some of the smaller hospitals closed because they don’t have enough staff to run them – because so many are isolating either because they’ve got Omicron or they’re a household contact.
What has changed, though, since the traffic light system was brought in, is the arrival of Omicron – and the vast majority of people with Covid at the moment are isolating for seven days at home and then pretty much getting back to life as normal.
So maybe this week, we’ll see a tweaked traffic light system – because I think the original version is no longer relevant. We will find out on Wednesday. Cabinet is meeting today but not telling us anything until Wednesday. You don’t have to be in hospital to be drip-fed these days, do you?
Now, what I think is the most pressing need this week, is “clarity” from the Government and knowing what we are expected to do and how we are expected to behave from here on in.
I’ll give you an example. I heard about a school-aged child who tested positive for Covid on Friday but, over the weekend, instead of isolating – this kid’s mother had them going all over town as per normal. Playgrounds, shops, you name it.
Now is that just a case of someone being stupid, and not knowing what to do? Or someone who’s had a gutful of the whole thing and doesn’t want to be a part of the team of five million anymore?
And does it really matter? Does it really matter that this child’s mother completely ignored the requirement for her child and the rest of the family to isolate?
Most of us will probably think it does matter, because we feel it’s the right thing to do. But is it still the right thing to do?
This is what we need to hear from the Government this week.
And this is what I think the Government’s going to be grappling with.
It needs to come up with a plan that tells the people with no clue what they should be doing but, at the same time, convinces the others who have just had enough and want to get on with Covid being part of normal life, not to be complete idiots and not throw all caution to the wind.
That’s a pretty tall order. And it’s what former Health Minister Peter Dunne was talking about when he spoke on Newstalk ZB today.
He said it’s going to be interesting to see how far the Government leans towards what it thinks is the right thing to do, and what it thinks the public wants to hear.
He says it’s going to be a very difficult balancing act – and he’s not wrong there.
But “clarity” has to be one of the main things to come from the...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel about Government's pending decisions regarding mandates and vaccine passes.
He asked if Council were considering doing away with the pass requirements to visit their facilities, and also discussed cycleway funding and the recent colour scheme change to Branston Park.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The new school history curriculum unveiled by the Prime Minister yesterday has some people’s backs up and their necks burning bright red.
I’m not necessarily surprised, to be honest, but I still can’t fathom why anyone would be so scared or upset at the prospect of our kids learning more about some of the cruddy things that have happened in this country.
One stupid reaction I saw - it was very concise, but still stupid - said the new curriculum can be summed up in three words: “White Man Bad”.
As I say, concise, but stupid.
In case you haven’t heard about it, the Government yesterday released more details about the new curriculum which will be taught to every student from Year 1 to Year 10 in schools from next year.
I see the Daily Mail in Australia is saying that the Government is calling on teachers to reflect on their “white guilt”.
The ACT Party is getting all red-neck on it too and is saying the curriculum’s focus on colonisation is pushing “a number of left-wing narratives” in relation to the welfare state and partnership between the Crown and Māori.
The party says the curriculum divides history into villains and victims.
And how about this for head-in-the-sand stuff. Education Spokesperson Chris Baillie says: “The great promise of New Zealand is that everyone’s equal”.
Sorry mate. Dream on. It might be the promise. But it’s a broken promise. For so many people.
Of course, ACT and the other people scared of our kids hearing the real story of New Zealand’s history seem to be particularly upset by the curriculum’s strong focus on colonisation and the impact that has had on Māori.
Of course they are. Because they think - just like the ACT Party is saying - that New Zealand is a country where everyone is equal. That’s what ACT says in its statement about the curriculum. “Everyone is equal”.
And that there, is all the proof you need that New Zealand desperately needs the type of history curriculum the Government launched yesterday.
Because it is absolute nonsense to claim that everyone is equal in New Zealand. It’s like that Lego movie a few years back, when all the characters ran around the place singing “Everything is Awesome”.
Everything is not awesome. And in New Zealand, not everyone is equal - as the ACT Party seems to think.
And that’s because here in New Zealand - just like every other colonised country - we have a history of prejudice that began as soon as the Europeans started jumping in ships and trading muskets left, right and centre.
Now don’t think for a minute that, as a Pākehā New Zealander, I’m owning up to any sort of “white guilt” - which is a terrible term, isn't it? It’s so backhanded.
No, I’m not. But I am a supporter of history being shown and seen for what it is.
New Zealand history is so much more than the All Blacks, Sir Edmund Hillary and women getting the vote. I’m not dismissing those things - but history is also about learning from the terrible things that have happened here. And that includes some of the shameful ways Māori have been treated here.
If you have a child or a grandchild who wants to be a lawyer, they’re going to need to know about this stuff.
When they find themselves in Court wondering why Māori are so over-represented there and in prisons, they need to know the years and years of second class treatment that have led some of them there.
If you have a child or a grandchild who wants to be a doctor, they’re going to need to know about this stuff too.
So that when they find themselves treating a 45-year-old Māori patient, they’ll understand why that person’s health status is the same as a 65-year-old non-Māori.
If they don’t know - if we don’t know - then nothing’s going to change. And if you don’t want those injustices to change - then history is going to repeat itself, and it will be a much uglier read than the curriculum announced yesterday.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by Labour's Poto Williams and standing in for Gerry Brownlee this week was National's Nicola Grigg.
The panel discussed the current situation with the Russian Ambassador, and what should be done from here.
The recently released NZ History Curriculum was a talking point, along with protest-free zones and if schools should be included, and if Fletchers should be asking staff to use their own sick leave and annual leave to cover people isolating due to Covid."
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
After all the huffing and puffing about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, can you believe that Vladimir Putin’s ambassador still hasn’t been kicked out of New Zealand?
Or “expelled” as they call it in diplomatic circles.
National’s foreign affairs spokesperson Gerry Brownlee can’t believe it either. He’s particularly upset about it after the Russian Embassy in Wellington has been defending the invasion on social media and he wants the Ambassador kicked out of the country ASAP. And I’m with Gerry Brownlee a hundred percent on this one.
The social media stuff he’s talking about all happened in the past week.
Last Thursday, after that appalling missile strike on the maternity and children’s hospital in Ukraine, the Russian Embassy in Wellington went on Facebook claiming that the hospital was empty and was just being used by the Ukrainians for firing practise.
Forget about the three people who died and the 17 others who were injured – all fake news according to the Russian Embassy in Wellington.
The next day (Friday last week), the Embassy was back on Facebook accusing the United States and NATO of running biological military programmes in Ukraine. Something the US and NATO have denied. But that didn’t stop the Russian Embassy in Wellington saying it.
And I’ve had a look at its Facebook page today and it’s still at it. Peddling Putin’s propaganda.
Posting statements from Russia’s Defence and Foreign ministries that talk about Ukraine firing missiles into Russian neighbourhoods, people dying. Propaganda videos of Russian soldiers “apparently” delivering food and other aid to people in Ukraine.
It’s just nuts. And this is all coming from the Russian Embassy in Wellington.
And Gerry Brownlee, quite rightly, is saying ‘why do we still have a representative of Putin’s regime here in New Zealand spreading this propaganda on social media?’.
I’m saying: How can we possibly tolerate the representative of someone who has shown himself to be – at best – a war criminal? Why on earth aren’t we kicking his ambassador out of the country?
I see Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta is trotting out the usual weasel words. Here’s what she’s got to say about the Embassy in Wellington’s social media activity:
“While we can’t prevent another government from posting on social media, we encourage anyone who sees potentially harmful information to not spread or share it.”
Do me a favour!
Yes, Minister – you can’t control what these war freaks do on Facebook, but you can kick their representative out of the country. And why aren’t you doing it?
You can pass legislation that lets you throw sanctions at Russia – and you’ve done all that. But how can you possibly defend the fact that Putin still has one of his lackeys sitting in Wellington – and not just sitting in Wellington, but spreading vile untruths on social media.
“His excellency” – as the Embassy’s website refers to him – can do what he wants on Facebook. But let him do it in Moscow, not Wellington.
Because, in my view, by allowing the Russian Ambassador to stay in New Zealand, we are guilty of harbouring someone who is party to one of the most appalling war crimes in modern history.
The fact that this ambassador's embassy is also trying to defend the undefendable on social media, makes it all the more despicable.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to National Party member Gerry Brownlee regarding the Russian Ambassador remaining in New Zealand despite the false statements they have been posting on social media. Brownlee had some strong advice for the Government.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to Professor Michael Baker about his views on the current Omicron situation in New Zealand and how we should move forward with the border announcement today. They also discussed if the use of vaccine passes was still relevant, and the traffic light settings
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Since when did we start making health decisions based on popularity?
For example, when you’ve been to the doctor and you’ve asked them to take a look at something – have they ever said “now before I do, do you want me to tell you if I think it’s serious? Or do you want me to say it’s nothing to worry about?”.
“I want you to like me, so I’ll tell you what you want to hear.”
That’s never happened, has it?
Well, it actually kind of has.
And I can tell you exactly when it happened – it was six o’clock last Thursday night.
Because that was when the latest political poll came out and we heard that National had shot up seven percent to beat Labour 39 to 37 – and Christopher Luxon was the highest-ranking National Party leader (in terms of preferred Prime Minister) since Bill English in 2017.
What that did was put the wind up Labour big time – and set off a chain of events which have led to me sitting here today in complete surprise.
I’m talking about the news that the Government has done some sort of about-turn, a U-turn – call it what you want – on its timing for international visitors coming to New Zealand.
And, in less than a month, fully-vaccinated tourists from Australia will be allowed to come here, and visitors from other countries such as the UK will be allowed in a few weeks after that. Three months earlier than what the Government was talking about before six o’clock last Thursday night.
And, in my view, it’s all being done because Labour is beside itself. Because it thinks it’s losing the popularity contest. And we are seeing the Government making decisions just to make itself more popular.
And so instead of having to wait until July, visitors will be able to come here three months earlier than originally planned.
Naturally, the tourism sector is delighted and I’m delighted for the tourism sector too.
But do you really believe this would be happening if Labour was still riding high in the polls? I don’t believe it for a minute.
It is very clearly a health decision driven by a desire to be popular.
Doctors don’t do it – but governments do.
Do you think this would be happening if National wasn’t banging on about the cost of living? Of course not. This decision is purely political – and nothing else.
I’ve been concerned for some time about politics having too much sway over New Zealand’s pandemic response.
Because if there’s one thing politicians hate to do, is admit they’ve got something wrong. They can’t do it. They get themselves into all sorts of knots – with a truckload of people behind the scenes – trying to make themselves look as good as possible.
They call it “optics”. Will this look good? Will people like it? Will they think I’ve gone weak if I change my mind? Will they still like me?
And when they get a whiff that they might be losing friends fast, they move heaven and earth to make themselves more popular.
And that is exactly what the Government is doing here, by opening the borders to tourists three months earlier than planned.
We’ve never had so many people in hospital with Covid. We’ve never had so many people stuck at home with Covid. Our hospital system is under immense pressure – one of the key factors for us being in the red traffic light setting.
So why are we opening the borders so soon?
We’re doing it because the Government is terrified. It’s not terrified of Covid. It’s terrified of people not thinking it's the bee's knees anymore.
It’s terrified that it won’t survive the next election.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
So, the Government has finally come to the party, but has it put enough on the table?
Eight days ago, National Party leader Christopher Luxon said we were dealing with a cost of living crisis and thought the Government should help us all out by cutting taxes and changing tax thresholds so we have more money in our pockets.
As we know, the Government thought long and hard about that. Or, should I say, longggggggggg and hard.
And just over a week later, fronted up yesterday and announced that fuel taxes would be cut by 25 cents a litre for three months.
According to Megan Woods this morning, three months is not hard and fast and maybe that’ll be extended. But, for now anyway, we’re going to be paying less tax on petrol until mid-June.
Now if this was an NCEA assignment, I’d give the Government an “achieved” grading. Remember there are four possible grades in NCEA - not achieved, achieved, merit and excellence.
I’d give it “achieved” because at least it’s something. But I think more could be done still to bring down the cost of living in New Zealand.
It looks like the Opposition parties aren’t as generous as me and they’re giving the Government a “fail” grade for its petrol tax reduction. Or “not achieved” in NCEA language.
National leader Christopher Luxon is saying that cutting petrol taxes will provide some relief but it won’t address the wider cost of living crisis.
And I think he’s spot on, for several reasons.
First, an obvious stumbling block in all of this is going to be the lack of control or authority the Government has over producers, manufacturers, service providers and retailers, and whether they actually pass on savings from cheaper fuel to their customers.
Because this is not just about what you and I pay at the pump, is it? It’s about the impact cheaper fuel could have on the cost of all the things that need to be transported before we end up buying them.
Food products, sheep and cattle going to the meatworks, building supplies - all of that stuff.
And the problem with that, is that Megan Woods - as Energy and Resources Minister - can wave the stick at the petrol companies if they don’t pass on the savings, but that’s about it.
As far as I’m aware, no other industry or sector can be told what to charge for their products and services. And so if transport companies, for example, don’t pass on the fuel savings to their customers, then we just have to like it or lump it.
The other stumbling block is that reduced fuel taxes benefit people differently.
If you drive 50 minutes to get to work, you’ll do better out of this than someone who drives 10 minutes to work. Or if you ride a bike or walk.
And that’s why Christopher Luxon is saying to the Government today ‘not really good enough’. ‘What are you going to do about food prices? What are you doing about rent prices?’.
Here’s a quote. He’s saying: “People deserve a break”. What he’s actually saying, is people deserve a tax break.
And I agree with him. And yes, I have changed my tune since last Monday when I said I didn’t think personal tax changes were the answer.
But there is good reason. If it takes more than a week for the Government to come up with a temporary reduction in petrol tax - which is obviously straightforward and can be done overnight. Then don’t hold your breath for anything like a GST change. In fact, the Finance Minister has already put that in the too-hard-basket.
Another reason why I now think tax cuts would really help, is that it’s a move that the Government - and the Government alone - has control over.
As I said before, we don’t know yet whether less petrol tax for three months is going to mean cheaper supermarket bills. I’m picking that it won’t. I’m picking that the cheese will still be north of $10 a kilo - especially with international milk prices going through the roof. I’m not expecting broccoli and...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Sometimes I think the Prime Minister runs her Cabinet like those cowboys who set themselves up as building companies after the Christchurch earthquakes.
I remember one of them started work on a house and the first thing they did was fix up the damaged wall linings before jacking up the piles and fixing the foundations.
The idea behind that was to keep all the workers busy. The fact that fixing split gib wasn’t a priority and definitely not the thing to be doing before trying to get the house level didn’t matter – it was all about keeping people busy.
And time and time again, that’s how the Prime Minister appears to be running things.
There are many examples. Getting rid of health boards and restructuring the health system during a pandemic. Not a priority.
Seizing all the water infrastructure assets from 67 local councils because one of them stuffed things up a few years ago. Not a priority.
Merging two public media companies when both seem to be running ok. Not a priority.
The latest one came yesterday when the Government announced it wants to set-up a buy-back scheme for empty bottles.
When I first heard about it, I thought, ‘nice idea’, and it reminded me of when I was a kid.
But the more I thought about it, the more I realised that it just seemed to be another one of those things the Prime Minister does to keep Cabinet Ministers busy. Just like someone running a crew of tradies.
I mean, after a week of the Government being goaded by anyone and everyone to admit there is a “cost-of-living crisis” – which National has been talking about at length since Christopher Luxon’s State of the Nation speech – is a bottle buy-back scheme really what the country needs to hear about from the Government?
I’m happy for you to correct me, but I suspect it’s the last thing people are interested in hearing. And that’s why I think the Government has shown yet again that its priorities are way out of touch with reality.
Don’t think for a minute that I’m anti recycling. I’m not. And, as I say, when I first heard about this scheme, I thought it was a good thing. Because anything that means fewer recyclables going into landfills has to be good.
But is it a priority for the Government? Is it really a priority? I don’t think it is.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by Labour's Megan Woods and National's Gerry Brownlee.
MacDonald pressed the question as to whether there was a cost of living crisis in New Zealand, if our sanctions against Russia were enough of a statement to Putin and if there is a plan for our Omicron response given what is happening in Victoria at the moment with a new strain on the rise.
He also sought their reaction to last night's One News Kantar political poll results.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I was reading something in the news this morning and I realised it was another one of those stories that don’t explicitly say it, but they imply that I should be outraged.
It was a piece online about the AJ Hackett company - the outfit that began here in New Zealand with a bungy jump in Queenstown and has since gone global with operations all over the show.
One of the countries it operates in is Russia, and the gist of the story I saw this morning is that the company intends to keep operating there.
The headline said: “AJ Hackett International plans to keep operations in Russia”. But what it was actually saying was: “AJ Hackett International not pulling out of Russia”. See what I mean?
Now since Vladimir Putin began his appalling invasion of Ukraine - and it is appalling - we’ve seen company after company falling over themselves to show solidarity with Ukraine. And to do that, they’ve been shutting the doors on their operations in Russia.
New Zealand company Mainfreight did it this week. Joining the likes of Coca-Cola, Apple, Netflix, Shell, Visa, Mastercard, KPMG…one list I saw had 124 companies on it. All the big names. All pulling out of Russia.
Mainfreight didn’t get a mention on this list, by the way - not that I was expecting to see it.
But back to the story I saw this morning about AJ Hackett Bungy, saying it had no plans to pull out of Russia, which got me thinking whether shutting up shop in Russia is just becoming the “done thing”, as opposed to being the “right thing”.
I think companies are doing it largely because it’s become the “done thing”. But is it the right thing?
The reason I say that is because how many of these companies have thought about the impact their decisions are having on the citizens of Russia? The people who work for them and who depend on them for a living.
All of these people had nothing to do with the decision to invade Ukraine. Some of them will be supporting it, some of them will be opposed to it.
But they’re not the villain here. But they’re the ones who stand to lose the most from these companies pulling out.
And so that’s why I wasn’t appalled when I read that AJ Hackett plans to keep operating in Russia. Because, without wanting to sound too cynical, I think some of these outfits pulling out are doing it to protect their brand as much as anything.
That’s how things work these days. Brands, companies, businesses - whatever you want to call them - are terrified of being associated with anything that could harm their reputations.
And so you can see why they’re pulling out of Russia in their droves.
That’s brand association. Just like sponsors pulling out of TV shows or radio shows if things get a bit controversial. Brand association. You don’t want to be associated with negative stuff, just the positive stuff.
It has become just as important - if not more important - than brand awareness.
And that’s why we need to ask: Are these companies pulling out of Russia doing it because they don’t see much of a market in Russia anymore?
Or are they doing it because, down the track, they don’t want to be labelled ‘the outfit that stuck with Putin.’
Well, with 150-odd million people in Russia, there’s still a market there. So that’s not the reason.
The reason they’re doing it, is that they don’t want to be seen to be supporting Putin by sticking around. They’re doing it for themselves. They’re certainly not doing it for the Russian people.
This headline in the New York Times puts it brilliantly. “Putin’s getting sanctioned but Russia’s getting cancelled”.
Another way of putting it is Putin’s getting punished, but the Russian people are paying the penalty.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Prime Minister either has her head in the sand, or she is completely out of touch with what life is like for most New Zealanders.
I’m not giving her the benefit of the doubt. I think her head is well and truly in the sand.
And I’m starting to get really brassed off about it. This ongoing state of denial when it comes to the cost of living in this country.
National Party leader Christopher Luxon called it the “cost-of-living crisis” in his state of the nation speech the other day – and it’s what you and I are living with on a daily basis, aren’t we?
And when I saw that the Prime Minister still can’t bring herself to acknowledge it and say “yes, we are in a crisis situation”, that a lot of New Zealanders are really struggling at the moment, I was dismayed.
You would think, wouldn’t you, that the leader of the Labour Party – of all people – wouldn’t shy away from the fact that more and more people are moving onto struggle street here in New Zealand.
Petrol either side of $3 a litre (depending where you are and where you get your petrol), grocery bills through the roof, food banks unable to keep-up with demand.
But maybe it’s all ideology and no idea with the Labour Party these days. Because that’s the impression I’m getting from the Prime Minister at the moment.
And, I tell you what, she needs to get her head out of the sand quick smart because – at a time like this – the last thing we need is a government playing politics which, most of the time, is all about denying the bad stuff and rabbiting on about the positive stuff.
It’s not like we haven’t seen it before, though. Let me take you back to 2016, when John Key was Prime Minister.
Back then, Key – and everyone else in the National-led government – were falling over themselves to avoid admitting there was any sort of housing crisis. Remember that?
I remember Key denying it. I remember Bill English denying it. I remember Steven Joyce denying it. I remember all of them denying it – for years.
The closest that National-led government ever came to admitting there was a crisis, was saying that housing affordability was a “challenge”.
And, at the time, Labour ripped into them for being in la-la land and not admitting that housing affordability and supply was a major, major problem.
Which is all a bit rich now, isn’t it, with this Labour government doing exactly what it criticised National for doing back in 2016.
Six years ago, John Key was saying housing affordability was “a challenge” and refusing to say there was a housing crisis.
Today, Jacinda Ardern is saying she’s “hugely concerned” about petrol prices but refusing to acknowledge the existence of a cost-of-living crisis.
Well, it’s not just fuel prices that are hugely concerning. The price of cheese is hugely concerning. The price of cauliflower is hugely concerning. The price of electricity is hugely concerning. The price of renting is hugely concerning.
The Prime Minister cannot continue to pretend that this doesn't add up to a cost-of-living crisis.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m going to start with a disclaimer.
Because you know when someone rings me up and says something and I ask them how they know that or what proof they have? Well, on this one, I have no technical proof.
Nevertheless, I reckon it’s pretty safe to say that most people isolating at home at the moment don’t have Covid.
And they’re only isolating because someone they live with has it.
So, they’re stuck at home for 10 days, some of them probably driving each other mad, for no good reason other than they “might” catch something. Which is ludicrous, isn’t it?
And I hope that sometime this week, the Government comes to its senses and also realises that it’s ludicrous and makes some significant changes.
Apparently, it’s considering advice from experts on this. My advice would be cut the isolation period for household contacts in half – make it five days.
That’s what they’re now doing in England. They made the change late last month.
In fact, over there they’ve gone the whole hog and there is no legal requirement for people to self-isolate – whether they’ve got Covid or just a household contact.
But they are encouraging people with Covid and household contacts to self-isolate for five days. And only stay at home longer than that, if they test positive.
Now with the current Omicron outbreak here, I don’t think we’re ready to ditch self-isolation outright – particularly for people who have it.
But I do think requiring people to isolate for 10 days just because they live with someone who has Covid, well it’s just stupid.
When you think about it, it’s actually the complete opposite of a lockdown. Last year and the year before, we were all locked down to keep us separated from people with Covid.
Now, we’re being told to lock ourselves up for 10 days with someone who has Covid.
Unless, of course, you’re a healthcare worker, because the Government has just announced that even if you’ve got Covid, you can still go to work after six days.
Which has politics written all over it, doesn’t it? Because hospitals struggling to cope because too many staff are stuck at home, is the last thing the Government wants to be trying to defend, isn’t it?
So that’s why it’s now saying that healthcare workers are off the hook in terms of isolating for 10 days.
Well, if it’s good enough for nurses, why isn’t it good enough for everyone else?
I bet if we had Chris Hipkins on the show this morning and we asked him about this, he’d rabbit on about calculated risk and the different environment we’re living in now that it’s the Omicron variant we’re dealing with.
And I’d ask him, “well why can’t we make the same rules for everyone else?”
And he’d say: "ummmm, arrghhhh, ummmm..."
It makes no sense to be locking people up for 10 days. Especially when they don’t have Covid.
The disruption it is causing is significant and unnecessary. Schools are struggling – because it’s not just the kids isolating, it’s the teachers too.
Businesses are struggling. I went past a place yesterday that had a sign up saying it was closed because too many staff were in isolation.
And I bet most of them are isolating for 10 days not because they have Covid, but because they live with someone who has it.
It’s absolute nuts, and that’s why I think it can’t go on. If people are going to be expected to isolate because someone in the house has Covid, then make it sensible, and cut it down to five days.
Ten days is way too long.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you go to the supermarket today, don’t waste your time asking to see the manager or the owner.
Because they’ll be tucked away in the office upstairs, poring through the Commerce Commission’s final report on the way supermarkets are run here in New Zealand.
After more than a year of working on it, the Commission has just released its recommendations on how supermarkets could be made to be more competitive so that we pay less for our groceries.
They are just recommendations, and it will be up to the Government to decide whether it wants to implement any of them.
Some of the things the Commerce Commission has looked into include:
- The level of competition between supermarkets.
- What supermarkets charge and how they set their prices.
- Which supermarkets do we buy our groceries from and who supplies those supermarkets?
- How supermarkets deal with their suppliers (the outfits that make the products, the farmers etc).
- The level of competition between suppliers.
- The levels of service, product ranges and the quality of groceries.
The review itself is something Labour promised before the last election. It also promised a review of fuel prices. Don’t laugh.
When Jacinda Ardern made the pre-election promise to look into the way supermarkets operate, she said: “We want to ensure the cost of living in New Zealand is fair”.
Yesterday, she pushed back on National Party leader Christopher Luxon’s claim that we have a “cost of living crisis” here in New Zealand.
So, I’m not sure what that says about the Prime Minister’s appetite for taking on some or any of the Commerce Commission’s final recommendations.
They follow draft recommendations the Commission put out in July last year. Back then, it said the main problem was the lack of competition – with just two companies having control over the market: Foodstuffs (which owns Pak n Save, New World and Four Square) and Woolworths New Zealand (which owns Countdown).
It said these two companies avoid competing with each other in price and seem to be making a lot more profits than supermarket companies around the world.
My reading of that, at the time, was that the Commerce Commission thought the supermarket chains were working with each other so they could get away with charging customers as much as possible.
And it appears that that is still the view of the Commerce Commission.
It’s saying again today that competition isn’t working for consumers and has proposed a number of changes to increase competition which, it thinks, will end up with us paying less at the supermarket check-out.
Remember, they're only recommendations – it’s going to be up to the Government whether it does anything.
The Commerce Commission wants more competition – real competition. It says more land should be made available for other supermarket operators to set up shop. So, it’s telling the supermarkets they’re not to hold on to land just so a competitor can’t set up across the road.
It says we need a mandatory code of conduct for supermarkets, to make sure they’re fair and reasonable when they deal with suppliers. In layperson’s terms, the Commission's telling supermarkets to stop bullying suppliers to drop their prices and not sign contracts with other retailers.
It also thinks supermarkets need to be more upfront with their pricing and promotional activities, and easy-to-understand loyalty programs.
So, if implemented, will these recommendations make any difference?
I think more supermarket companies operating here would definitely make a difference. I also think a code of conduct to try and stop the supermarket companies from being bullying their suppliers is a must-have.
Or will this just be like the Government's fuel price review, and will we still be paying through the nose at the supermarket check-out in a year’s time?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National Party leader Christopher Luxon says we have a cost-of-living crisis on our hands
I’ll bet 95 percent of us didn’t need his State of the Nation speech yesterday to tell us that. Of course, we do!
When you’re standing at the supermarket humming and harring over whether you should buy mince or not – because it’s close to $10 a tray – you know you’ve got a cost-of-living crisis.
The same when you’re looking at paying $7 for a cauliflower. Or somewhere around $3 a litre for petrol. Cost-of-living crisis.
And, if we can, we just have to suck it up, don’t we? Well, Christopher Luxon thinks the answer is to have us all pay less tax.
He says inflation is at a 30-year high as costs for necessities such as food, petrol and housing all increase. He says “the average Kiwi family” – whatever that is – is worse off than they were 12 months ago.
He thinks the current Labour government needs to do something about it, by reducing taxes. And if it doesn’t, National will – if it becomes the government at next year’s election.
Now, I don’t think tax cuts are the answer. Simply for the reason that I think the consequences far outweigh the benefits.
Here’s what I mean. If you earn say $70,000 a year, you’d pay about $1,000 less tax a year if Christopher Luxon got his way. So, you’d have about $20 more in your pocket each week.
What’s that? A block of cheese and a cauliflower? It’s peanuts, really. And when you compare that to the government’s reduced tax take, its reduced revenue, I don’t think it’s worth it.
At a time when so many of us are banging on about the failure to invest properly in our health system – particularly hospitals and the people needed to run them – why would you want to reduce the amount of money the Government has available to it?
You wouldn’t. And if you did, would an extra block of cheese and a cauliflower really make the trade worthwhile? No way.
And that’s why I think National’s talk about tax cuts is not only predictable, but also way too simplistic.
Of course, Finance Minister Grant Robertson has been quick to poo-poo the idea. He says Luxon is still in the same "fiscal Bermuda Triangle” that National has been in for a while.
But he’s also going on about higher-wage jobs being the answer. Well, of course, that would be an answer – but I’ve always found that talk about a high-wage economy from politicians a bit pie-in-the-sky, because 97 percent of all businesses in New Zealand are small-to-medium size.
So, politicians have next to zero influence over what those small outfits can afford to pay their staff.
And that’s why tax cuts are probably seen as the next best thing, when it comes to putting more money in peoples’ pockets.
I heard a couple of finance people talking about this. One was a tax expert. The other was an economist. And, to be honest with you, my eyes glazed over a bit.
Because, just like Christopher Luxon’s speech yesterday, when these experts talk about the cost of living – it always feels about 10-times removed from what it’s really all about.
Even when you hear the inflation rate is 5.9 percent – a 30 year high. It’s just another number, isn’t it.
Where it really hits home, is when you’re pushing the trolley around the supermarket wondering why everything seems so expensive. Asking yourself why mince is $10 a pop when it was always the go-to cheap option. When the letter from the power company comes in the mail saying the prices are going up. And when your local councillors sit around the table hiking up your rates bill.
That’s the reality behind the numbers, the experts and the politicians.
A cost-of-living crisis means asking yourself ‘am I going forward, treading water or going backwards?’
And realising that, while you’d like to think you’re at least treading water – you’re probably actually going backwards.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel about the current delay with consents from the Council, and what they are doing to try and fix the problem.
They also discussed the protesters in Cranmer Square, and John asked the Mayor how she saw any resolution coming to end the protest.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It was really interesting listening this morning to the lawyer who has written to the Prime Minister asking her to scrap the vaccine passes by today. And, if she doesn’t, he’s going to go to the High Court to try and make it happen. Matthew Hague is his name.
He’s the lawyer who went to court challenging the legality of the vaccine mandates for Defence and Police.
A week ago, the judge who heard the case ruled in his favour. So he’s on a bit of a roll and, today, it’s the vaccine pass that’s in his sights.
And I tell you what, if he does end up going to court over this - and I’m picking that’s what will happen - and if I was the judge considering the case, then based on what I heard this morning, I’d rule in his favour. I’d support his case for doing away with the vaccine passes.
I know a radio interview is nowhere near as detailed as a legal submission, but the gist of his argument is that the purpose of the vaccine pass system is to prevent the spread and transmission of Covid.
But, the vaccine itself has been found to be less effective against the transmission of Omicron. It still reduces the severity of symptoms, but it doesn’t stop you getting it.
So he’s saying that if the vaccine doesn’t stop you getting Omicron, then there is no need or justification for the vaccine pass - which only exists to try and stop the spread and transmission of Covid.
And he’s bang on there, isn’t he? Not to mention the fact that most of us who are eligible to be vaccinated, are vaccinated.
Another thing, which he didn’t mention when he was on with Mike Hosking this morning, is the truckloads of vaccinated people - myself included - who are more than happy to go to places like the shopping malls (Riccarton, Northlands, Hornby, Eastgate…you name them); we’re more than happy to go there even though it means being in the same place as unvaccinated people.
So if we’re happy to go to the mall without a vaccine pass to get in, that means we’re happy to go anywhere without a vaccine pass, doesn’t it?
You may have heard me say the other day that I’d been into a real estate office to pick up a key for someone, and when I walked in they wanted to see my vaccine pass. It took me by surprise to be honest and I just put it down to being another case of people interpreting the rules in their own way.
Because it’s become a sea of inconsistency out there with the vaccine passes, hasn’t it?
So if I take the legal argument that vaccine passes only exist to prevent the spread of Covid, but the vaccine itself doesn’t stop us getting Omicron, then I’m convinced and I think the vaccine pass has done its thing and it’s time to move on.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Yesterday it was Wellington. Today, it has to be Cranmer Square, in Christchurch.
Because just as the police were mopping things up outside Parliament last night, we had the spokesperson for the anti-mandate occupation at Cranmer Square saying some of the Wellington crew are going to be heading down here now.
“I think we are going to be bigger than Wellington”, is what Ashleigh Thian said to a reporter last night. Which, by the way, is possibly a whole lot of hot air - but whether some of the loons involved in that appalling occupation of Parliament’s Grounds are heading here or not, what happened yesterday is full justification for the police going down to Cranmer Square and shutting that thing down too.
Can I take you back a couple of weeks, to when Police Commissioner Andrew Coster was interviewed on TVNZ’s Q&A programme.
At that point, he was saying that if police wanted to shut down the occupation at Parliament, it would require a level of force that would be confronting and unacceptable to most New Zealanders.
He talked about “Policing by Consent”. Which means the police force working with the consent of the communities it serves - and balancing law enforcement with keeping the peace.
He said he thought two of the low points in New Zealand’s policing history were the Springbok Tour protests and the Bastion Point protest - and he didn’t think New Zealanders wanted to see the police go back to that style of law enforcement.
He said the way the police dealt with the Springbok Tour protests, for example, led to a long-term loss of trust and confidence in the police. And he said the same thing could happen if the police used force to shut down the Wellington occupation.
Well, as far as I’m concerned, what happened yesterday in Wellington had the opposite effect.
Seeing that sea of police officers stamping their authority - as they should’ve done when this whole thing started - actually enhanced my trust and confidence in the police. And seeing what some of those despicable people were doing: did you see that video of a car being reversed at speed towards a line of officers? And throwing rocks and stuff. It was just appalling.
I know some people yesterday were comparing it to 1981, but I see it completely differently. In 1981, the cops were at every protest, trying to shut them down from the start. With truncheons.
The occupiers at Parliament were tolerated for three weeks - an absurd amount of time. And they got away with a lot more than any Springbok Tour protester got away with.
So don’t give me this “dark day for New Zealand” talk that I heard a few people banging on about yesterday.
It wasn’t a dark day. It was a day of hope. It was a day that gave me a little bit more confidence that doing the right thing and following the rules is still worth it, is still recognised and that we do still have a Police “force”.
But it can’t stop in Wellington.
The Cranmer Square occupation needs to be shut down because, just like in Wellington, these occupiers are breaking the rules that most of us abide by, they are causing a huge amount of stress for the people living in the area, and now, they’re openly encouraging other people to come to Christchurch and join in.
“I think we are going to be bigger than Wellington now.” That’s what the Cranmer Square spokesperson said last night.
So, before there is even a chance of that happening, the police need to show that they’ve learnt from Wellington, and they need to move in and kick these people out.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I really hope we’re going to see more than just a whole lot of huffing and puffing from the Police in Wellington today.
As we’ve heard, hundreds of cops have turned up at Parliament. They say significant numbers have been brought in from around the country.
The official word is that they’re there for “a pre-planned operation to restore access within the protest area on Parliament grounds."
Which, to me, sounds like police speak for “it’s time for these turkeys to go and we are here to kick them out”.
Well, I hope that’s what it means. But I’ve still got the Police Commissioner’s words from more than two weeks ago in my head when he talked tough and said they were going to start towing the cars blocking the roads – but nothing happened because they couldn’t find enough tow truck drivers wanting to do it.
That’s the huffing and puffing I’m talking about.
But from what I’ve seen, it appears the Police might mean business today.
And the more I’ve watched the livestream coverage from up there this morning, and seen how some of these protesters are conducting themselves, I say it is well and truly time for the police to let it rip.
According to one livestream from the grounds of the protest, some protesters are calling for children to be taken to the front of Parliament House to act as a buffer between them and the police.
Reports are also coming through that some of them are carrying homemade plywood shields and pitchforks. There’s also been a laser pointed at the police helicopter that’s flying over Parliament grounds.
All of this shows that many of these people are just despicable. And that’s why I think the time for talk is over, and the Police must move in today and clear that lot out.
Previously when we’ve talked about this fiasco, some people have said ‘what about the kids?’. And they’ve asked me how I’d feel if the police did go in and children got caught up in it.
And, if there’s anything that’s made me think twice, it’s the fact that there are children there.
Well, here’s where I stand on that point today. The police have been saying for days, if not weeks, that it’s not a safe environment for children and their parents should take them home.
The Police have also been telling protesters today through loudspeakers that they should leave – otherwise, they’ll be arrested.
So, no one can tell me that anyone there with children, who hears all this from the police and still decides to stay, can blame anyone but themselves if the cops move in and their kids do get caught up in it all.
The parents are responsible for these kids. Not the Police. And I think we need to stop falling over ourselves worrying about the ‘what-ifs’, and this occupation needs to be shut-down ASAP. It must happen today.
And if children are caught up in it, I will be appalled just as much as the next person. But I won’t be blaming the Police – I’ll be blaming the parents of these kids who have kept them there, despite the repeated advice from the Police to take them home. And despite the fact that they’ve been told today that if they don’t leave, they’ll be arrested.
That’s why I don’t see the presence of children being a reason for the Police not to move in today.
It’s not the Police who have turned up today with weapons. It’s the occupiers. The Police aren’t carrying pitchforks. It’s the occupiers.
As someone on Facebook put it so beautifully in a message this morning to the occupiers: “Turn your television on, listen to the radio, and be ashamed of your bemoaning of your good fortune at living here and not in Ukraine.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
How are you feeling about mixing with other people at the moment?
From midnight Friday, we are going to wind the clock back two years, and any New Zealander who wants to come home can walk off the plane, jump in a car, a bus, a taxi or an Uber, and not worry about MIQ or isolation of any sort. They’ll just need to do a RAT test when they arrive and five or six days after they get here.
For kiwis coming here, it’s going to be just like it was before the pandemic. A big change.
As for tourists, that’s still a work-in-progress. Tourism Minister Stuart Nash was very upbeat on Newstalk ZB this morning, saying tourists will be free to come here much sooner than we might have been expecting.
We just have to get over the worst of Omicron, and then the Government will be in a position to make a decision.
But, for New Zealanders, the border will be fully open for business come midnight this Friday.
And there is no doubt in my mind that the Government has done the right thing here. No longer can we put up a watertight defence against something like Omicron, which is showing that it can't be completely shut out.
If you’re like me, you’ve probably been somewhat surprised at the rate Omicron seems to be taking off here in New Zealand. It’s not quite the rate that the modellers were talking about a while ago – well, not yet anyway – but it is spreading.
Nevertheless, come midnight Friday, I will not be feeling any less secure than I do today – because, personally, I’ve reached the point where after two years I’m ready for us all to be living with this COVID thing.
And that’s why I am more than comfortable with the Government’s decision to open the border to New Zealanders from all over the world, from midnight this Friday.
I’m comfortable with it because I am ready to have more people in the country. I am more than comfortable mixing with other people. Do you feel the same – or not?
The other consequence of the border re-opening for New Zealanders is that we can now think about overseas travel without MIQ and isolation of any sort being part of the equation.
How different is that going to be from how we’ve lived over the past two years?
Right now, I couldn’t afford to take a big trip overseas. There are teenage mouths to feed and all the other costs that go with raising a family.
But, as of midnight Friday, international travel is going to be back on the cards for us New Zealanders on this side of the border too.
I know some people have still been travelling even with the restrictions that have been in place. I remember hearing from someone last year who’d been travelling around the States and Europe and called us from inside MIQ.
That’s all changing now. And, if I could afford to travel overseas right now, I would. Because, as per my feeling about people coming into New Zealand from overseas – and my comfort with that – I’m ready to mix with people in other countries as well.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It’s two years today since Covid-19 was first detected in New Zealand. If only we knew then, what we know now.
For example, I had no idea then that – in a couple of years – I’d be standing in my kitchen on a Sunday night shoving a swab up my nose.
But that’s what happened last night. I did my first Rapid Antigen Test. It’s a bit of a fiddly process but I’m sure I’ll get better with practice.
Last week, the Government announced it was finally going to allow retailers to sell RAT tests – you may have heard Chris Quin from Foodstuffs North Island talking to Mike Hosking about it this morning. He’s hoping to have them on the shelves by next week.
They’re going to be selling them at cost price. But it still means customers are going to be paying about $32 for a pack of five. So, $6.60 per test.
Now I consider myself very lucky to be getting these provided by work, because so many people are going to pay for their own. In fact, most people if they want them, are going to have to buy their own.
And I think that’s going to be a real stumbling block in terms of getting a clear picture of just how much Omicron is out there over the next wee while.
I’m picking that a lot of people, if they don’t get RAT tests free from work, just won’t bother getting them. Because, let’s face it, most people are finding it tough enough to pay for the basics without adding another $32 to the grocery bill.
Which is why I think that – if you take the supply issues out of the equation – no one should have to pay for these things.
I understand that some people are seen to be more critical than others in terms of keeping things operating. You know, your medical people, truckies and supermarket workers.
But, in a pandemic, is it fair and reasonable to have some people shelling out money for RAT tests and others not?
I don’t think it is fair and reasonable. Particularly, when you consider that anyone turning up at a testing centre for a PCR test, gets tested for free.
That’s if they get past the gatekeepers, of course. As we’ve heard on the show, it seems some people are now being turned away because they’re not considered to be unwell enough to warrant a test.
One of our callers last week said she had a staff member who’d been really crook for a week with a sore throat and runny nose and had been turned away twice from a testing centre.
Another person called in and said they’d had the same experience. In fact, that person was calling us on her way home from the testing centre.
But, nevertheless, if you get past the gatekeepers at the testing centres and you get a PCR test, you don’t pay a thing. Yet, if you want a RAT test, chances are you’re going to have to pay.
Why is it, for example, considered ok for teachers to have to buy their own tests? They’re required, as per the mandates, to be vaccinated – but that’s not being recognised with free rapid antigen testing in exchange. It’s nuts.
Beneficiaries. Why should they have to pay for their own RAT tests? If you’re on a benefit, you won’t bother, will you? And if there isn’t a testing centre near you – you won’t bother with that either, will you?
So, what we’re going to get, is a large number of people being priced out of the testing process.
Which is appalling, isn’t it?
Not to mention the cost burden on critical businesses who have to buy them for their staff.
And that’s why I think the Government should be paying for all Rapid Antigen Tests. If you want them, you can get them, irrespective of what you do for a living – whether you’re a critical worker or not – and irrespective of your income level.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to Mayor Lianne Dalziel about the over sixties unit in Burwood which has changed its status to allow tenants of all ages. Which could mean a rent increase of up to $120 per week for some residents.
They also discussed if a congestion charge would be appropriate for Christchurch and the CBD.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald spoke to National's Gerry Brownlee and Labour's Megan Woods. They discussed the developing situation in Ukraine, New Zealand entering Phase 3 of the Omicron response and the ongoing protest outside of Parliament.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Doesn’t it blow you away how the anti-vaxxers can continue to reach new lows?
Did you see those appalling people on the TV news last night?
The anti-vaxxers who set themselves up at Tuahiwi School in North Canterbury yesterday when they got wind that the Prime Minister was visiting.
They yelled at her and called her a “murderer”. Can you believe it? These people standing at a school telling the Prime Minister she’s a murderer!
But they didn’t stop there. If you were watching the news last night you would’ve seen them getting into fisticuffs with a parent at the school when she realised one of the protesters was filming her kids. A TV reporter on the scene had to step in and break them apart.
And you know I wasn’t surprised to see it come to that. I’m not sure I’d be able to control myself if I turned up at school and found these despicable anti-vaxxers outside with their nastiness and conspiracy theories. Not to mention filming my kids on their phones.
And, from what I’ve read today, it seems these idiots weren’t even connected to the school. They just heard Jacinda Ardern was there, chucked their mickey mouse signs in the boot and shot down to the school.
Signs saying “This is Child Abuse” and “The shot kills and all the lab rats died”. And, of course, the old “freedom” sign was there too.
And that one is so laughable isn’t it? “Freedom” as long as you agree with their deranged thinking.
What about freedom to come and go from school without paranoid freaks with nothing better to do, shoving their vileness in your face?
And whatever you think of the Prime Minister - and I know some people have had enough of Jacinda Ardern - but yelling at her and calling her a murderer? That is way beyond the pale. It beggars belief, doesn’t it?
But she’s a grown-up and she’s a politician and she’ll be used to dealing with that sort of carry-on. Nevertheless, it is appalling.
But it’s the kids and the parents I’m standing up for today. And not just the kids and the parents at Tuahiwi School. I’m standing up for the kids and the parents at all the schools these clowns have been showing up at.
And the teachers too. Let’s not forget about them. And the principals - like the one who was yelled at and called a “paedophile” by an anti-vaxxer recently. That was outside a school here in Canterbury.
These people have just completely lost the plot. And they need to be stopped before something really terrible happens.
Because the way they’re carrying on, they are creating situations that are becoming more and more concerning and dangerous.
I was involved in a protest outside a school once. It was the primary school the kids were at and we held a protest to show support for the teachers who were having all sorts of problems with their pay because of the dickey Novopay payroll system.
That was peaceful. We weren’t intimidating. And we were showing solidarity with the school.
Unlike these awful, awful people peddling their conspiracy theories and making things extremely unpleasant for parents, teachers and the kids. They are despicable.
And I think the best thing that could happen would be a blanket ban on protests outside schools.
All protests - not just anti-vax, everything.
So how would that happen? I was thinking about it earlier and I think it would need to come from local councils because schools are generally in areas where roads and things are the responsibility of the council - not Waka Kotahi or NZTA.
And yes, it would mean protests like the one I was involved in over the Novopay shambles couldn’t happen. But so be it.
I think it’d be a price well worth paying, if it meant our school communities didn’t have to put up with what’s going on at the moment.
Can you imagine the outcry if outfits like McDonalds or Coca Cola, or tobacco companies, sent their promotional teams to hang outside schools? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m really starting to wonder why we get so caught up and obsessed with the idea of owning a home.
I do know why and I’ll get to that shortly. But is it really worth all the stress? Really?
All this talk about mortgage interest rates going through the roof after the Reserve Bank started lifting the Official Cash Rate yesterday is one thing.
There are rates, maintenance, insurance - all expenses.
Plus, we’re hearing today from Countdown supermarkets that they’re expecting grocery prices to keep increasing on the back of the grocery shop getting more and more expensive over the last couple of years.
Not to mention pretty much everything else is getting more expensive too. Because you don’t get just under 6 percent inflation for nothing.
And so, mortgage rates are joining the list of things making life more of a struggle for many New Zealanders.
Some of us are at breaking point. And there is evidence out there to prove it.
Last night, one of the teenagers needed picking-up from somewhere, and on the way home we went past a place that had a “Mortgagee Sale” sign outside.
He was interested in that and asked me what it exactly meant, and we talked about this sort of thing happening when someone has a house or a property and, for whatever reason, they can’t keep up with the mortgage payments and so the bank comes in and sells it to get its money back.
“That must be so embarrassing for that person,” the teenager said about the place we went past. But he also wondered what it meant for the people being forced to sell by the bank and where they might live once it’s all done and dusted.
And I said to him that I think we’re going to see more of this happening this year. Because interest rates are on the up and a lot of people will have mortgaged themselves to the hilt buying places at exorbitant prices.
A lot of these people too will have had fixed interest rates which will be coming up for renewal this year - and there are truckloads of people in this situation, apparently - which will mean quite a hike in mortgage payments and some of them just won’t be able to afford it.
And so our conversation in the car last night raised as many questions as answers. And one of those questions for me was ‘why do we still think that owning a place is the be-all-and-end all?’.
Is it worth all the stress?
The alternative to owning your own home, of course, is renting. But you ask any renter if they think they’ve got it easy and most will probably tell you they feel ripped off by stupid rental prices and wish they owned their own place.
So the grass doesn’t seem to be greener on any side of the fence does it?
But we do have to ask ourselves whether the so-called “quarter acre dream” is over and whether it’s time to stop chaining ourselves to mortgages and banks for most of our lives.
I said earlier that I know why those of us who are lucky enough to be able to, do get caught up in this idea of owning our own home. The simple reason is, it’s pretty much the only way to build personal wealth. Particularly if you’re a wage or salary earner.
But here’s my question for you today. Is it all worth it? Is the stress over interest rates worth it? Is the cost of maintenance and rates worth it?
Will the people with the mortgagee sale sign outside their place be thinking it’s worth it? Because they’re not just giving up on the quarter acre dream. The quarter-acre dream is being ripped away from them by the bank.
And then there’ll be people who aren’t being forced to sell by the bank but have bought a place thinking they’ll do it up - another great kiwi tradition - who will be starting to realise that the value of their place is probably about to go down with overall prices dropping and the cost of borrowing is about to go up. They won’t be able to do any renovations because the bank won’t extend their mortgage and any renovations would...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to current Christchurch Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner regarding his announcement today that he will not be standing in the upcoming elections to become Mayor.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Here’s a line for you: “True leadership means tough decisions in difficult times”.
That’s a quote from a European politician which I think is very relevant to the current situation with the Bandwagon 2022 occupiers still camped outside Parliament.
It’s relevant because the Government seems to be avoiding tough decisions at all cost and, as a result – in my view – is demonstrating a complete lack of leadership.
Doing what it’s doing, and refusing to meet with the occupiers, isn’t leadership. It’s not a tough decision. It’s a cop-out.
I’m not saying the Prime Minister going and talking with them would be a sign of true leadership, either. That would be desperation on the Government’s part, as far as I’m concerned.
And it would come to nothing because the occupiers – if they managed to find someone to speak on their behalf – would tell her ‘we’ll pack up the tents and portaloos, if you get rid of the vaccination mandates’.
And she will never agree to that. Not now anyway. And nor should she. Why on earth would you get rid of the mandates when we’re about to hit peak Omicron and we have absolutely no idea when this pandemic is going to end?
What these occupiers are demanding, is absolutely nuts. They’re in la-la land.
So, what would true leadership from the Government actually look like? And what are the tough decisions it needs to make?
In my mind, it comes down to just one decision. And depending on what it decides, that will determine whether it is capable of leading us out of this shamble.
Or whether it’s just going to leave everybody in limbo land.
People like the poor old mayor of Wellington, Andy Foster, who is being berated by some of his fellow city councillors for meeting with the protesters.
Foster apparently met with some of the occupation “influencers” sometime over the last couple of days.
And you can understand why can’t you? He’s getting nothing from the Government – other than loud music and sprinklers – and he’s desperate to see this thing dealt with, once and for all.
But what can he do? He can’t get rid of the vaccination mandates. He can’t do anything.
And now he’s got other Wellington councillors saying his act of desperation was “extremely dangerous” and an embarrassment to Wellington.
One of them even said it was “un-mayoral”, what he did. Whatever that means.
But he wouldn’t be doing this if the Government wasn’t sitting on its hands and hoping it’ll all go away sometime.
It won’t just go away sometime. And I know we’ve heard from people here in Canterbury who have gone up to Wellington to show support for the occupiers and who have told us it’s all peace and love.
But I don’t care whether it’s peace and love or whatever. The fact remains that what these people are doing is illegal, they are causing significant disruption and anxiety, and they cannot be allowed to stay there.
So, how might the Government show true leadership by making tough decisions in difficult times, as per the quote I mentioned earlier?
And what is the one question it needs to ask itself?
Well, this is what I think. I think things are now at the point where the Government must ask itself: “Do we order the Police – and perhaps the Army too – to shut this whole thing down and kick the occupiers out? Or, do we keep doing what we’re doing?”
If it decides to keep doing what it’s doing – nothing will happen. Nothing will change.
But if the Government decides to go the whole hog and shut this occupation down – using the Police and perhaps even the Army – then that, in my opinion, will be true leadership. The true leadership that is desperately needed to get this sorted once and for all.
It would, of course, fly in the face of the Police Commissioner’s preference for policing by consent. And his fear that using force to end the occupation would be a shift back to the old days of the...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald was joined by leader of the ACT Party, David Seymour.
John asked him about his recent meeting with protesters and how that reflected on his standing on the situation, and what he thought should happen going forward now in Wellington.
He was also questioned about Christopher Luxon's comments about this being the most divisive Government in recent times, and if he agreed with that statement from the National Party leader.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National Party leader Christopher Luxon says Jacinda Ardern leads the most divisive government in recent memory. But then he would say that, wouldn’t he?
It’s not as if he was ever going to come out and say in that speech he gave yesterday that the team of five million is “tight as bro” and the Prime Minister is doing a fantastic job.
That was never going to happen. But has he gone too far saying the current government is the most divisive we’ve seen here in New Zealand in a long time? Think about it. Is it really THE most divisive? On the evidence presented by Christopher Luxon yesterday, I don’t think it is.
I do think the Government are a bunch of control freaks. That’s nothing new, I’ve said that before. But I’m not swallowing Luxon’s line that the current government is the most divisive we’ve had in a very long time.
There is no doubt that the country is divided on a lot of things. Always has been and always will be. For starters, we are a divided country the morning after every election.
Some of us get the government we want. Some of us don’t. That’s our doing - not the Government’s.
Then, once it’s in power, the government of the day does things that some of us like and some of us don’t. We get even more divided, because we all have opinions and the different things governments do affect us all differently.
But Christopher Luxon seems to think that the current government has taken things to the next level and, as a result, New Zealanders are being pitted against each other by Jacinda Ardern and her Cabinet colleagues.
Some examples he gave yesterday of us being divided (because of the current government) are:
Renters versus landlords
Business owners versus workers, and
Farmers versus cities
Not terribly convincing, as far as I’m concerned.
Landlords and tenants have never had love-love relationships
Business owners and workers have always had disagreements and disputes, and
Farmers have always felt like us townies don’t appreciate them
And I don’t see these things changing any time soon. It’s always been like this.
Of course, no political speech these days can avoid Covid - and Luxon also said yesterday that the current Omicron response is further proof of the Government’s divisive nature.
This at the same time as new research is telling us that about 50 percent of New Zealanders think the current Red Covid restrictions are adequate - and a further 24 percent think they should be tighter.
If I was in the current Government, I’d take that as a vote of confidence. I wouldn’t see it as evidence of a divided nation.
Having said that, the people who want even tighter restrictions obviously don’t own businesses or haven’t lost their jobs or homes because of Covid. And that’s the key point, as far as I’m concerned: “because of Covid”. Not “because of the Government”.
Now you may disagree with me here. But any Covid response from any government (red, blue, green, yellow, pink - whatever colour) is going to be divisive.
But that doesn’t mean the government that just happens to be in charge at the time is “divisive” itself - let alone the most divisive ever.
About a week ago, I asked whether the protest at Parliament was a reflection of wider anger and frustration around the country.
And we were swamped with people telling us how angry they were. Some even found it difficult to speak because they were so angry and it was the first time some of them had even spoken about it.
It was really raw.
But the question in my head now is whether that level of anger was just because everyone is so over what’s been happening over the last couple of years - or whether that anger is targeted directly at the Government.
Christopher Luxon believes the anger is with the Government - because he thinks it is the most divisive government we’ve pretty much ever had...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel about the current protest situation in Cranmer Square.
They discussed the Council's camping bylaw and the ability to remove people camping in the square, and the processes needed to remove protesters.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I don’t have any official figures to back this up, but I reckon a favourite pastime in New Zealand – if not the favourite pastime – is making stupid demands for people in authority to resign from their jobs if we don’t like what they’re doing.
If it was an Olympic sport, we’d be world champions us New Zealanders.
And today, it’s the poor old Police Commissioner who’s in the firing line – for no good reason other than people wanting a scapegoat to blame for the self-righteous, self-interested and self-entitled Convoy 2022 crew still being camped outside Parliament after two weeks.
Or the “Bandwagon 2022” crew, as I’m going to be calling them from here on.
So, there’s been the usual calls over the weekend from people saying Commissioner Andrew Coster needs to hand in his resignation over the way he’s handled this and for allowing it to become the fiasco it has become. And, in my view, these calls for him to resign are just nonsense.
Now I am in no doubt that the Wellington protest and the one in Cranmer Square here in Christchurch should both have been shut down days ago. In both cases, people are clearly breaking the rules.
You may have seen Andrew Coster interviewed on the TV at the weekend on the Q&A show.
He talked about having the confidence of Police Minister Poto Williams, and said it was a matter for other people to determine whether he should keep his job or not.
He said he was not currently thinking of standing down if it came to the point where it was obvious that the public did not have confidence in him.
And he talked at length about the long-term consequences of how this appalling situation might eventually be resolved.
Coster clearly believes that if the Police get heavy-handed, and start clearing out the Parliament grounds using force, there will be a long-term loss of trust in the Police.
I don’t necessarily agree with that. Or should I say, I’m not as concerned about that as he is.
Because I think the Police effectively turning a blind eye to what’s going on is a betrayal of the vast majority of us who have and who continue to respect some pretty harsh COVID restrictions.
As you’ll know, there are people having funerals for loved ones and doing the right thing and only allowing 100 people to turn up because of the COVID rules.
There are a gazillion different events and sports competitions being cancelled because of the restrictions. I’m hating all of these cancellations. I hate the idea of people having to limit numbers at funerals and other big life events.
But what can you do other than just suck it up? That’s what the vast majority of us are doing.
And then we see these clowns protesting and occupying public spaces and getting away with it. I am so over these people.
So, of course, if you’re like me and you’re over these self-entitled, self-interested idiots, of course, you’re going to feel that the cops are doing a lousy job. And in some respects, they are. I’d love them to go in and shut all of these things down.
But don’t blame the Police Commissioner. Don’t make stupid calls for him to resign.
Because if you do that, you’ll make him more of a victim of the system he operates in than he is now.
If you saw the TV interview at the weekend, you will have heard him say that the Police have very limited powers.
For example, they can’t stop people from turning up at Parliament. They can’t stop them from taking tents through the gates and setting up shop there. They can’t stop stuff happening just because it might go pear-shaped down the track.
And that’s the problem. Not the Police Commissioner.
And these calls for him to go, in my view, are ridiculous.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There are two groups of people in New Zealand at the moment.
Oh really?
Yep. And what do you think they are?
Anti-mandate and pro-mandate? No.
Anti-protest and pro-protest? No.
So what are they then?
Well, the first group, are the ones who still want to do everything they possibly can to avoid getting Covid - even Omicron. Most likely because they’re of an age where Covid puts them at significant risk or they have an underlying health condition they don’t want Covid messing with.
The second group, are the people who are thinking ‘oh look, chances are I’m going to get it at some stage so I’d probably prefer to get it now, especially while the sun is still shining and we’re not in the middle of winter’.
Me, I’m in the second group. Because I’m coming around to the fact that this Omicron variant is going to get me at some stage. In fact, I may even have it already!
Our daughter is back in Dunedin for university - it’s Flo Week down there, when all the students move into their flats and party it up before the first-years’ start arriving this weekend. Flo Week is short for Flat Orientation Week, by the way, in case you were wondering.
And the kids down there have been going into isolation left, right and centre while they wait for Covid test results after going to flat parties since last weekend.
So, our daughter’s been telling us that she’s heard of people - not sure how many - who have tested positive without any symptoms. Which, from a purely selfish perspective, is probably the version you’d want isn’t it?
But it just shows, doesn’t it, how the official numbers we’re getting are most likely to be just the tip of the iceberg. It was Michael Baker who said the other day that the official numbers are probably only about a tenth of the actual number of cases out there.
So the horse has well-and-truly bolted.
And I think having someone in the thick of it down there in Dunedin has definitely had an influence on my view of things - and that’s why I’m putting myself in the group of New Zealanders that has come to accept that we’re probably going to get it and, if we are going to get it, we probably want to deal with it before winter.
Now this doesn’t mean my enthusiasm and support for vaccination has diminished. Not a bit. Knowing I’m triple-jabbed makes me feel even more confident that I’m ready to deal with Omicron when I do get it.
It also doesn’t mean that I’ve given up on wanting to protect the hospital system. Because that’s been a major driver in my support for the vaccination programme and my support for the vaccination mandates.
And it doesn’t mean I’ll be wearing my mask or scanning-in any less. Because I know there are vulnerable people who need to avoid getting Omicron at pretty much any cost and if wearing a mask and scanning helps them, that’s what I’ll do. Because they are the people more likely to need hospital care if they do get Covid.
So surely, the more of us who get Omicron sooner rather than later, the better the chances of the hospital system coping when winter arrives and we have the perfect storm of Omicron plus seasonal flu.
That’s why I’m in the group of people who are thinking ‘we’re going to get it. So let’s get on with it’.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Did you hear Chris Cahill from the Police Association on Newstalk ZB this morning?
I couldn’t believe what I heard.
He was talking about the protest at Parliament and said he thinks the whole thing is a dog’s breakfast - which I don’t think anyone could argue with.
But the bit that got me was when he said “do you want the bad news?” And then went on to say that he thinks the protesters will still be there in three months' time.
I was blown away when I heard him say that. But then I thought about how things have played out so far, and I realised I’ve got no reason to doubt him. The Police Association has much more intel than we do. And, unless something is done, I think they will still be there in three months’ time.
Particularly when you consider what the Police Commissioner has been saying over the last couple of days.
But is that acceptable? I don’t think it is - not for a minute. For the simple reason that these protesters have broken all sorts of rules - just like the crowd camping out at Cranmer Square.
As I said yesterday, the ones here in Christchurch have to be moved on ASAP, because the council by-laws say you can’t camp at Cranmer Square. You break the rule - you get kicked out. Well, you should.
Just like the crowd camping at Parliament. A few people took me to task earlier in the week for saying that what they’re doing is against the rules - pointing out that everyone is entitled to protest outside Parliament.
Yes, you are allowed to do that - but the rules are very clear. Protesters have to stick to the walkways and not damage the lawns and flowerbeds, and structures such as tents aren’t allowed. So, guilty as charged.
It’s possible the only fly in the ointment there is Trevor Mallard contributing to some of the lawn damage himself when he turned the sprinklers on. What a stupid man. But the rain that went through Wellington on Friday night is probably just as much to blame on that front too.
Nevertheless, Parliament’s rules have been broken. Not to mention the chaos with all those cars still blocking the streets. More rules broken. So there are a gazillion good reasons for firmer action - but are we going to see it?
I thought we were last Thursday, but that came to nothing. They’re still there, brassing people off, and we’ve now got the sympathisers camped-out too at Picton, Dunedin and Cranmer Square here in Christchurch.
All of them saying they’re going nowhere until the vaccine mandates are scrapped. They are dreaming, of course. But I think if no one does anything, the crowd at Parliament will still be there in three months' time.
Just like Chris Cahill from the Police Association said this morning.
We got a reminder in the mail at home yesterday saying we’re overdue paying a parking ticket. I looked at it and thought ‘are you kidding me? You’re chasing me up for staying a bit longer than I should’ve in a car park, but you’re doing nothing about the misguided occupiers in Cranmer Square who are clearly breaking the rules’. And doing nothing about their mates in Wellington either.
It’s pathetic, isn’t it? But I suppose ‘Mr Play-by-the-Rules MacDonald’ is much easier to deal with than a bunch of self-entitled people who will jump up and down and get all aggro on social media if anyone dares to tell them what to do.
I think that’s what brasses me off most about these protesters around the country. It’s not like they’re fighting a cause on behalf of some downtrodden sector of society. Every single one of them is only there for themselves.
They’ll tell you they’re unified and doing it on behalf of everyone else. But they’re not. They’re self-interested, self-obsessed and self-entitled.
And that’s why the prospect of what’s happening at Parliament going on for another three months is so galling to me. And it can’t possibly be allowed to happen.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
So, Christchurch has got its own anti-vaccine mandate protest going on – with a crew setting up camp in Cranmer Square yesterday.
I went past last night. It certainly isn’t of the same scale as the Wellington protest. Not that that makes it any less convenient for people living in the Cranmer Square area – because they have had a gutsful of all the anti-vax, anti-mandate, anti-everything protests that have been coming and going from that part of town over summer.
So, they’ll be throwing their hands in the air at the prospect of some sort of long-term sleepover going on there.
Which, in my view, cannot be allowed to happen any longer. These people have to be moved on ASAP. It’s illegal what they’re doing so, for the sake of the people living in the area, they need to up sticks and get out of it.
And I’m not the only one saying that. Central city councillor Jake McLellan is saying it too.
He says protesting is an important part of democracy – and he’ll get no argument from me on that one. But he says it’s not fair to protest in a residential area for a sustained period of time. And I couldn’t agree with him more.
These protesters have every right to express their views. But don’t make other people’s lives a misery in the process. And I’m calling on the police and the city council to get in there today and shut this thing down before it takes off and becomes a much bigger problem for the city to deal with.
But I don’t have much hope of that happening after listening to the Police Commissioner on the radio this morning.
He’s only just got involved in trying to sort out the protest at Parliament. Did you hear him confirm to Mike this morning that the police are going to be taking a softly-softly approach there?
Which tells you, doesn’t it, that they’ll be doing exactly the same thing here in Christchurch. Which will be music to the ears of the protesters.
But I bet the people living in Cranmer Square – who are sick and tired of their area being COVID-protest central – they’ll be feeling pretty gutted.
And the Cranmer Square protesters know full well, don’t they, that the cops will have no intention of ruffling any feathers. I saw a video they posted online yesterday of them talking to a police officer who dropped by to take a look around.
They got him to confirm in the video that everything looked fine, that everyone was peaceful and happy. In other words: “Nothing to see here”.
So, Cranmer Square residents will be dreading how this might play out. And they have every right to be feeling let down big-time by the cops and the council.
The protesters who have been turning up there since yesterday have been saying that they’re in it for the “long haul” and they won’t be leaving until the Government gets rid of the vaccine mandates.
Well, dream on guys. Because that is never going to happen. And, I for one, wouldn’t want that to happen. The vaccine mandates are critical and it would be absolute nuts to do away with them now.
So, if you are in your tent at Cranmer Square, I really do question whether you know what you’re actually committing to. Because if you think the Government is going to ditch the mandates – then you’re in for a very long haul indeed.
But, of course, that’s not stopping the calls going out on social media for port-a-loos and more people to join in
And there probably will be more people turning up today. Although I’ve seen some supporters saying online that they can’t make it today – but they’ll be joining in at the weekend.
If I had my way, these people would turn up on Saturday and find no one there. Because I’d have them gone.
It’s pretty simple. What they’re doing is against council by-laws (which say you can’t camp there) – so the Council and the Police need to get their act together and move these people on ASAP.
Otherwise, come the weekend, they’ll have a much bigger problem on...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I’m not going to beat around the bush. I’m just going to say it.
I think Trevor Mallard has lost the plot.
That’s my honest opinion - after the way he’s behaved as Speaker of the House, dealing with the Convoy protesters who have been camped outside Parliament for the past week.
He has lost the plot. And I’m not surprised to see that others are thinking the same.
I said last week when he brought the cops in on Day Three of the protest and they started arresting people, that I thought it was way too early in the piece for that to be happening.
But when he turned the sprinklers on the protesters - which turned out to be pointless anyway because it bucketed down with rain on Friday night - when I heard he’d done that, I thought it was pathetic. I really did.
And then over the weekend, he started playing bad taste music over the loudspeaker system - Barry Manilow, James Blunt - and started asking people for other suggestions on social media. It just makes you cringe, doesn’t it?
This is the guy who, as Speaker of New Zealand’s House of Representatives - that’s the official title - he is the most senior person at Parliament. Not just IN Parliament, AT Parliament - so he’s pretty much in charge of everything.
And, in my honest opinion, the way he’s behaved since this thing started - but, particularly, over the weekend - it shows to me that he is not the person who should be in charge of trying to bring this thing to an end.
Sure, some of the protesters are an embarrassment - with all their conspiracy theories and nonsense - but none of them, as far as I’m concerned, are as embarrassing as Trevor Mallard.
He, of course, thinks he’s got every right to be doing what he’s doing because the occupation of Parliament’s grounds is illegal.
But it’s backfired big time - with the protesters singing and dancing to his stupid music and, 'guess what Trevor, they’re still there!' And they look like they're not going anywhere fast.
Former Speaker David Carter was on Early Edition this morning - he said Trevor Mallard is harming New Zealand’s international reputation, describing his behaviour as “boorish and childish”.
David Carter says the Speaker - because he’s so senior - is his own boss. But he thinks it’s time for the Prime Minister and the National Party leader to step in and tell Mallard to pull his head in.
He says Mallard has banned MPs from speaking to the protesters and he’s tried to ban the media from speaking to the protesters.
And he says Mallard’s weird behaviour is a significant factor in the protest getting out of hand the way it has. And I couldn’t agree more with David Carter. He is spot on.
The National Party and the ACT Party can’t believe what’s been happening either. They towed Mallard’s line pretty much all last week - ignoring the protesters and all that - but that unity is crumbling.
National’s Covid spokesperson, Chris Bishop, is saying today that people must be wondering what on Earth Mallard is up to, crowdsourcing songs from the internet and turning the sprinklers on at night.
And political expert Bryce Edwards is saying that throughout the whole thing Mallard has made incompetent decisions that have just made things worse. They’re the words he’s using: “incompetent decisions”.
Again, I couldn’t agree more.
The cops obviously think he’s balmy too. Although, the chief cop in Wellington put it a bit more politely saying the sprinklers and music “weren’t tactics they would endorse”.
Which, as one commentator has said today, is police code for saying “Give it a rest, Trevor”.
But we don’t need to be as polite as the Superintendent, and we can say it exactly how it is. And that’s why I’m saying Trevor Mallard is behaving like an idiot. I would say he is an idiot outright - but I’m not qualified to make any sort of diagnosis, on that front. But I know he’s acting like one. And, as far as I’m concerned, he has...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There's no simple solution for Christchurch residents affected by floodwater every time it rains.
Canterbury was battered with heavy rain on Saturday and early Sunday, causing surface flooding and road closures, driven by the remnants of ex-cyclone Dovi.
The area of Avondale bore the brunt of the weather.
Mayor Lianne Dalziel told John MacDonald these issues can't be fixed overnight.
“There is going to be a lot more work done that is going to have to address these levels of exposure.”
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Did you see that woman on the TV news last night, saying she was leaving her husband because he’d been and got his booster shot?
She was angry. She was at Parliament, at the protest. And there’s a suggestion being made today that she’s not the only one. And that the other protesters at Parliament aren’t the only other ones either. And that a lot of people around the country are furious with the Government - but they’re just not turning up to protest.
And I think that’s true.
I was watching that woman who was brassed off with her husband for getting his booster shot with one of the teenagers last night - we had a great laugh. And, of course, it wasn’t long before someone had turned it into a Tik Tok video and away it went.
I don’t know why TV insists on putting nutbars like her in their news reports. Well, I do actually - they do it because it captures people’s attention.
But if you’ve got your head screwed on and you’re one of the people either protesting at Parliament or cheering them on from the sidelines who is genuinely opposed to the vaccine mandates, then it must be gutting to see all the clowns getting all the attention.
And I suspect, too, that a lot of genuine people who joined the convoy for part of the way but didn’t go all the way to Wellington will be gutted to see how it’s playing out.
And they’ll be horrified to see the extremists and the weirdos getting all the coverage and the politicians ignoring them completely.
But that’s how it’s always been and how it will continue to be. Especially in situations like this, where the people involved appear to be protesting against all sorts of different things.
Some of them peddling the same old conspiracy theories, which is never going to do anything on the credibility front, is it?
If it was genuinely a single-issue protest, and the people involved weren’t all the usual crowd who turn up to pretty much anything, then it would be quite different, wouldn’t it?
But there is a warning today that the Government shouldn’t kid itself that the crowd camping outside Parliament is on its own, and that there aren’t other people who are also incredibly angry with the Government.
This is coming from Matthew Hooton in a piece he’s written for the NZ Herald.
He makes the point that despite the fact that so many of us are vaccinated, the Government and the bureaucrats in Wellington shouldn’t kid themselves that - as he puts it - “only a deranged fringe is feeling enraged by the current situation”.
He says after two years of the pandemic, there is a seething anger towards the Government from what he calls a “much larger and more reasonable segment of the population”.
One of the things he puts this down to is the Prime Minister and her ministers talking to us as if we’re children and seemingly making the protection of Jacinda Ardern’s global brand as the “Covid vanquisher” their top priority.
He writes: "The Wellington bureaucracy is under so much pressure from its political masters to support the Beehive narrative, that it increasingly provides information that is radically incomplete, contradictory or just plain wrong”.
I think he is spot on.
And, as I’ve said before, I think the Prime Minister’s eagerness to be the face - front and centre - of New Zealand’s Covid response is going to come and bite her on the backside.
If there’s anything we’ve learned from the past, it’s that leaders who lead their people through crises get the blame for everything that goes wrong and they suffer the consequences.
Rudolph Giuliani - probably better known these days as Donald Trump’s right-hand man - was mayor of New York when the September 11 attacks happened. Everyone loved him, but then they turned on him.
Art Agnos - he was mayor of San Francisco when they had the big earthquake there in 1989 - loved and then loathed.
Jacinda Ardern - the same thing happening...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald was joined by Labour's Tracey McLellan and National's Gerry Brownlee.
They discussed the current situation with the protest outside Parliament and why politicians had united in their stance to not talk to the group, the current situation with Omicron. Also the review of the ownership of KiwiBank, which has made news in the past day.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald was joined for his weekly interview with National Party leader, Christopher Luxon.
Luxon was questioned about his debate in the house yesterday, and comments he made about New Zealand's housing situation. He also spoke about his views on Tiwai Point smelter, ECan and Ngāi Tahu representation and the current protest happening outside of Parliament in Wellington.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
There are two types of people in this world.
There are the flu-jab people, and the no-flu-jab people.
I’ve always been a no-flu-jab person. Have never felt that I’ve needed it. And I suppose that comes from something I heard ages ago about people getting the flu jab and ending up getting crook anyway.
And being a creature of habit – that’s been my approach ever since. Even despite the fact that I got a dose of the flu a few years ago that really knocked me for six. And yes, it was a genuine flu. Not the common cold that many of us – especially blokes – call the flu. I was really, very sick.
That didn’t change my thinking, though and – to this very day – I’m still a no-flu-jab person.
Now, as for the flu-jab people – they swear by it don’t they? Religiously, every year, they turn up to get it – whether it’s paid for by the Government, paid for by their employer, or whether they pay for it themselves.
For these people, the flu jab is another thing that just happens every year. Year after year.
Some of the flu-jab people I’ve known have admitted that it hasn’t necessarily stopped them from catching something – but their belief has always been that if they hadn’t had the flu jab, they would’ve ended up sicker than they did.
Which, in our current situation, sounds very familiar doesn’t it? Just like the COVID jab, the flu jab doesn’t necessarily stop you getting the flu – but you may not get it as bad as you would, if you didn’t have the flu jab.
And this is why today, I’m about to make quite a significant change and become one of those flu-jab people.
Because let’s face it. How can I criticise the anti-vaxxers who are very quick to criticise the COVID vaccine for being unsafe and failing to protect us against COVID, and then go on and be just as doubtful about the influenza vaccine?
That’d be a double standard, wouldn’t it? So, it looks like I’ll be joining the queue for the flu jab this year, for the first time in my life.
You may have heard Health Minister Andrew Little talking about it. He’s announced that the Government is going to make more flu vaccines available this year – which will mean up to 2 million people will be able to get it for free.
Like the COVID vaccination programme, a big driver behind this is trying to keep as many people as possible out of the hospital system.
As vaccine expert Helen Petousis-Harris puts it, dealing with a COVID outbreak and a flu outbreak at the same time would be a double-whammy for hospitals right around the country. So, of course, everything should be done to try and prevent that from happening.
And if that means me changing the habit of a lifetime and becoming a flu-jab person, then that’s what I’ll do.
If you listen to the experts, they’re telling us that the re-opening of the borders is going to be really challenging not just in terms of increasing our exposure to COVID – but also in terms of increasing our exposure to the flu.
As we know, the number of flu cases has dropped significantly over the last couple of years because of all the pandemic lockdowns, border closures and other measures that have been in place.
Which could mean more of us are at-risk of getting the flu as these restrictions go, so why wouldn’t more of us get protected by getting the flu jab?
It’s a no-brainer and it makes perfect sense to me. And that’s why I’ll be getting the flu jab this year – for the first time ever.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Two Christchurch city councillors want the council to pay for swimming lessons for kids - and I think it’s a fantastic idea.
They are Jake McLelland and Melanie Coker. They’ll find out at a meeting on Thursday whether their fellow councillors also think it’s a good idea.
They’ve been motivated by what’s been happening around the country over summer. Already, the number of drownings is the highest it’s been for nearly 40 years.
Add to that the latest Beach and Coastal Safety Report, which says the 10-year average for beach and coastal drownings is up 44 percent and about a third of us can’t swim or float in the ocean for more than a few minutes.
You might have heard Water Safety New Zealand Ambassador Rob Hewitt talking about it with Mike Hosking this morning.
One of the key things he said was that people can be a bit over-enthusiastic when it comes to throwing themselves in the water, and don’t always think whether they might be over-estimating their swimming ability. And that’s understandable, isn’t it?
I’m probably at the other end of the spectrum because water terrifies me. Even though I’ve sailed for years - and even though our kids have grown up around water and they’re into watersports big time. In fact, our two boys are on the water pretty much every day at the moment. Despite all that, the potential for things to go drastically wrong in water terrifies me.
I’d like to think that I’m terrified in a positive way. I suppose “respect” might be a better word to use than “terrified”. But, even though I love getting out on the water, I know it will never be my friend.
That was something I always said to the kids when they were younger. Yes, water can be fun - but it’s not your friend.
So, Christchurch councillors Jake McLellan and Melanie Coker want the council to do something, and good on them.
As they say, every child should have the opportunity to develop basic water skills without financial barriers getting in the way.
And I know how expensive it can be. I can’t remember exactly how much we paid for swimming lessons when the kids were young, but I know we were very fortunate that we could afford it. Although it did stretch things a bit - but we saw it as a no-brainer.
But if we’d been in a different financial position, then I’ve no doubt that the swimming lessons probably would’ve been one of the first things to go.
And that’s what Jake McLellan and Melanie Coker want to address. And that’s why, as a Christchurch ratepayer, I’d have no problem with the council putting more money into teaching kids how to keep themselves safe in water.
I know the Council already subsidises low-decile schools for swimming lessons. But what these two councillors want is for the Council to provide swimming lessons for all children either up to 12, or up to 16. And that will be thrashed out at the council meeting on Thursday.
I remember when I was on the board at our local primary school - which is going back a few years - and being a bit of a lone voice when it came to this, because the school pulled the plug on its pool after the earthquakes.
I thought having a new pool would be a real benefit, but it didn’t go anywhere. Other schools did a much better job on that front and either repaired or built new pools. I think West Spreydon School was one of them.
And good on them for doing that. Because teaching kids to be confident in water - and not over confident - is essential, in my view.
And that’s exactly what councillors Jake McLellan and Melanie Coker think we should be doing as a city. Especially one which is currently building a monster of a swimming pool down Moorhouse Avenue way.
The other thing these two councillors are pushing for is free off-peak entry to city pools for children - they’ve put three age brackets up for discussion: under-five, under-12 or under-16.
Because that’s the other thing, isn’t it? It can...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by Labour's Poto Williams and National's Gerry Brownlee to talk the big topics of the week.
John asked if the Charlotte Bellis situation had been dealt with appropriately, if the Three Waters Reform was going ahead despite rumours, and what they thought of the local anti vax protesters outside Canterbury schools.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The anti-vaxxers are looking more and more desperate by the day.
And they’ve reached a new low this week, here in Canterbury anyway, setting up their pathetic protests outside some primary schools at drop-off and pick-up time.
I say pathetic for several reasons.
First, when you think about it, these clowns have fallen into the same trap they think those of us who have been vaccinated have fallen into.
They’ve been sucked-in by stupid conspiracy theories - just like they think we’ve been sucked-in by the Government and the pro-vaccination messages.
And second - how dare they stick their signs and nasty messages in the faces of children as young as five?
I’ve seen photos of some of the placards they were holding up outside one school in Rangiora yesterday.
Here’s what some of the signs said:
“Don't risk your kids”
“Risk your child's life, no way”
“Kids at risk from Covid jab”
Another sign said “Remember Thalidomide” - which was the drug given out in the late 1950s and early 1960s to help people sleep and deal with morning sickness. Which, as we now know, also caused harm to unborn children.
For me, that “thalidomide” sign is probably the most hysterical - but that’s what these types do. They create imaginary links between the thing they’re protesting against and some historical piece of nastiness.
The other one they love to trot out is saying the vaccine mandates are like Nazi Germany. They are just offensive these idiots and they’ve got no limits - and setting up camp outside schools in Canterbury this week is further proof.
And, as far as I’m concerned, calling them “idiots” is quite generous on my part - but you get the gist of how I feel about them.
Apparently, there were even police outside one school in North Canterbury yesterday - and we understand at least one school reported them to the police.
Now don’t think for a minute that I’m anti-protest. I’m not.
But I will never tolerate protest action that targets children, and makes them scared and upset. Because that’s what happened here.
A report I read this morning quoted a parent at one school who said the kids were scared walking past this lot.
Here’s what they told our newsroom: “It’s the lowest of the lows bringing kids into it, at their safe place.”
And I couldn’t agree more. It is the lowest of the low. It is despicable.
Especially at the start of the new school year, when we’re being told that Omicron is about to run rampant, and when we know there is already anxiety about the kids going back into the classrooms.
And when we also know that there are parents doing the drop-offs and pick-ups who will be dealing with vaccine conflict in their own families - and when we know kids will already be dealing with anti-vax messages in the playground and classrooms.
Someone I spoke to this morning said a child at one of the schools where these protesters have been this week has had other kids telling them that their parents are going to die because they’ve had the vaccine - and then they walk out the gate and see these turkeys.
Not to mention the parents themselves, some of whom will be struggling with the idea of their kids getting the jab. Because, as we know, making a decision for yourself is completely different than making a decision for someone else.
And when that someone else is your own child - well, the last thing you need is a bunch of conspiracy theorists with time on their hands making you feel like a bad parent.
I cannot see how any one of these people can think holding up these nasty signs outside schools in Canterbury this week is the right thing to do. The kids don’t deserve this, nor do their parents, nor do the schools - and they shouldn’t be there. Go back home and get back on the internet.
Put simply, what these people are doing makes my blood boil.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I haven’t had too much to say over the last few days about this Charlotte Bellis situation - but today I feel compelled to bring it up for discussion because I am appalled at the way it’s played out.
In particular, I’m appalled by what I see as her complete lack of gratitude for getting what she wanted in just a matter of days.
Charlotte is the TV journalist who used to work for Al Jazeera - she’s originally from Christchurch and worked for TVNZ before she headed overseas a number of years ago.
She got a bit of a profile last year through her coverage of the Taliban taking over the shop in Afghanistan after the US pulled out its troops.
And last weekend, she went public with the fact that she was pregnant, out of work, wanted to come home to have her baby but couldn’t get an emergency spot in MIQ.
Well, that’s all changed in just a few days and because of all the attention, the Government has dipped into its bag of tricks and now says she can have an emergency spot and it looks like she’ll be heading home to New Zealand early next month.
Now before I go any further - I just want to clarify something.
I’ve seen and heard people who aren’t happy that she’s got this emergency MIQ spot saying she “chose” to get pregnant. Well, she didn’t actually - my understanding is that she’d been told at some point she would never be able to get pregnant.
So, the fact she is pregnant - would’ve been quite a surprise. And a delight I imagine.
And I’m very happy for her, her partner and her wider family.
But I’m not happy with, is what I think (in my honest opinion) is her complete lack of gratitude for the Government giving in and getting her the emergency MIQ spot she wants, so she can come home to have her baby.
If there’s one thing that annoys me more than squeaky wheels getting special treatment ahead of those of us who just put up and shut up, it’s squeaky wheels who continue to whinge even after they’ve got what they wanted.
The thing that did it for me was hearing that, despite getting the MIQ booking, she’s considering legal action against the Government for breaching her privacy.
She was a bit coy when Mike Hosking asked her about that earlier this morning - all she said was that her lawyer probably wants her to press ahead with it. But the fact that it’s even on the table and up-for-discussion is galling - as far as I’m concerned.
She’s not happy that Chris Hipkins revealed information about what he says “she had and hadn’t done” to try and get into MIQ. But if you’re going to write an open letter for publication in the NZ Herald and do media interviews about it, what do you expect the Government to do? Of course it’s going to give its side of the story.
But she thinks the Government has been “incredibly disrespectful”.
The question that went through my head when I heard about her possibly taking legal action against the Government was, “whatever happened to gratitude?”
There is zero gratitude coming from Kabul, where Charlotte is at the moment.
And, you know what, if you can’t be grateful, at least be gracious. But that’s not coming through either.
But it’s not just Charlotte’s attitude that’s got me going today. It’s also the fact that the Government appears to have given in.
As Charlotte herself said this morning, other pregnant New Zealanders stuck overseas are saying to her “great for you, but what about me?” How must these women be feeling about the Government falling over itself just because someone with a profile, who - as I read in one report - has a PR friend here in New Zealand. How must they feel about this outcome?
It’s an appalling outcome. And, as I said earlier, the lack of gratitude coming from Charlotte Bellis is galling - but so too is the Government’s willingness to put the squeaky wheel ahead of anyone else in the same situation.
I’m not naive. I know this sort of thing happens...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
As part of Canterbury Mornings' regular catch up with National Party Leader, Christopher Luxon, John MacDonald asked about his view on the Charlotte Bellis situation and if National would've handled things differently.
Luxon also discussed the recent National Party retreat in Queenstown, and talked about key objectives going forward for the party and how they used the time to come together as a team with guest speakers including Steve Hansen.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Is it just me? Or are we surrounded by control freaks?
Don’t do this, don’t do that. You can’t do this, you can’t do that. That’s how it’s feeling to me with this ridiculous situation where some employers are telling their staff they can’t travel around the country, in case they catch Omicron.
This isn’t just work travel we’re talking about - which maybe you could understand, because employers have obligations to look after the health and safety of their staff.
No, it’s more than that. We’ve actually got bosses saying to their staff that they can’t take leave and they can’t go outside their home region for a holiday. Talk about panic stations!
In one case, a care facility has cancelled all leave during February and doesn’t want any of its people travelling around the country.
Auckland has apparently been pointed out as a hotspot - with one person working at this place saying she’s been told that if she goes there, there’s a high chance she’ll come back with Omicron. And so, her employer doesn’t want her going there.
As this person said: “We’re all double vaxxed at work, we’re going to get our boosters, we thought that’s what we needed to have some freedom and do more things.”
Well, that’s what we were told wasn’t it? But the control freaks are running roughshod over all that.
Unless the boss at this particular outfit is a world-leading authority on Omicron and knows more about Covid than the people running the health system. Which is probably unlikely.
And my message to them - and any employer who thinks they can start dictating things in this way - is that we’re not in lockdown and, the last time I checked, we can go wherever we want.
So why employers think they can start dictating what their staff do and don’t do in their own time in this way, I’ll never know.
Well, I do know, actually. They’re getting themselves well and truly caught up in this control freak environment that has been allowed to develop over the last couple of years.
And I think the time has come where people are well and truly sick of it - and employers are going to have to be very careful where they go with this.
Especially when it comes to making up their own Covid rules and expectations and telling people what they can and can’t do, and where they can and can’t go, in their own time.
Employers have no legal right to do this. It flies completely in the face of what the Government or legislation or the traffic light system says can happen - and they need to pull their heads in.
People hate being told what they can and can’t do, if they think the person telling them what they can and can’t do has no mandate or right to do it.
And if this continues, people will start to get very secretive about what they’re doing. And it won’t stop with where they might be going during the weekend or while they’re on holiday.
They’ll start getting secretive about a sore throat they might have - and to avoid having to go into isolation, they won’t get a Covid test and they’ll just soldier on.
They’ll rebel against the control freak state we’ve become - and then where will we be?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Interesting call this morning from the Head of the New Zealand Maori Council - who wants a price freeze on essential grocery items.
His name’s Matthew Tukaki - and by essential items he’s talking about the likes of milk, flour, personal health products, sanitary items…those sorts of things.
This is on the back of the latest inflation figure that came out last week. 5.9 percent - the highest it’s been since 1990. So the highest in 30-odd years.
The idea of a price freeze is nothing new here in New Zealand. We’ve had wage and price freezes haven’t we? Both at the same time.
That was Sir Robert Muldoon’s answer to rising inflation - and it lasted from 1982 until 1984…by that time voters had had enough and voted National out and Labour in. Which was the start of a whole new chapter, wasn’t it?
But back to today’s matter of this proposed price freeze. Which, by the way, I don’t think is the answer…but, I tell you what, something has to happen because the cost of living here in New Zealand is just getting ridiculous.
Listening to Matthew Tukaki on the radio this morning, I thought his argument for a price freeze went a bit haywire when he started talking about the supermarkets here in New Zealand needing more competition to bring prices down.
I say “haywire”, because that’s not something that’s going to happen in the next five minutes is it? And so it’s not going to be anywhere near a quick-fix for the current problem of life in this country just getting more and more expensive.
So a price freeze could seem like the quickest and easiest thing to do. But how do you decide what’s essential - and, therefore, would be part of the price freeze - and what isn’t essential?
And what would that mean for the producers of these products? Who, remember, are facing rising costs too. That’s why their prices have been going up. They’re not charities.
So the other option that’s been put up in the past, to try and keep price rises down, is to take the GST off “essential” items. But when you do the numbers - the GST part of grocery items is peanuts really and I don’t see that making too much of a difference.
Granted, when you add everything up - it would make some difference at the check-out for you and me. But I think, overall, the impact would be negative because of the reduced GST-take for the Government.
We keep on wanting more ICU beds and more mental health services and all that, don’t we? So why would we want to reduce the Government’s income by getting rid of the GST? That’d be a dumb idea - as far as I’m concerned.
I know the current government gave some thought to setting up its own supermarket chain - which it ditched pretty quickly. But I think they need to have another look at that.
After all, what’s the difference between a state-owned bank - Kiwibank - and a state-owned supermarket? They could call it Kiwimart.
But again - that’d take a while to set-up.
So if we want something relatively quick, that wouldn’t reduce the Government’s revenue like a GST cut would, and which would deliver more longer-term benefits than a six month price freeze - what about the Government taking over responsibility for purchasing what it deems to be essential items from the producers of these products, and supplying them to the supermarkets itself?
This is how I’d see it working. The Government wouldn’t do all the transporting and logistics, but it would identify the essential items and take over responsibility for negotiating prices with suppliers of these products. It would then tell the supermarkets what the retail price is. Not a recommended retail price. A mandated retail price. And the supermarkets would have no option but to do it.
Because, let’s face it, we don’t have a hope in hell of reducing prices if we leave it to the supermarkets themselves do we? And I know the Commerce Commission and the Government have been making all sorts of noises about...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel about the weekend's pollution event at Taylors Mistake, and discovered a key issue affecting our waste system.
And on a similar topic, the stench following the recent wastewater plant fire at Bromley continues to impact residents in the city's east. When will they start to see a reduction in smell?
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald talked to Labour's Megan Woods and National's Gerry Brownlee about the biggest topics of the week.
They discussed the Traffic Light System, and Omicron in the community. And the importation of rapid antigen tests into New Zealand following the Government's announcement earlier this week.
Inflation was a key topic, with John asking Minister Woods how the Government is going to tackle the rising rate. And both guests reflected on last night's most recent poll results.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you were planning on going in to Ballantynes today, tomorrow or Sunday for the big sale - forget about it. You’re going to have to find something else to do.
You can still buy stuff from them online - but you can’t go into the shop in town.
And why’s that? Well, I think Ballantynes has just won the prize for the biggest overreaction we’ve seen so far this pandemic.
I didn’t know whether to believe it or not when I first saw it - but it is true.
Ballantynes is applying what it calls an “abundance of caution” (that’s the wording on its website…”an abundance of caution”) and has closed its Christchurch store until Monday.
If you’re desperate, you can drive to Timaru because the Ballantynes shop there is staying open. But they’ll be keeping an eye on how many customers are in the shop at any given time. Which is exactly what the traffic light system says they should be doing in the Red setting.
But the reason Balantynes in Christchurch is closed, is because we could - “could” - be about to find out that we have our first Omicron cases here.
We heard yesterday that there are four new COVID cases in the city. Two of them were on a flight from Wellington on Monday morning, and another was on a flight from Auckland on Monday night. And Wellington Airport is a current location of interest.
So there’s a chance some or all of these new cases are Omicron. But they may not be either. We will find out eventually.
In the meantime, Ballantynes has decided that this uncertainty warrants closing its Christchurch store until Monday - and shifting the big annual sale to online only. Unless you’re in Timaru of course - where things are still running as normal (with precautions in terms of the number of customers in the shop at any given time).
Now, as far as I’m aware, Ballantynes is the only department store in the country doing this. In Auckland - COVID central - Smith and Caughey on Queen Street is still running.
And what about all the other shops that are a similar size and scale as Ballantynes? Farmers. K Mart. All of them - business as usual.
Now, I will acknowledge that “The Sale” - as it’s known at Ballantynes - does attract a fair number of people. And a colleague in Auckland was telling us earlier that PB Tech did a similar thing when Auckland moved out of the Red setting and went online-only for a big sale they were having.
But I think Ballantynes is going way overboard, closing its Christchurch store until Monday.
Which will come at a cost financially, so it won’t be something the company is doing lightly. And then what does it do on Monday if there are confirmed Omicron cases in Christchurch?
It highlights, doesn’t it, the deficiencies of the traffic light system - when you get a department store making its own public health decisions. Just like Auckland Grammar School sending students home and telling them to get tested if they were at the Soundsplash Music Festival.
Making it up as they go. And we’ll see more of this, mark my words. For a couple of reasons.
First, I am yet to speak to anyone who knows what to make of all these projections that are coming out about the number of Omicron cases we can expect. I was talking yesterday to someone who works at the hospital and they didn’t even know what to think about it.
50,000 daily cases by Waitangi weekend. 80,000 daily cases at some point. They’re two of the stats that have had some attention this week. So, if you’re confused, you take a cautious approach, don’t you?
The second reason we’re going to see more of these ad-hoc decisions and reactions - like what we’re seeing from Ballantynes today - is that the traffic light system, instead of being a framework, has continued to be an ongoing work-in-progress. Which, in some respects, it was always going to be - given the likelihood of new variants and other measures being needed.
And if the guidance isn’t clear...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It’s taken me quite some time to reach the point I’m at today. Some will probably say it’s taken me far too long.
Nevertheless, it has happened – and I’ll come straight out and tell you what it is.
I have lost confidence in the Government's ability to lead the COVID-19 response here in New Zealand.
I was about to say “manage” instead of “lead” – but it’s my confidence in the Government’s “leadership” that’s taken a beating. I’m sure it can “manage” things ok – but leadership is another thing altogether, isn’t it?.
And, on that front, the Government is failing big time as far as I’m concerned – and at a time when strong leadership is critical.
Here we are, two years since the pandemic began, and it still feels as if the Government is making it all up as it goes.
Look, I get that dealing with Omicron is way different than dealing with the first wave of the virus back in 2020. And yes, we have become one of the most vaccinated countries in the world since then. And when it comes down to it, that will probably be the thing that New Zealand can be most proud of when we compare our response to what’s gone on in other countries.
But what we saw from the Government yesterday and, more to the point, what we haven’t seen of it since December 19 last year – has been the tipping point for me.
The lack of progress over summer can easily be summed up in four words – “asleep at the wheel”.
And I know you’ll have your own thoughts on what you heard from the Government yesterday.
But, for me, there were three things in yesterday’s announcement that show the Government hasn’t just woken up from a nana-nap – it’s actually still trying to wake itself up from a full-on hibernation.
So what are they?
Number One: “Stamp it out”. I couldn’t believe it yesterday when the Associate Health Minister said “stamping out the virus” is what the current phase of the Omicron response is all about. Phase One. I didn’t quite know what to make of it. “Stamping it out” – all I can say on that one is they are dreaming!
Number Two: The Government is yet to determine who is and who isn’t a critical worker. And what is and what isn’t a critical business.
On that one alone how can anyone think this Government is all over Omicron and knows exactly what it’s doing. How on earth can it have no idea what and who is going to be critical when Omicron reaches full steam in New Zealand?
And Number Three: and this is the one that’s received the most attention. And that’s the appalling way the Government and the Ministry of Health have piggy-backed on those businesses that have got their A-into-G and ordered Rapid Antigen Tests (or RATS, as they’re becoming known as).
If I was the owner or boss of one of these businesses that had the foresight to order these tests, I would be furious that the Ministry and the Government has stepped-in at the last minute and told the suppliers not to send them to the companies which ordered them – and send them to the Ministry of Health instead.
That is just outrageous isn’t it? And, as we heard on the Breakfast show this morning, people are livid. And they have every right to be, as far as I’m concerned.
Ashley Bloomfield and the Government can say as many times as they like that they are just “consolidating” the orders – that’s one of the weasel words that came out yesterday but it is nothing short of control freak behaviour.
One outfit in the news this morning ordered hundreds of thousands of tests – and they’re saying it was two weeks ago when the Government and the Ministry started this “consolidating”.
Again, it’s outrageous!
And you may have also heard the head of Business New Zealand saying this morning that when the kits do start getting dished out by the Ministry of Health, they’ll only be available to test whether people who have had COVID are well enough to go back to work.
And they won’t be...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In our first interview back with Christchurch Mayor, Lianne Dalziel, John MacDonald asked the Mayor how she felt about New Zealand moving into the red light level. And with just a few months left in her role as Mayor, what would she like to achieve before she steps down.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today National Party leader, Christopher Luxon, joined John MacDonald via phone on our first show back for 2022.
John asked him what National would do if they were in Government right now to handle the arrival of Omicron in the community, and covered other key issues such as Three Waters and opening our borders.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In our final show for the year, John MacDonald hosted National's Gerry Brownlee and Labour's Megan Woods live from the newly opened Te Pae Christchurch Convention Centre.
They discussed this great new facility for Canterbury, and the long road to recovery following the quakes. And reflected on their highlights of the year, which Gerry used to his advantage to promote his latest venture.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
For the final time this year, John talked to National Party leader Christopher Luxon and found out how he is coping after a busy two weeks at the helm of the National Party. John asked about his feelings about the most recent political poll results, and what the National Party will do to win back votes the had lost.
They also discussed the passing of a bill which will allow intensive housing to be built in Canterbury, and the Auditor General's report into the Ministry of Social Development paying high rates for private rentals for people who are without homes.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald caught up with Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel for our final chat for 2021.
The Mayor reflected on the recent decision for the Council to stay with Local Government New Zealand, and the steps they would now take in regard to the proposed Three Waters Reform, and promoted a new water usage tool available via Council for ratepayers.
And John asked the Mayor what she felt the Council's best achievements had been in 2021.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to Gerry Brownlee and Duncan Webb and got their initial reaction to the Kaiapoi Doctor who has allegedly been giving false medical exemptions to those wishing not to be vaccinated.
They also discussed the latest news around Three Waters, with proceedings now being delayed and yesterday's announcement from the Government around New Zealand's smoking culture heading towards Smokefree 2025.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday we had Megan Woods on the show solo, as unfortunately Gerry Brownlee had been caught in a bad coverage area, but will join us again next week.
Minister Woods spoke to John MacDonald about the new Traffic Light System starting today nationwide, and what that means for New Zealanders over summer.
They also discussed the Pharmac review, current Fuel Prices and more ICU beds coming to Canterbury.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today for the first time as National Party Leader, Christopher Luxon joined John MacDonald to talk about his vision for the party moving forward.
Luxon spoke about what he felt were the key issues facing New Zealanders, including the ability to pay everyday bills without struggling, and how his party would be moving forward to become a strong opposition for the Government.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel about this afternoon's Traffic Light System announcement, and which level she felt Canterbury should be starting out on. She confirmed that Council will find out the level at the same time as the public at 4pm today.
The Mayor also elaborated on a congestion charge that has been discussed the by Council, potentially seeing a charge to come into the city, and the ongoing topic of chlorination of Christchurch water.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to Christchurch mayor Lianne Dalziel regarding the proposed plans to sell land in the Arts Precinct to allow for development of a car parking building.
The mayor was questioned about a cattle feedlot on Banks Peninsula that had been given consent, which will cover almost as much area as the convention centre, and explained the limitations the council had around that consent.
And library fines have been abolished in other regions, will Christchurch City Council follow suit?
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by Labour's Tracey McClellan and National's Gerry Brownlee.
Topics for discussion included the recent cancellations of events in Canterbury, and if Government's new Traffic Light System provided enough clarity for organisers.
They reflected on the Pike River tragedy 11 years, and discussed whether investigations should continue if they were to result in charges being laid.
The Groundswell protests will go ahead in parts of New Zealand on Sunday. McClellan and Brownlee reacted to the protests, and the comments made by Stuart Nash in Parliament yesterday.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is today visiting Christchurch, and spoke with Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings host, John MacDonald live on the show.
John asked the Prime Minister about the new 'Traffic Light System', and off the back of recent events being cancelled in Canterbury, whether the system provided enough information and clarity for event organisers to confidently plan going forward.
The Prime Minister also discussed the Three Waters Reform and why she feels it is essential to move forward with the changes, and domestic travel within New Zealand being open for both the vaccinated, and the unvaccinated."
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to National Party Leader, Judith Collins.
They discussed the latest political polls and the leadership of the National Party, and John asked why she had publicly written off Simon Bridges as a potential leader for the party.
Also, concerns around MP safety, which have been raised after a recent event with Labour's Kieran McAnulty, and Collins gave her view on the three Councils who are seeking legal action around the Three Waters Reform.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald caught up with Christchurch City Mayor, Lianne Dalziel.
He questioned the mayor over media coverage of a potential pay rise for Christchurch City Council chief executive, Dawn Baxendale, and whether it is an appropriate time to be giving increases.
They also discussed allegations that information about issues with the new stadium budget had been withheld from City Counsellors for two months, and the mayor joining the new Three Waters working group.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to Waimakariri Mayor Dan Gordon.
Dan is leading the charge on Councils pushing back on the Three Waters reform, and told listeners about the concerns his residents have voiced and his request to meet with the Prime Minister.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
On today's show John MacDonald was joined by Christchurch mayor Lianne Dalziel.
She spoke of her shock and sadness of the fatal shooting of 16-year-old, Connor Whitehead, an innocent bystander who lost his life while attending a party last Friday night in Casebrook.
John followed up on last week's conversation about chlorine in our water, and also asked for the Mayor's thoughts about a proposed separate recycling system in Christchurch for glass.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This week on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by Labour's Megan Woods and National's Gerry Brownlee.
They discussed the End Of Life Act which comes in on Sunday, and if palliative care should be free to allow a balanced choice for people with terminal illness.
Auckland Airport has joined the National Party in calling for a Royal Commission into the Government's Delta response, and should fireworks become a purely public display and not be bought for private use?
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today National Party Leader Judith Collins joined John MacDonald to discuss why she feels there is a need for a Royal Commission into the Government's Delta response.
She also discussed Auckland University deciding to mandate the vaccination for their campus, and her views on Landlords and their rights in New Zealand.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
During our weekly catch up with Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel, John MacDonald raised a question from a caller about chlorine in our water.
The Mayor explained about the new Water Services Act and safe drinking water rules brought in by the Government, and the process for the Council to gain an exemption from having to use chlorine.
John also discussed the recent Three Waters announcement, and asked if the Mayor is considering leaving Local Government New Zealand, and the recent Covid cases in Canterbury.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Labour's Poto Williams and National's Gerry Brownlee today joined Canterbury Mornings to discuss what has been a turbulent week for the Canterbury region.
John MacDonald asked if enough had been done by the Government to protect the South Island from Covid and whether the Government had dropped the ball in preparing for the arrival of the Delta variant in New Zealand.
He also questioned why the Government was so intent on pushing ahead with the Three Waters Reform when it was clear from Councils around New Zealand that they were not in favour of handing over their water assets.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A call to get tested in Christchurch after two confirmed Covid cases in the city.
Two unvaccinated members of one household have tested positive almost two weeks after one returned from Auckland, for authorised travel for a child.
The extent of the spread remains unclear - but Epidemiologist Michael Baker told Newstalk ZB's John MacDonald there are simple things everyone can do while they wait for more information.
“Firstly, if you have any symptoms at all, come forward and get tested, the second thing of course is continue to follow the rules and the third thing, of course, is getting vaccinated.”
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National Party leader Judith Collins announced ahead of the Government announcement, this morning, Labour's plans to go ahead with the Three Waters Reform.
Collins stated she felt it was an asset grab, and if National were to be elected they would not proceed with the reform.
She also voiced her concern about the delay in MIQ changes, her feelings on vaccine mandates and her frustration on the Traffic Light System - which was announced last Friday by the Government.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch City Councillors are dismayed following the Government’s Three Waters Reform announcement this morning.
Sam MacDonald and Phil Mauger told Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings they're dismayed at the lack of consultation and consideration given to local councils.
Their calls of concern were backed by a media release sent from Mayor Lianne Dalziel's office following the news.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today it was announced that both Addington Raceway and Riccarton Park will operate behind closed doors to the public during Cup Week in Canterbury in the second week of November.
The lack of clarity around alert levels for Canterbury going forward has led to the racing clubs having no choice but to plan to race with access for industry members only, during a week which historically brings in thousands of visitors to the city.
Darrin Williams is the Racing Industry Manager for Addington Raceway.
He spoke to John MacDonald about the reasons for the decision and told him they left the decision as long as possible to try and get a clear picture of what restrictions would be in place on their biggest day of the year, New Zealand Trotting Cup Day.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Following conversations on the show earlier in the week, John MacDonald of Canterbury Mornings spoke to Labour's Duncan Webb and National's Gerry Brownlee regarding our local MPs and whether they were going in to bat for the South Island.
They also discussed the pandemic plan going forward in regard to ICU in New Zealand, the latest poll results and learned more about their plans on Super Saturday, and encouraging New Zealanders to get vaccinated.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
During our weekly interview with Judith Collins, John MacDonald asked the National Leader if she thought that the vaccination mandate should be extended to local authorities such as councils to help protect the South.
He also discussed the ICU situation with staffing and training, and the recently released Government Statements.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald today on the show asked why the South Island didn't even get a mention in the press conference with the Prime Minister, and he placed that blame solely on local MPs not going in to bat for the south.
He called on local MPs to make a stand, and fight for the South Island to figure in the conversation and be thanked and protected.
Nicola Grigg, who is National's Selwyn MP, called in and told listeners that she and other MPs had written to the Prime Minister two weeks about about the South Island and Covid levels, and had yet to get a response.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald spoke to Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel about the Local Government New Zealand interim report, and the suggestion of amalgamation between Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri Councils.
They also discussed keeping the South Island Covid-free and discussed the news that the Wizard will have his funding from the Council cut from December.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
On today's edition of Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by Megan Woods and Gerry Brownlee.
They discussed the idea of a South Island border, the interim report on Local Government New Zealand and the cancellation of the A&P show.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Selwyn Sounds returns in March 2022 and today we were thrilled to talk to Jon Stevens, who will join the likes of Jimmy Barnes, Stellar*, Ardijah and Greg Johnson in next year's line up.
Jon talked us through the early days of his musical career in New Zealand, before he crossed the ditch to form Noiseworks, before stepping up as the lead singer of INXS with the passing of Michael Hutchence.
He's very much looking forward to returning to home soil, and once again performing in front of a Kiwi crowd.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
On today's weekly catch up with National Party leader, Judith Collins, John MacDonald asked what the National Party thought of a gang leader being given and essential worker status to travel between Waikato and Auckland, as part of an effort to increase vaccination rates within the gang.
They also discussed the letter from Pfizer last June, which allegedly saw a six-month delay in vaccination supply to New Zealand, and the proposed mandatory vaccinations for teachers .
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Following the Mayors comments today on the show about five Christchurch City councillors calling for Nanaia Mahuta to resign her local government portfolio as "pot shots from the side", Sam MacDonald, who is one of those councillors, called Canterbury Mornings to discuss why he felt they had to make a stand.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on our weekly chat with Christchurch mayor, Lianne Dalziel, John MacDonald asked how the mayor felt about five Christchurch City councillors calling for Nanaia Mahuta to resign her local government portfolio over the Three Waters reform.
He also asked about coastal issues in Christchurch and how the Council is going to tackle rising sea levels going forward.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This week on Politics Friday with John MacDonald, he was joined by Labour's Poto Williams and National's Matt Doocey.
This week talking about the recent move by Timaru District Council to leave Local Government New Zealand over the proposed Three Waters Reforms, Local Body Election potential delays and Oranga Tamariki.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald today spoke to Darrin Williams from Addington Raceway about the huge impact Level 2 is going to have on our biggest racing week in Canterbury, New Zealand Cup Week.
If we remain in Level 2 for another three weeks, this will see the crowd of 20,000 reduced to just nine pods of 100 people for the nation's biggest harness racing event with the event being run behind closed doors. The first time in 117 years this has happened.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In today's Politics Friday interview, John MacDonald was joined by Megan Woods and Gerry Brownlee to discuss ICU capacity in New Zealand and the Proposed Public Finance Amendment bill, which would see a stop to public money being given to gangs.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
During his weekly chat with National Party Leader Judith Collins, John MacDonald quizzed her about an incentive to increase our vaccination rate, the National Party Leadership and staff departures. John also asked one of the most important questions of the week about her trip to a Queenstown Ice Cream shop.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
On this week's Politics Friday, Canterbury Mornings host John MacDonald caught up with National's Gerry Brownlee and Labour's Duncan Webb, discussing the Sail GP cancellation, GDP and being left out of the AUUKUS partnership.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John MacDonald had his weekly interview with National Party Leader, Judith Collins.
They discussed the Māori Party petition to rename New Zealand to Aotearoa, the Covid elimination vs. suppression strategies and Janet Wilson's recent public comments about her time working for the National Party.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National Party leader Judith Collins joined John McDonald for her regular slot on the one year anniversary of her taking over the party leadership.
She told John it's been a busy year with a lot of change, and that she's pleased with how things are tracking.
"It's been a year of having to get a lot of things done, particularly around the caucus and the party, a time of change. But also, feeling very invigorated by not only our members, but also the support we're getting on the ground."
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National says the Human Rights Commissioner needs to resign.
Leader Judith Collins says Jacinda Ardern needs to give Paul Hunt the boot, or he should choose to hang up his boots.
She told John MacDonald the Newstalk ZB revelations of Hunt donating $200 to the Mongrel Mob demonstrate his complete lack of judgment.
"Paul Hunt wants to give his own money, give his own money. But giving taxpayer money and even being there, giving credence to them, that is outrageous."
Collins said it's a clear indication - under Hunt's leadership - the Commission's gone completely off track.
Act leader David Seymour has already asked for Hunt's resignation, saying the Mongrel Mob peddles in misery.
He has also called on the Government to abolish the Human Rights Commission altogether.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel will not seek re-election, saying she would have needed her late husband by her side to stand again next year.
Dalziel has held the mayoralty for three terms, being first elected in 2013.
Her husband Rob Davidson died last year.
Announcing her decision, she said it had been an absolute privilege to represent the city where she was born and lived all her life.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
More than a quarter of Christchurch Girls' High School students say they've been sexually harassed more than 10 times and more than 20 students say they have been raped.
The school commissioned the survey after concerns were raised around the rise in harassment towards students.
Dr Dame Sue Bagshaw joined John McDonald to give her thoughts on the findings that have emerged from the survey.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The current Christchurch mayor has paid tribute to her predecessor, Sir Bob Parker.
The former Christchurch Mayor - whose prominence boomed following the Christchurch earthquakes - has been paralysed on his left side by a brain bleed in October.
In an interview with TVNZ's Sunday programme, the 68-year-old struggled to remember his mayoralty or broadcasting past.
Current Mayor Lianne Dalziel told John MacDonald Sir Bob means a lot to the city.
“He was the voice of our city in our time of need, and we will never, ever forget that.”
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National Leader Judith Collins says there should not be a lockdown in Wellington despite the capital being on high alert after an Australian man flew into the city during the weekend and spent time at six locations of interest.
The man flew back to Sydney on Monday.
Collins says she's crossing her fingers Wellington won't go into lockdown.
She told John MacDonald she'll support the Government's decision, if it's based on the Ministry of Health's advice but another lockdown would be hugely costly.
A National MP is accused of inappropriately spending money on furniture, including a television which hasn't yet appeared in their office.
The MP has gone to ground, and the Parliamentary Service says it has no records of formal complaints relating to the particular member.
Judith Collins would not reveal if she knows who the MP is, but she did say it wasn't on her watch.
Collins also confirms National MP Todd Muller will resign at the next election.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Government is investigating a proposal to see new KiwiSaver members increase their contribution from three per cent up to 10 per cent, in half a per cent a year increments.
But it could hit workers in the pocket by reducing their take home pay packet.
The union believes employers should shoulder some of the rise rather than just workers.
Australia will next month lift its compulsory employer superannuation contribution rate from 9.5 per cent to 10 per cent of wages or salary - and up to 12 per cent over three years.
David Boyle, head of sales and marketing for Mint Asset Management, joined John MacDonald to discuss the proposal and whether it would suit Kiwis better.
LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
A big maintenance bill stands in the way of keeping Christchurch's Wharenui Pool open.
It's likely the 110 year old pool will be decommissioned when the new Metro Sports Facility opens in 2022.
Wharenui Swim Club President Chris Averill told John McDonald they've been told by the council they have to go it alone.
He says they will do a feasibility study to see if it can be saved.
“If we simply can’t afford the money to stay, then we have to look at an option, because the last thing we want it to do is to take over a facility and then have a million dollars of maintenance to fix it up, it will ruin the club.”
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Judith Collins is warning any MPs anonymously bad-mouthing MP Harete Hipango that they're showing themselves up.
The National leader is playing down speculation Hipango is not a team player.
A Newsroom article quoted National party sources saying the incoming MP, who is returning to Parliament as a list MP to replace Nick Smith, is not well-liked within the Caucus.
Collins told John McDonald she backs Hipango, a returning National MP, and rubbishes the anonymous comments.
"I think too that if anyone did say that, they are showing themselves up. No one's name's to it [so] it means nothing.
"It's worth the paper it's written on."
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.