Canterbury Mornings with Chris Lynch

I'm no fan of the current Government. In fact, I'm no fan of any of the political parties at the moment. That said, you've got to give the current lot credit for what we saw in yesterday's Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU). Is it enough for them to get another term? I'll tell you what I think shortly. But the overarching result is that the government's finances are better than expected. The books could be out of the red a year earlier than forecast. With a $4 billion surplus, $1.5 billion higher than was forecast just a few months ago, expected within three years. When I first heard those numbers, I thought, “Why would you change course now?” For me, there is a lot not to like about the current government. Despite what it says, I think it has a general disdain for people who are down on their luck. ACT, especially. And that doesn't sit well with me. Then there's all the culture war nonsense pushed by NZ First. Making English an official language. Laws to define what a woman is. Proving you're Kiwi enough to live here. So there's a long list of all the things I don't like about the current government. But you've got to give them credit for the state of the books. So do I think they deserve another term? Based on yesterday's results, I would say yes. Reluctantly. But there's another reason too. I think Labour has blown it and doesn't deserve to be back in government. I've got no idea what they've been doing these last three years. It seems that Chris Hipkins thinks all he has to do is start swearing in speeches and get fired up during interviews and he'll be Prime Minister again. He's dreaming. And the state of The Government's books could be the final straw. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour Leader Chris Hipkins has admitted he hasn't yet read the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU) in full, but he is confident the funding for his party's policies is there. Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, Hipkins says Labour will take time to crunch the numbers before coming out with their fiscal plan, which will be out by the end of next week. "You've got to give us a little bit of time to digest it. There's a lot of numbers in it and you want to take the time to do that properly" Hipkins also discussed his views on Green Party Co-leader Chloe Swarbrick calling for big portfolios if they create a coalition government, and his reaction to the passing of former Labour MP and Speaker of the House, Adrian Rurawhe. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I'm all for pay equity for women, but. Which I'll get to. First, though. At a public meeting in Christchurch last night, Labour leader Chris Hipkins was asked what the most important thing a Labour-led government would do for girls and women. He said reversing last year's pay equity changes. And that he would do it within his government's first 100 days in office. He said: "I think probably the most reprehensible thing I have seen in my time as a member of Parliament was the Government's decision last year with no notice, with no warning, with no consultation, to pass under urgency a law that cancelled pay equity for tens of thousands of women." I agree with him there. The way it played out was appalling. There were about 180,000 workers with pay equity claims underway. They were all dismissed pretty much overnight under urgency. Hipkins went on to say: "I want to give you a reassurance that within the first 100 days we are back in Government we will reverse that change." Adding that care and support workers will be first in the queue, because he says they have waited long enough. That's because when the coalition rushed through its pay equity changes, and there were those tens of thousands of workers with pay equity claims underway, about 80,000 of them were care and support workers. It was May last year when the Government announced it was pulling the plug on any existing claims and was going to make it harder for any future claims to get through. Saying it was doing it because the pay equity rules were “muddied and unclear”. The truth was, it was doing it to save $12.8 billion and save Nicola Willis' skin. Because it was just days out from the Budget. ACT leader David Seymour was even crowing that Brooke van Velden had single-handedly rescued the Budget. So it was smoke and mirrors and, the way it was done, was an absolute shocker. I'm all for pay equity. I find it so dismissive of people who say “Oh yeah, equal pay and all that but, sorry girls, we just can't afford it.” So no argument from me that something needs to be done to make good for that appalling move by National, ACT and NZ First. But I can't support the way Chris Hipkins wants to go about it. And, instead of the usual 100 days' nonsense, I want to see this thing looked into properly. I want to see a thorough select committee process, or something similar, used to get the facts. Which would then allow an approach to be developed to sort out real inequities in a realistic way. So it's a yes from me. But do it properly. Don't rush it. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How shocking is it that a woman died on a stretch of State Highway 1, in South Canterbury, that NZTA had known was dangerous but hadn't done anything about it? I'll run you through the details. But I hope NZTA is listening to the coroner who is saying today that a median barrier is needed where the crash happened. I also hope NZTA wakes up to the fact that median barriers are desperately needed on a lot of other roads, as well. In fact, there was supposed to be a median barrier where this crash happened. But it didn't go ahead because the money for it was used on something else. So in January 2018, Kellyanne Pattinson was driving south and was killed when a truck veered across the road and hit her car. It was on State Highway 1, near Pareora in South Canterbury. She wasn't doing anything wrong. No excessive speed. No alcohol. The truck driver wasn't in the wrong, either. But he lost control, veered across three lanes and crashed into her. That happened because it had been wet and excess bitumen had come up to the surface of the road, turning it into a bit of a skating rink. Technically, it's known as “flushing”. And, the thing is, NZTA knew about this problem, but hadn't done anything about it. In the six years before this crash, there had been five other crashes within 250 metres of where Kellyanne died. All of them involving northbound drivers losing control of their vehicles. Not long before it happened, a contractor had raised concerns about this issue with the excess bitumen floating to the surface in the wet and making the road slippery. I don't know when the median strip that was supposed to have been installed on this stretch of State Highway 1 would have been installed if the funding hadn't been pulled or spent elsewhere. So I can't say whether Kellyanne would still be alive if it had gone ahead, as originally planned. But Coroner Alexandra Cunninghame is saying today that it's still needed. Apparently, there was also a plan to install one earlier this year. But NZTA told the coroner it didn't happen because it didn't “align with Government priorities”. Which isn't good enough, as far as the coroner is concerned. She's saying today: “Had the project proceeded, I would have been satisfied that adequate steps had been taken by NZTA to ensure public safety and to reduce the chance of further deaths occurring at the crash site.” Which is her way of saying that enough hasn't been done and the road is still dangerous. So a median barrier is needed there to stop head-on collisions. But that's just a start. Because I reckon they are the only way to prevent vehicles from crashing head-on and we should have them on a lot more roads. The only other options are to keep our fingers crossed, as we do at the moment on most roads around the country, and hope some clown doesn't do any dodgy overtaking. Or keep our fingers crossed and hope it doesn't rain and make the roads slippery. Neither of those are good enough for me. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Can you believe how quick Christchurch City councillors are to throw around the cash? Agreeing yesterday to give $1.2 million to Orana Wildlife Park, just 10 days after the park came out crying poor. Saying it was on track to run out of cash by the end of March and needs to find $4.1 million to keep paying the bills. They said at the time that they'd be trying to raise some of the money themselves. But would also be asking our local councils for help. And first cab off the rank is Christchurch. With councillors voting yesterday in favour of handing over $1.2 million. What does that say about the Christchurch City Council that, within just 10 days, it does this? It tells me that it's a pushover. The way the votes went were 13 in favour and 3 against. So a decent majority. There were some dissenting voices around the council table, who weren't happy. Councillor Nathaniel Herz-Jardine, who, by the way, I think is showing himself to be a very good councillor, said the council should be focusing on the basics. Such as roading, water, affordable housing and community facilities. According to The Press, Councillor Jardine reckons that agreeing to the $1.2m will eventually see the council contributing $5 million annually. Which, over 25 years, would add up to about $125 million. I don't know about the $125 million. But I think he's right. Because what does the City Council agreeing in just 10 days to hand over $1.2 million say to the people running Orana Park? It tells them that, when push comes to shove, the council will come to their rescue time and time and time again. Before it hands over the $1.2 million, Christchurch City Council wants to see the park's half-year financial results and wants to see what it's doing to improve the finances. But that will just be a box-ticking exercise. Orana Park knows it's got the money. And it knows there'll be more where that came from. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger is backing the councils 1.2-million-dollar boost for the city's struggling Orana Wildlife Park, but won't deny whether money will be dished out in the future. Speaking on Canterbury Mornings, Mauger said the council would wait to see how successful Orana Park's fundraising efforts are before considering any further support. "They haven't even started fundraising yet, so it'd be interesting to see what they what they do get." "We'll just wait and see." The Mayor also discussed a range of other city issues, including airport noise restrictions affecting housing developments, the new Brougham Street cycle bridge, the Canterbury Museum redevelopment, the latest on the temporary stadium site, and Christchurch City Holdings Limited's work exploring potential asset sales. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I don't know whether the Christchurch City Council anticipated this kind of thing, but there is proof today that it got it wrong with its decision to limit new homes being built under Christchurch Airport's flight path. And I think it needs to reverse its decision. It was only last year when the council made it and, already, it's backfiring. Because we're finding out today that development company Williams Corporation has abandoned plans for a university housing complex in Ilam, next to the University of Canterbury, because of these ridiculous restrictions. It was to be $80 million worth of apartments, 177 of them, that were to be sold to private investors to rent out, as well as to people wanting to live near the uni, such as university staff. The land is on Kirkwood Avenue and is zoned for housing, but it's also inside this airport noise contour, which means the airport gets to have a say on any housing developments in the area. This is 6 kilometres from the airport and part of a total of 600 hectares of land under flight paths in Christchurch where housing developments are limited because of jet noise. Which means, thanks to the city council, our airport, which is 75 percent owned by the council, is the only one in the world with such tough restrictions. What makes them even more ridiculous is that it wouldn't matter if Williams Corporation wanted to build under the flight path and insulate these apartments to the max with quadruple glazing. It's the noise outside the house that matters. According to The Press, the airport initially said no outright. Then it went back and said it might reconsider if a minimum number of the apartments were only used during the university year. Because the issue the airport has with the development is its “scale and intensity”. I've got no idea what that has to do with noise. But that didn't suit Williams Corporation because its plan was to build these new apartments and sell them to either landlords to rent out to students, or to people such as university staff who want to live close to work. So the airport's idea was never going to work. As Matthew Horncastle from Williams Corporation says: “It meant we couldn't sell one of the homes to a university lecturer or a local cleaner. It could only be for transient accommodation, and to rent out for less than a year at a time. “It's not an easy market, and that would have created too much additional risk for an $80 million development.” Too right. These restrictions also don't make sense when you consider that there are truckloads of people already living under the flight path. That isn't lost on M. Grace-Stent, who is a housing affordability advocate, who says the airport is not an unknown quantity. They're also saying today that the lack of accommodation around the university is pushing up costs for students and that these building restrictions under the airport flight path are totally unnecessary. And I couldn't agree more. And before other developments get given the chop because of them, the council needs to get rid of them. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If Labour's $2 billion fees-free scheme didn't lead to an increase in student numbers but did reduce student debt, was it still worth it? The coalition government doesn't think so and is scrapping the scheme, saying it's better to invest in things like trades training. But I think the risk is we look at this $2 billion, which has come to light today through information provided to Newstalk ZB under the Official Information Act, and assume straight away that it was one big waste of money. When it started, it was the first year of fees that were free. Then it changed to the final year of study. Most of the money went to university students, with the rest going to people signing up to study at polytechnics, private training establishments, industry training organisations and wānanga. As far as Tertiary Education Minister Penny Simmonds is concerned, it was a huge waste of money. But, as someone who got in touch with me about it said: if you sit at home and do nothing, you get the dole. But if you get off your butt and go and study, you get nothing but a big loan to pay off. They said the fees-free scheme might not have been the best way to go about it. But there is an inequity between people who don't want to do anything and who get support from taxpayers, and others who try to make something of themselves and don't. And that's where I'm at too. Yes, $2 billion is a truckload of taxpayer money. Yes, as we're finding out today, it was $2 billion that didn't actually achieve what it was supposed to achieve, which was getting more people into tertiary education. But the other side of it is that the 300,000 students who took advantage of the scheme did come out of their studies with less debt than they otherwise might have. And what's wrong with that? Penny Simmonds says students will still be supported through the student loan scheme. But don't they deserve more than the government telling them to borrow more? The Green Party is upset. It says the scheme increased Māori participation in tertiary education by about 20 percent. But, more to the point, it doesn't think it's acceptable for the government to say it's supporting students by piling more debt on them. And I agree. Yes, some students can access the student allowance. But the bar for that is so high that most end up not qualifying for it. So they put everything on the student loan and walk out the door with a whole lot of debt. The fees-free scheme was far from perfect. But surely our tertiary students deserve better than just being told to go and borrow more money. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I could try to be understanding about this. But I can't. Because, how on earth did we get to the point where kids are turning up at school in nappies, and unable to hold a pencil? If someone's kid can't do those things by the time they turn five and start school, then they have failed. The same goes if they've let their kid spend so much time on devices that they're incapable of having a conversation. In case you think I'm lumping kids with genuine learning and physical challenges together with kids who can't do these things because their parents or caregivers have failed them, I'm not. But when you have National wanting to ban screen time in early childhood centres and limit screen time for Year 1 to Year 3 primary school students so they can focus more on things like learning to hold a pencil and write, you know something's gone wrong. You also know things have gone wrong when you hear Education spokesperson Erica Stanford wanting to broaden pre-school checks, because kids are turning up not even knowing the basics. This is the part of this new policy that I really like. It's sad that it's needed, but I like it. And if you're thinking it's not all that bad because these kids will eventually catch up, think again. They will catch up, but on average it could take as long as three years. National thinks part of the solution is to get kids in early childhood centres, and five, six and seven-year-olds at school, off devices and focusing on the basics. And to test kids before they start school to make sure they can do these very basic things. All of which I support. But it won't do much good if we continue to let these hopeless parents off the hook. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour has come up with a policy that I think is actually meaningful and would hold employers more accountable for workplace deaths. Labour has announced that, if elected, it will introduce a corporate homicide charge. Which would mean, if a worker died on the job, their employer could be charged with homicide. The punishments would be pretty hefty. An individual could end up with a life prison sentence and companies could be hit with fines of up to $10 million. And about time. Because even though our health & safety laws have been beefed-up after Pike River, the punishments dished-out haven't kept up. And Labour wants to change that. The party's workplace relations and safety spokesperson, Jan Tinetti, says, even though New Zealand has one of the highest rates of workplace deaths in the developed world, employers can't be held as accountable as they should be. She says Labour wants to deliver what the Pike River families have been calling for for years. Which is the ability to charge employers with homicide. Sonya Rockhouse, whose son Ben was killed at Pike River, is saying today that Labour's policy announcement today is fantastic news. She says: “People who are in charge and who knowingly make the workplace unsafe, they need to be held to account.” Now, let's say this went ahead and corporate homicide was a thing, it wouldn't necessarily deliver what the likes of the Pike River families have wanted. Which, if we're honest, is to see the former mine boss taken to the cleaners. Which makes the timing of today's announcement interesting. Because, only three weeks ago, the NZ Herald reported that Crown prosecutors were considering police recommendations on possible charges relating to Pike River. The Herald said at the time that it understood manslaughter charges were among the charges being considered. So where this Labour policy fits with that, I'm not sure. Either way, I like it. As Sonya Rockhouse from the Pike River families is saying, just the threat of a life sentence or a massive fine would be enough for most employers to make sure their health & safety is up to scratch. I'm realistic, though, and know that, if this went ahead, not all corporate homicide charges would stick. Because guilt can't always be proven. And that can leave people somewhat disillusioned. Depending on the situation, a corporate homicide charge could be very difficult to prove. For example, proving that the boss of an outfit actually knew about a particular risk in the workplace before someone was killed wouldn't always be easy. Nevertheless, I think the ability to lay a corporate homicide charge would move things on from where they are at the moment. So it gets my support. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The ribbon has been cut as The University of Otago's 292-million-dollar Wai Ora building has held its opening ceremony today. The new facility will expand the university's capacity for biomedical research and clinical trials, with space for about 15-hundred researchers, clinicians and students. John MacDonald visited the new building earlier this week, joining Associate Dean of Research Professor Logan Walker and Ōtautahi Campus/Wai Ora Project Owner Professor Suzanne Pitama to find out how the new collaborative hub will support research, teaching and healthcare innovation. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National's Vanessa Weenink and Labour's Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week. They covered some of the week's biggest issues, including Labour's proposed corporate manslaughter policy, National's plans to tackle the supermarket duopoly, the funding challenges facing Canterbury Museum, and whether they agreed with FENZ Minister Brooke van Velden, who said this week she no longer has confidence in Chief Executive Kerry Gregory. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What on earth has happened to National being the party for business? The party that encourages people to take risks, start businesses, work hard and enjoy the rewards? I never would have imagined National, of all parties, coming up with this idea of forcing Foodstuffs to split its supermarket operations. Business NZ feels the same. Saying today that it's just like Labour banning oil and gas exploration. It says the National Party's plan to use legislation to separate Pak'nSave from New World and Four Square is alarming and sends a chilling signal. And I couldn't agree more. Because, unlike the oil and gas ban, which makes it very clear to oil and gas exploration companies that they're not welcome here, National's supermarket idea tells the world that they can still come here, but the rules might change once they set up shop. Which is why Catherine Beard from Business NZ says it's not just the local supermarket operators who are going to be worried. She says all businesses, here in New Zealand and elsewhere, will be too. National's finance spokesperson Nicola Willis, though, isn't having a bar of that. She says no current supermarket owners would be forced to sell. They'd just be part of the Pak'nSave chain, or they'd be part of the New World/Four Square chain. She says we're being ripped off by the supermarkets and something has to change. But using legislation to fundamentally change the structure of a business, that is not a centre-right policy. It's an anti-business policy. Another weird part of this is that National wants to force change on Foodstuffs, which is a New Zealand outfit. But isn't touching Woolworths, which is an Australian outfit. Nicola Willis told Newstalk ZB this morning that that's got nothing to do with Woolworths being publicly listed on the stock exchange over in Australia. But she did say that Woolworths shouldn't be complacent and will be expected to offer lower prices as well. But I'm with Business NZ. This is an anti-business policy from the dark ages. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Yesterday's policy announcement from the National Party has sparked outrage from business leaders and supermarket owners. Marc Brokenshire is the Owner/Operator of New World Ilam. He joined John MacDonald to share his perspective as a supermarket owner, and an employer of over 165 staff in his community. He said the uncertainty has already led him to delay significant investments, including a backup generator capable of powering the entire supermarket during a power outage. "'I'm not ordering that new generator. Those investment decisions just go on hold, and I hope we don't need that service." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I'm not the least bit surprised by this Tom Phillips cock up. Because we are a country that has made turning a blind eye a national pastime. So, if we do that ourselves so often, why should we be surprised when the Police and Oranga Tamariki do the same thing? We're a country where there's been no shortage of people lining up to portray Tom Phillips as something of a national hero. I don't know how many people have said to me over the years that he was “just doing it for his kids”. That he was frustrated with the Family Court process and just wanted to protect them. So, again, if that's what some people think, then why should we be surprised when the Police and Oranga Tamariki appear to have thought the same? As you'll be aware, it's been found that the Police missed several key opportunities to catch Phillips, including one time when a local picked him up in their car and tipped off the cops. They were about to send someone out. But they got diverted to another job. Which is understandable. It happens all the time. I get that the Police have to prioritise things. But to leave it and only follow it up way down the track when the chance had been lost? That's indefensible in my book. Other findings include the Police failing to act on firearms warnings and Oranga Tamariki dismissing family concerns about the wellbeing of the kids. The Government has apologised. Oranga Tamariki has admitted it made mistakes. But the Police are pushing back, saying it was a complex situation. When Phillips was shot dead by the Police a year ago and we started to find out more about his set-up and what he'd been up to, I was very quick to admit that I had been wrong and the Police had been right. That I had been wrong saying over the years that the Police were pussy-footing around. That, instead of waiting for him to come out of hiding with his kids, they should've been more gung-ho on it and gone after him. I admitted that I had been wrong because I believed that, if they hadn't taken their time, there could have very easily been more than one person dead at the end of it. What I didn't know a year ago, though, when I made that admission, is how much of a shambles it had been behind the scenes.That it was known how much alcohol he was drinking. As much as a bottle of vodka and a box of beer a day. That he was such a heavy drinker that he'd started making his own vodka. That, before he disappeared the first time, he'd gone into town to buy booze wearing an army-style full-face gas mask and had been banging on about the end of the world. That family members had raised concerns about the safety of the kids. But nothing was done. Just the stuff we can talk about makes it scandalous enough. Add in the stuff we can't talk about because of suppression orders, and it's an outrage. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour Party Leader Chris Hipkins says the findings of the Marokopa inquiry are concerning, with the report concluding that missed opportunities may have delayed efforts to protect the children and bring them home sooner. Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, Hipkins admitted he had not yet read the report in full, but acknowledged there is clearly room for improvement across all government agencies involved. "There were clearly some things there that got missed, and that's really concerning". Hipkins served as Minister of Police from June 2022 until becoming Prime Minister in January 2023. He also discussed ACT's proposal to lower the training wage, the latest poll results showing both Labour and National sitting in the 20 percent range, and Labours latest policy to make price gouging illegal. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I've got to say that I'm getting very close to losing all confidence in the Canterbury Museum redevelopment project. Because, increasingly, the people behind it seem to be trying to hold the city to ransom. Saying now that, if they can't get their hands on more city council money ASAP, there'll be delays and way more expense. About $7 million more. So what I knew was going to happen, has happened. But even though they've got us over a barrel, we can't stop now. This is the big museum redevelopment project that had an original budget of $205 million. Which increased to $247 million last year. And, earlier this year, blew out by another $15 million. That was when the museum crowd went cap in hand to the council, asking for more money. The council agreed. Throwing-in another $15 million. Taking Christchurch's commitment to $74 million for the project. But, as well as that, the council also agreed to lend the museum a further $28.6 million. Providing the museum could get another $15 million from the Government - which has already contributed $35 million. But that hasn't happened. And so, now, the museum wants to get its hands on the council loan. Even though it hasn't got the money from the Government. Which the council said had to happen first before the loan money would become available. The museum has told the council that, if the money isn't handed over very soon, there'll be further delays and the total cost of the project could blow-out by another $7.2 million. But, even though I think the council has every right to tell the museum to take a flying leap, I think it should agree to make the loan money available. Even though the museum seemed to be happy earlier in the year with the condition that the loan wouldn't be available until the Government had chipped-in, I think the council should agree. Even though I'm getting that close to losing all faith in the people running the project. Because what's the alternative? Another mothballed heritage building in Christchurch? Besides which, the museum is much more of a public facility than the Anglican Cathedral ever will be. And I would have thought that the Government would have been way more inclined to help out because of that. Remembering that Finance Minister Nicola Willis turned the taxpayer tap off for the cathedral because of her view that it isn't a true public facility. Councillors, though, don't seem to be as forgiving as I am. Councillor Sam MacDonald, who worked on the package earlier this year which gave the museum the extra $15 million and the loan arrangement, has told the press that the museum should be talking to Wellington. Instead of hassling the council. He says: “Between now and the election, their focus really needs to be on securing the remaining $15 million from central government. That is the critical piece needed to get the project locked in and moving.” He makes a very good point, saying that the City Council didn't have any say on the design of the redevelopment and how much was going to be spent on it, but is still being expected to pick up the pieces. I agree with all that. Nevertheless, if the museum can't get the council loan money ASAP, even though they haven't met their side of the deal, the whole project could be delayed by another 12 months, and the cost could go up by another $7 million. So, there's only one choice. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I think Orana Park has had its day. And, if our local councils are going to pour any more money into it, it should be money to help wind it down and find new homes for the animals. And then that's it. That's the only involvement I think is warranted. But a decision is going to have to be made soon. Because, as the park has announced, it's on track to run out of cash by the end of March and needs to find $4.1 million by then to keep paying the bills. Orana Park says it will try to raise some of the money itself. But it's going to be asking our local councils for help. And, already, city councillor Aaron Keown is saying that he thinks Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri should just front up with the whole $4.1 million. He says the money could come from ratepayers paying a targeted rate, similar to what we already pay to support Canterbury Museum. He says: "There's so many places councils could save money and then put it into breeding programmes so we don't have to put down those animals and close up the park because that's your alternative to not funding it properly." The animal welfare people, though, feel differently about it. They're saying today that zoos are no longer affordable and we should get rid of them. They say places like Orana Park are outdated and not good for the animals. I'm somewhere in the middle between the animal welfare crew and Aaron Keown. Which is why I'd be very happy for our local councils giving Orana Park the money needed to re-home the animals elsewhere. Which could be Auckland Zoo, for example. But, in a country the size of New Zealand, I think one national zoo is all we need. Of course, there will be no shortage of people who will feel all nostalgic about Orana Park and will think it should be saved at all cost. I never went there during the years when you could drive your car through the lion enclosure. That seemed pretty weird to me. That all started in 1976 and finished in 1995 and I reckon most of the people who will want to save Orana Park will be looking at it all nostalgically. Because, the times I've been there, the lions and the giraffes have been impressive. But I think the world has moved on. If there is a need of any sort, it would be the animal breeding work that gets done. The way Aaron Keown puts it, you'd think Orana Park is the only breeding programme in the world. But it's not. Which is why I think that, if ratepayers are going to put more money into Orana Park, it should just be to tide it over until all the animals have got new homes to go to. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I don't know about Winston Peters' chances of deporting all non-citizens found guilty of violence and sex crimes. But I do like what he's pushing for. He also wants to kick out non-citizens involved in criminal groups and money laundering. There's one thing I'm grappling with, though. Which I'll get to. Kicking out crims is just one part of NZ First's immigration policy for this year's election. As Winston Peters himself says, it's about treating immigration is a privilege, not a right. To some, his idea of deporting non-citizen criminals could sound a bit hypocritical. When you consider how much Winston Peters has had to say about Australia's 501 deportees. Which brings me to the bit I'm grappling with. Even though I hate the problems Australia's 501 scheme has created for us in New Zealand, I like this idea from NZ First. The other thing that makes me wonder why I like it so much, is that the number of non-citizens behaving badly seems to be relatively low. According to the World Prison Brief - which is a global database giving free access to information about prison systems throughout the world - just 3 percent of the people in New Zealand prisons at the moment are non-citizens. It's most recent numbers - from the end of June this year - say that there are 11,256 people in prison here in New Zealand. That includes people waiting to go on trial and remand prisoners. And just 3 percent of them aren't New Zealand citizens. Which is about 330 people. So, if we use those numbers, you could say that 97 percent of the serious crimes in New Zealand are being committed by New Zealand citizens. Which tells me that foreigners aren't running rampage committing all sorts of crimes. So the number of people Winston Peters would end up deporting would be very small. But, despite all that, I like what he wants to do. I might be a hypocrite, given I'm anti the 501 scheme. But I like it. LISTEN ABOVESee 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 week's biggest issues, including New Zealand First's immigration policy, Labour's AI proposals, and whether Parliament relies too heavily on urgency, following a rushed law change that affected MSD payments for thousands of people. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What a load of nonsense from the Government about New Zealand not joining our international partners in trade bans over what Britain is describing as the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. It's saying that it won't be joining the UK, France and Canada in banning goods from illegal Israeli settlements because New Zealand doesn't mix trade and politics. Or, more specifically, New Zealand doesn't use trade bans to make political points. I'm not the only person thinking that's a load of nonsense, either. International law expert Al Gillespie is saying today that New Zealand should be joining the trade sanctions. Because, despite what the Government says, we have actually done it before. After Russia invaded Ukraine, New Zealand slapped a 35 percent tariff on all imports from Russia; we banned the import of oil, gas, coal and gold from Russia; and we banned exports to Russia and Belarus. But I suppose you've got to hand it to the Government for being consistent. Last year, it resisted recognising Palestine as a state. Now it's saying it won't be following the lead of the UK, France and Canada. Which have announced a ban on goods from illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. And a ban on companies providing finance, construction, infrastructure, real estate and advertising services for the settlements. Because of what it explicitly says is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. The New Zealand Government isn't budging. Because it's scared of Israel and the United States. Back in March, former Foreign Affairs Minister Phil Goff said New Zealand no longer had the courage to speak freely on international matters. That was in relation to the Government's wishy-washy response to Israel and the United States attacking Iran. I bet he'd say the exact same thing today. And he'd be right. Because, if we want to be an independent, confident country, we have to take a stand on things. Even if it means brassing-off the superpowers. Just like we did back in the 1980s with the United States and their nuclear ships. But we have lost the courage to speak freely. Courage we used to have in spades. Even when we see allies like Britain talking about ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the Israeli settlements. Settlements which, by the way, are illegal under international law. Where the number of settlers has risen in the past 30-odd years from 270,000 to about 770,000 today. Even when we hear Britain's Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband say things like: “The British Government agrees that there is ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in areas of the West Bank, perpetrated by settler terrorists.” The New Zealand of today hears those things, but isn't moved. The strongest thing the Government can say is that it's "concerned" about settlements that breach international law. The opposition parties say we're a global embarrassment not getting involved. Labour Leader Chris Hipkins says, if he was in charge, we would be joining-in with the sanctions. Saying: “These are our friends who are now saying that what Israel is doing is wrong, and they should be sanctioned for it. New Zealand should be joining them and sending a very similar strong message.” I'm as realistic as the next person and I know that sanctions have their limitations in terms of influencing change. And yes, I'm easy-oasey about recognising Palestine as a state. Because that doesn't change its status. It's only the United Nations that can do that. But allegations of ethnic cleansing is a different story. And when you have the likes of Britain, France and Canada saying enough is enough, New Zealand can't ignore it. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Once upon a time, I might have thought that a government-owned supermarket chain sounded like a good idea. That was once upon a time. The Green Party, though, thinks it's a good idea. Announcing yesterday this policy to force the operators of 120 supermarkets and two distribution centres to sell-up to the government. The Government would spend $2.8 billion doing that, take those supermarkets and the distribution centres and set-up the state-owned “Kiwimart” chain. I might have once seen it as a good idea. Until I thought about all the other commercial operations the state has involved itself with. And how much that has really brought prices down for us consumers. Air NZ. Are those airfares any cheaper with the government being the majority shareholder? Aye? Electricity? You paying less for power with the government being the majority shareholder in Genesis Energy, Meridian Energy and Mercury? Kiwirail. Isn't amazing how cheap it is to travel by train with the government owning Kiwirail? See what I mean? And now we've got the Greens thinking that the government owning more than a hundred supermarkets around the country would mean cheaper groceries. I don't believe it for a minute. But Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick does. Saying: “Two companies control what almost everyone in this country eats, and they take about a million dollars a day in excess profit out of our shopping baskets. That is money that should be in people's pockets.” Also saying: “Everyone agrees we need competition in the grocery sector to drive down prices, but successive governments have failed to lure one. That's why we are announcing the real solution: a supermarket owned by all New Zealanders, for all New Zealanders.” Which all sounds brilliant. But here's the key reason why a state-owned supermarket chain wouldn't work. Anything operated by the state is more expensive. That's because government workers have better working conditions. Certainly better than your average supermarket worker. More leave. Higher wages. So more expensive to run. To the Greens' credit, they aren't falling into the trap of saying how much cheaper things would be at Kiwimart. That would make the idea even less credible. They are saying that they want to spend $2.8 billion of government money on something that we reckon might mean us paying less at the check-out. Eventually. I don‘t buy it. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The naysayers will be loving the admission from One NZ Stadium bosses that the number of concerts booked in so far isn't what they'd been hoping for. I think it's fair to say that we'd all hoped for more than what's confirmed so far. Robbie Williams in November and the Foo Fighters in January. The naysayers will be loving it because they'll say it proves their point that spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a stadium was always going to be a waste of money. That there's no shortage of stadiums around the world that have become the proverbial white elephant, pointing down the road to Dunedin as an example. You're not going to hear me saying that. Because I have always been, and will remain, a big supporter of One NZ Stadium. And, instead of bagging Venues Ōtautahi, the council agency which runs the stadium and other venues around town, I'm asking whether we need One NZ Stadium as well as the Wolfbrook Arena. Caroline Harvie-Teare, who is the chief executive of Venues Ōtautahi, has told The Press that events at the stadium have been more sport-heavy than initially expected. There have been five sold-out Crusaders games, the Super Rugby Super Round, the Warriors, the All Blacks. And there's a lot more sports events booked in too. Concerts at the stadium, though? Well, it's been a bit quieter on that front. We had the big opening concert with Six60. Robbie Williams is doing his sold-out show in November. And the Foo Fighters are here in January. And that's it. Meanwhile, at Wolfbrook Arena, since the stadium opened in March, we've had the likes of Jimmy Barnes and Split Enz and others. And coming up at the arena we've got Bryan Adams, Westlife and Stan Walker. Apparently, another show at Wolfbrook is going to be announced in the next few weeks. Venues Ōtautahi runs all three main concert venues in town: the stadium, Wolfbrook Arena and the Town Hall. The stadium's concert capacity is 36,000. Wolfbrook Arena's capacity is 9,000. And the main auditorium in the Town Hall has room for up to 2,500 people sitting and standing for a concert. So do we need all of them? Could we do away with Wolfbrook Arena and have a lot more concerts at the stadium? We kind of could. Because the new stadium can be closed off to create a smaller venue. They've got this curtain set-up, which allows them to close off parts of the stadium and, when they do that, it takes the capacity down to about 15,000 people. But going from the Wolfbrook Arena, with room for 9,000 people, to the scaled-back arena within the stadium, which has a capacity of 15,000, that is still a big jump. Consider too that, with the Parakiore Sport and Recreation Centre now open on Moorhouse Ave, do we still need the arena? The arena has been where the Mainland Tactix have played most of their home netball games. They had a pre-season game this year at Parakiore so, perhaps, they could do that on a permanent basis. But for me, when I balance it all up, I think we do need the stadium and Wolfbrook Arena. It would be easy to look at the lack of stadium concerts and say the arena is the reason. That we have two venues competing against each other. But I think we need both. LISTEN ABOVESee 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 issues of the week, from the Governments fuel tax cut, if e-scooter riders need to be licenced, and the "Jades law" petition calling for an increase on penalties for careless driving causing death. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sometimes it seems that Labour's decision to ban exploration for fossil fuels gets blamed for nearly every problem we're dealing with in New Zealand. And today is no different. With Labour copping the blame for the closure of the big Methanex manufacturing plant, in Taranaki. The company has announced that it's closing the methanol plant, which uses as much as 40 percent of the natural gas produced in New Zealand, because of what it describes as no clear path to new gas supplies. It will stop production at the end of February. Putting about 200 jobs on the line. Which has Economic Growth Minister Nicola Willis pointing the finger at Labour. Energy Minister Simeon Brown is piling-in too. He says "The reason why we're in this position is because Labour decided to ban oil and gas exploration, crashed a sector, thousands of jobs in our regions lost, particularly in Taranaki, and now even more being lost." Which is the predictable response, I suppose. But he's wrong. So is Nicola Willis. And here's why. The last really significant natural gas discovery in New Zealand was the Pohokura field in 2000, off the Taranaki coast. It was discovered in 2000 and production started in 2006. Since then, there's been nothing comparable to that. And certainly nothing comparable to the Maui gas field, which was discovered off the coast of Taranaki in 1969. I've seen it described as enormous, by international standards. But there hasn't been a second Maui. Which, by the way, is due to end production at the end of this year. But back to this nonsense that the Methanex plant is closing because of Labour's gas ban. Rich Sumner is President and CEO of Methanex Corporation. He says: “Our New Zealand production facilities have operated for more than four decades and our people have made significant contributions to the company's global operations and the New Zealand energy sector. However, we have also been preparing for the eventuality of this day given the declining gas availability in the country.” Key words there: “declining availability”. And the reason for that “declining availability” isn't because of the gas ban. The declining availability is because we spent 18 years looking and didn‘t find anything. Eighteen years between the last significant discovery and the start of Labour's exploration ban. You would think, wouldn't you, that 18 years would be long enough to discover something worthwhile. But we didn't. And that's why Methanex is shutting-up shop here. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nine billion dollars a year. $750 million a month. Or $24 million a day. That's how much interest we are currently paying on government debt. Just the interest. But, despite that, the Government thinks it's a good idea to borrow more money to cover the cost of the revenue it's not going to get because of the fuel tax freeze. The Transport Minister has confirmed that more money is going to have to be bow-wowed. Because the Government's books are in deficit. Chris Bishop says borrowing is the only way to do it, given the state of the country's finances. Which comes at a time when we are spending $9 billion a year just paying the interest on government debt. It is nothing short of lunacy. I'm not against governments borrowing money. But it has to be money for essential things like infrastructure. If we have to, borrow money to build roads. If we have to, borrow money to build hospitals. But don't go borrowing money because you've decided, for whatever reason, to deny yourself revenue because of this political paranoia about taxation. Politicians go on all the time about the Government having to run the books just like you and I run our household budgets. So sticking with that analogy, what the Government's doing with this plan to borrow money to pay for its decision to play politics with taxation is like someone getting a loan from the bank to pay for the kids' pocket money. The kids are happy but, because the money has to be paid back with interest, they struggle to pay the powerbill during winter. Sounds nuts? That's exactly what the Government is doing with its borrowing to pay for less tax revenue. It's exactly what Labour did too. Remembering that the long-term picture when it comes to government debt isn't pretty. We're heading for a situation in the next few decades where government debt will be 180 percent of GDP. Yet, these politicians in Labour and National, claim to be the ones who know what it takes to run the economy. And they think more debt is the answer. Do me a favour. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Opposition Leader Chris Hipkins is waiting for the Government to release its pre-election fiscal update before explaining how Labour would fund a freeze to fuel taxes over the next three years. Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, Hipkins said Labour would need to wait until the government's books were opened to determine how it would fund the election promise, but he backed the party's plan to ease petrol costs for Kiwis. "What I'm being really clear about is that we're not going to ask New Zealanders in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis to pay another 25 cents a litre every time they fill up the car." Hipkins also discussed Labour's policy to guarantee jobs for all graduate nurses, the latest Roy Morgan poll numbers, and the Paris Agreement, which currently divides the coalition government. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You know how we've been saying for ages how much of a problem e-scooters, in particular, are? How we've been saying for ages that, in the wrong hands, they're death traps? How we've said all that, but we've done absolutely nothing about it? I reckon we need to be looking at what they're doing over in Queensland right now. And I think we should do the same. Because, as of this week, Queensland is the first state in Australia - and one of the very, very few jurisdictions anywhere in the world - to set age limits and licensing requirements for e-bike and e-scooter riders. Which is a brilliant move. As of this week, in Queensland, anyone wanting to ride an e-scooter or e-bike on their own needs to be 16 and, at the very least, have a learners driver's licence. As of this week, in Queensland, there is a new speed limit for e-scooters - 12 kilometres per hour near pedestrians. And because people will now need at least their learners licence to use these things in public, the police in Queensland have a lot more power to intervene when someone's being a muppet. So, when they're breaking the speed limit, the cops can now stop them and fine them. If they're under-16 or if they don't have a licence, the cops can ping them. If they're riding an e-scooter or an e-bike drunk, they can be done for it. What's more, the parents of any kids in Queensland caught breaking these new rules can be fined. They're doing this over there because people have had a gutsful of e-scooters, e-bikes and those electric dirt bikes. But we have too, haven't we? And we're not imagining how much of a problem they've become. Especially the e-scooters. Between 2022 and January this year, ACC claims for e-scooter crashes totalled $49,580,000. On average, that's $12.5 million a year. What you don't get from those figures is the ongoing consequences of those injuries. The numbers show too why what Australia is doing with its age limit makes sense and why we need to do the same here. Over the last two years, there have been 3,090 e-scooter ACC claims from teenagers. Last year, here in New Zealand, 10-to-19-year-olds were the most crash-prone e-scooter riders. You might have noticed that I said crash-prone, not accident-prone. Because most e-scooter injuries are avoidable. They're not accidents. That's because of the way people use these things. Especially, the hire scooters. Which, by the way, do require people to verify that they're over 18 before using them. But we know that a lot of kids just use their parents' details to get around that. Besides which, putting it on the scooter operators makes no sense. Which is why I think it would be an absolutely no-brainer to do what they're doing in Queensland. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Selwyn Mayor Lydia Gliddon joined John in the studio for their regular catchup. They discussed the key issues facing the district, including managing fast-track developments, the council's amalgamation plans, and proposals to reduce speed limits on sections of Leeston Road from 100km/h, which have faced significant opposition from local residents. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Instead of cracking down on New Zealanders with student debt living overseas, we should be making things easier for them. Especially, if we want them to come back. Tell that to the National Party, though. Which has announced that, if it forms the next government, it will be going after graduates overseas with student loans and doing nothing about it. The ones who account for 93 percent of the student debt that needs to be paid back. National is promising to make life a bit easier for graduates living here. Giving them more time to pay off their loan with lower repayment rates. But the ones overseas will face higher interest and tougher penalties if they don't pay it back when they should. Which makes no sense to me. Especially, if we want to get these people back to New Zealand. How the system works, is that anyone with a student loan who moves to another country gets hit with interest. Which means more debt to pay-off. If you've graduated and you've got a student loan to pay off and you're in New Zealand, no interest. But the minute you go overseas to live, the interest starts getting added. And you're expected to make two lump-sum payments every year. Not everyone does, though. And these are the ones National has in its sights. With Nicola Willis saying the taxpayer has subsidised their education and, if they choose not to use their skills to contribute to New Zealand society, then two things are needed: they need to pay more for the privilege of the taxpayer subsidising them and there needs to be consequences if they don't follow the rules. I agree there needs to be consequences for not paying it back. Because a loan is a loan. But what National is proposing isn't the answer. Because this so-called crackdown won't do anything for the New Zealanders 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. It's crazy to get all hardcore on it when some people are already too scared to come back. The thing is, too, 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. Which is why I think a much better approach would be to be a bit flexible with these people. What would be wrong, for example, with IRD talking to them and seeing if they might qualify for some grace on the basis of hardship? Or agreeing to letting them come back, pay a few hundred bucks for a start and see how it goes. I wouldn't have any problem with that. Because what would you rather have? These people stuck overseas owing all this money? Or would you rather they were here using their skills and knowledge and making a genuine contribution to the country? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Anyone celebrating that ruling by MBIE last week about one apartment in central Christchurch not being suitable for Airbnb accommodation needs to put the bubbly back on the ice. Because this Air BnB scourge in Christchurch isn't going away anytime soon. With a block of 24 new apartments, on Madras Street in the East Frame area of central Christchurch, that was supposed to be used for residential housing, being sold to one Airbnb operator. The sale hasn't happened yet. But the crowd building the apartments, Fletcher Living, is looking for an investor to buy the three-storey block holus-bolus. The price for all 24 apartments is thought to be somewhere between $12 million and $15 million. Which is a price bracket that would enable an investor from overseas to buy it. What really sticks in my claw, is that this development is happening in what became known as the East Frame area after the earthquakes. Which was a key development designed to get more people living in the central city. Not having a one-night holiday in the central city. Living in the central city. The specific area where this development is happening is on land bought by the Crown after the quakes, on Madras Street, near the Margaret Mahy Playground. A local lobby group isn't happy that people won't be able to buy the apartments to live in, saying it would be better than having them sitting empty most of the time. Would it ever. A nearby resident is saying today too that this bulk sale of these 24 apartments is “outrageous” and will only make the area feel more lonely for people, like her, who live in the area. People who have been saying for some time now that they're finding themselves living in ghost neighbourhoods, with all these Airbnbs around them. In one new development, residents say about 80 percent of the places have become Airbnb-type properties. At another one, on the corner of Kilmore and Manchester Streets, there are 25 new townhouses and the people living there reckon only four of them appear to be occupied by long-term residents. Which has them feeling like they're living in a “pretend neighbourhood”. And they're not imagining it. We found out recently that, 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. Which isn't going to improve with Fletcher Living now selling what is effectively going to be a 24-room virtual hotel. Councillor Yani Johanson says: “How do you build communities when you've got so much short-stay accommodation?” The answer to that is, you don't. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Local broadcasting legend Barry Corbett joined John MacDonald to look back on his time as the breakfast host on 3ZB and Newstalk ZB as the station turns 100 years old. Barry was the breakfast host on 3ZB and Newstalk ZB from 1981 to 1998. He then took his hand to local politics as a Christchurch City Councillor and is now a part-time tram driver across the CBD. LISTEN ABOVESee 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 issues of the week, from the Government's plan to cap council rates, if trust in the public service has dwindled after the MBIE officials were found to mislead parliament, and the tax talk from both sides of the aisle. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Whatever happened to accountability and consequences in the public sector? They've gone, it seems. With no one at the Ministry for Business, Innovation & Employment or Immigration NZ copping it for misleading MPs about throwing $33 million of taxpayer down the drain. And I'm with this business professor from Victoria University who is saying today that heads need to roll. What's happened, is an investigation has found that officials from MBIE and Immigration NZ misled Parliament when they turned up to a select committee hearing in March. They were asked how things were going with their upgrade to Immigration NZ's security technology which, they knew full well at the time, had been scrapped months earlier. They knew it had been scrapped. But they didn't let on. Even when one of the MPs asked about making sure the project was on track and not turning into another public sector IT disaster. They could have said: “Err not good news, actually peeps. We pulled the pin on that project a few months back. And we don't really have anything to show for your $33 mill.” But they didn't say that. They fudged it. And that's putting it politely. Parliament's Privileges Committee, which looked into this, says these officials “misled” Parliament. But we know what that really means, don't we? Not only was it bad enough that they blew $33 million of taxpayer money with nothing to show for it. Not only was it bad enough that they didn't tell anyone about it. And not only was it bad enough that they didn't fess up to MPs when they had the chance. On top of all that, nothing's going to be done about it. No consequences. The committee that did the investigation seems to think that naming and shaming these officials is punishment enough. Which I completely disagree with. I also disagree with the decision by Public Service boss Sir Brian Roche not to accept the offer from MBIE boss Nic Blakeley to resign. After all this came to light, Blakely said to Sir Brian that he was prepared to be the fall guy. But Sir Brian wouldn't accept Blakely's offer to resign. Why's that? Because he'd only been in the job five minutes. So what? Which is exactly what Professor Geoff Plimmer from Victoria University's School of Business and Government is saying today, as well. He says what happened was an insult to the entire public service and public servants need to get the message that they can't get away with this kind of thing. Do they ever. Which is why I think Sir Brian Roche got it wrong. It doesn't matter how long he's been in the job. Because, as it stands now, no one is copping it. And I can't accept that. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The extra $20-a-week most of us got from the government's tax cuts was like winning First Division Lotto, compared to the miserly amount you and I are going to save when this cap on council rates kicks in. The Local Government Minister has confirmed that the rates cap will come into force in July 2029 and will ban councils from anything higher than a 4 percent annual increase. And, when it does, we'll save, on average, $34 a year. Which proves that this is yet another placebo policy. A policy that might make some of us feel good, but won't actually make much difference. It will make a difference for the local councils. Because the screws will go on their budgets. But it will make next to no difference for ratepayers. And the government needs to acknowledge that, get some backbone and change its thinking on this. Because what good is a mind if you can't change it? How Local Government Minister Simon Watts can talk about these miserly savings for ratepayers and keep a straight face, I'll never know. But there are three choices facing councils, now that they're going to be limited to 4 percent annual rates increases. They can borrow more. How do you like the sound of that? Especially if you think council debt is a real problem. I heard Simon Watts saying that councils can access cheap loans. But debt is debt. They can charge us more for services. Because there's not going to be any limit on how much councils can increase fees for consents and library services and getting into places like council pools. They won't be allowed to increase the rates by anything more than 4 percent, but they can go to town with other fees. Or they can trim their services back to the bare bone. Fewer rubbish collections anyone? More unrepaired roads anyone? See what I mean? And we can have some or all of those options while, at the same time, saving a miserly amount on our rates bills. On average, $34 a year. Is there any good I can see in all of this? At a push, I would say that it's probably got councils focusing or thinking a bit more about costs and expenditure. But I think they, generally, do that anyway. They just seem to get snowed under by all the demands we place on them. We demand more. It costs more. This isn't me saying that councils should be allowed to run free and spend whatever they want. But, as anyone who has thought they can become a local councillor and deliver zero rates increases has discovered, that kind of talk is cheap. The reality is, it costs money to run councils and deliver council services. That's why this 4 percent rates cap the government is forcing on councils is not going to do anyone any favours. It's not going to do councils any favours. And saving a pitiful $34 a year isn't going to do ratepayers any favours, either. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Well done to ACT and NZ First for not agreeing to National's social media ban just because it's election year. Because that's all this is. Another example of a political party getting so-called runs on the board at the last minute so it can say to voters “look what we're doing”. Or, “at least we're doing something”. It's something they're already doing in Australia. And a new report out shows, surprise, surprise, it's not working. Which I'll get to. But, yesterday, the Prime Minister and the Education Minister announced to the world that legislation is being introduced to get the under-16s off social media here in New Zealand. Now I'm not denying that there is a problem with kids and social media. But this needed to happen 15 years ago if we wanted it to work. That's not putting National off. The fly in the ointment, though, is that its ACT and NZ First coalition partners are using the “agree to disagree” clause in their agreement. And so National is going to need Labour's support to get it across the line. Labour's making all sorts of noises about wanting to know more detail. But they'll eventually support it. Because they're just as politically desperate as National. ACT and NZ First, though, at least they've got some principles. In relation to this anyway. That's because they've seen the same reports I've seen, which show Australia is really pushing it uphill trying to make their ban work. According to Australia's internet regulator, more than 80 percent of teens and pre-teens over there are still using social media. Despite a social media ban for under-16s being introduced late last year. So, if it's not working over there, should we even be bothering here? No. Because it was never going to work in Australia. It will never work here. And it will never work anywhere else that wants to give it a go. Because it's too little, too late. It would have worked 15 years ago. Not now. Because the horse has already bolted. And politicians are dreaming if they think they can put a lid on it at this stage. Let's not forget too that social media can actually do a lot of good. I saw mental health campaigner Jazz Thornton saying that social media can be a lifesaver for teenagers. I've heard the same said about young people in the LGBTQIA+ community. How social media can be very positive in terms of creating a sense of belonging, at a time when they can feel very, very isolated. And if you think it sounds like I'm saying just because a ban won't work we shouldn't be doing anything about kids and social media, I'm not. But I'm realistic. And, like it or not, parents and caregivers are the only ones who can actually make a difference. But, even then, and I know from experience, parents and caregivers are limited in what we can do. The kids will always find a way. Just like they'll find a way to get around any ban. The most obvious way is to get a virtual private network (VPN) set up, which hides your internet protocol (IP) address. It's like turning off the caller ID on your phone. You do that, and people can't see your number when you call them. You get a VPN, and the social media companies can't see where in the world you are. Kids in New Zealand will do that and there'll be no chance of Facebook and Instagram and the rest of them shutting down their accounts. Because what it comes down to is this: if a kid wants to be on social media, they'll be on social media. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Is National's promise of no new taxes as good as it sounds? If you ask Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown, he'll say no. Because he's been pushing for a bed tax for tourists and, yesterday, Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis announced that that won't be happening under National. Wayne Brown won't be the only person upset, either. You ask anyone in tourism or local government and they'll tell you that a bed tax is a no-brainer. But, if you ask the banks, they'll say no new taxes is brilliant. Because, as well as ditching the bed tax idea, National has dropped the other tax it had been mulling over. Which was a levy on bank profits. Christopher Luxon says neither of those will happen under National. Because they would have just been passed on to customers. Or “everyday Kiwis”, as Christopher Luxon put it. We know, though, that the real reason National has dropped these two new taxes is because, being election year, all it thinks about is catchy slogans. And you can't go bringing in new taxes if your catchy slogan says no new taxes. But is that approach really what's best for the country? I don't think it is. Which is where Labour comes into it. Announcing a few details of its finance plan over the weekend. At this point, let me remind you of my position on Labour. I think it has wasted the last three years and does not deserve to form the next government. The latest poll out this morning, though, the RNZ-Reid Research poll, says a small majority of voters don't feel that way and has Labour on 32 percent and National on 29 percent. But I think Labour has just coasted since losing the election three years ago and hasn't come up with any good reasons to give it another turn this time around. That said, when you compare National and Labour's approach to taxation and spending and you consider what the country needs right now, Labour's approach makes a lot more sense. There are bits that don't. Such as the free doctor visits for everyone. Which would be paid for, apparently, by Labour's new capital gains tax. And be available to everyone. Even people who can well afford to pay to go to the GP themselves. But, when you consider what Labour and National have been talking about over the past 24 hours, it comes down to this: Labour wants to tax more and spend more, while National wants taxes to stay as they are and to spend a bit less. Your gut instinct might be to go with no new taxes and less government spending. But is that really what this country needs right now? As independent economist Cameron Bagrie said this morning, if you want things like better health services, you have to pay more tax. If you want Health NZ to hire more than just the miserly 54 new nurses it's taken on over the last two years, do you think we're going to do that without putting a bit more coin in the tin ourselves? Of course not. More cops with no new taxes and less government spending? Be honest. Of course not. That's why Labour's tax talk is way more realistic than National's. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Grass verges have had their day. These are the areas of grass you see on streets, between the road and the footpath, where people sometimes park their cars. I'll tell you why I think they should go. But first, let me tell you about some residents in the Christchurch suburb of Somerfield who aren't happy about the city council putting in a heap of red and white markers to stop people parking on the verge. Rose Street is where 130 white and red markers, like the ones you see on state highways, have been put in. A move being described today as “ridiculous”, “hideous” and “stupid”. Apparently, since the markers have gone in, some people are parking on the road, next to the markers, which is making the space for vehicles more narrow. Which is crazy, isn't it? I know Rose Street pretty well and it's not off the beaten track. There's a lot of traffic there at times because one of the entrances to Cashmere High School is on Rose Street. There's a couple of rest homes. It's a pretty busy street. The council's not having a bar of the complaints, though. The local councillor, Tim Scandrett, is saying that people parking on verges and damaging them has been a problem for about 40 years. And so they have to try something to stamp it out. Now I've had an issue with grass verges for quite a while. Ever since people started putting rocks on the verges outside their houses, because they were brassed-off with people using the verge as a parking area, and the grass getting damaged and all that. I've had an issue with it because these busy bodies don't own the verge, yet they carry-on as if they do. Rose Street is one of the areas where people have put these blasted rocks. So the council's intervened and installed all of these white and red markers. The same council, might I point out, that has been perfectly happy to issue building consents left, right and centre for in-fill housing. Not just in Somerfield but across the whole city. In-fill housing developments that, most of the time, don‘t have enough space for off-street parking. Which means more people needing to park out on the street. So, instead of putting up markers and closing off the verge areas, the council should be getting rid of verges completely to create more on-street parking spaces. Because the situation at the moment, where more and more people are needing to park on the street and all of this parking space is being chewed up by grass verges, makes no sense to me whatsoever. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Dan Rosewarne joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week. They covered some of the biggest issues of the week, from the Wolfbrook's Pegasus Golf Course development being denied fast track approval from the Government, what needs to be done about aged care in New Zealand, and what they reckon about The Green's wanting to increase the school lunch programme. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If we aren't all despairing at this revelation that the deadly Mount Maunganui landslide was preventable, then don't expect anything to change. Because the fact that consultant after consultant warned about the risk of a landslide coming down on that campground for more than 25 years and yet it still happened, shows how much of a buck-passing country we are. Six people died in that tragedy in January this year. Six people who, I think it's very fair to say, would still be here if these warnings hadn't been ignored. I think the retired judge who did this report which came out yesterday has done a very good job. But I can‘t accept his view that blame can't be pinned on any one person and that it was the system that failed. I can't accept that. Because systems are only as good as the people who run them. And I'm really concerned that this disaster is going to turn out to be another example of how brilliant we are here in New Zealand at letting people get away with what I would describe (in my honest opinion) as nothing short of negligence. Whenever something like this happens, everyone talks about making sure it doesn't happen again. Which I always take with a pinch of salt. In this case, I would like to think that this kind of thing will never happen again. But we can't say that, unless we are prepared to see people carrying the can if they cock up. Let me share a little bit of what Judge Paul Davison says in his report. “For more than two decades, one competent consultant after another identified the landslide hazard to the campground, located it on the very slope that failed, and explained, sometimes in stark terms, what the consequences of a landslide occurring could be.” His report says: “As long ago as 1999, Dr Laurie Richards warned that the siting of fragile holiday accommodation directly beneath these slopes was imprudent and the risk to sleeping occupants was high.” It gets worse. Another warning 20 years ago, in 2006, said a slip there would kill 21 people. And still, nothing was done. If there is anything to be thankful for, it's the fact that it was six people who died and not the 21 talked about back in 2006. Nevertheless, this was a monumental cock-up. And, even though I get what the judge is saying about the system being the problem, I can't accept that we're just going to let faceless people get away with this. Because all that's going to do, is enable people to continue to get away with turning a blind eye time and time and time again. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sometimes, outfits like the Lyttelton Historical Society have to be told to get a grip. And today is one of those times. Because, in a place the size of Christchurch, how many museums is too many? What's happening, is the Lyttelton Historical Society is gearing up to ask ratepayers for $8 million to help pay for a new maritime and colonial history museum. They want $8 million from the council to help build it and $300,000 a year on top of that to run the place. It would be in Lyttelton, which hasn't had a museum since the earthquakes, and would house thousands of items which are being kept in storage at the Air Force Museum, in Wigram, free of charge. In the years between the quakes and now, there have been a few attempts to get a new museum off the ground in Lyttelton. But it hasn't happened. And I don't think it should happen. Unless they can pay for it without running to the council. Because, do we really need to shell out millions of dollars for a new museum in Lyttelton, when we've got Canterbury Museum just 20 minutes' drive away in town? No we don't. Do we really need to shell out millions of dollars for a new museum in Lyttelton, when we've also got the Okains Bay Museum on the Peninsula? No we don't. The Okains Bay Museum which, by the way, is also telling us today that it's planning a multi-million-dollar upgrade. No word yet, though, as to whether they're also going to be asking the council for money to do it. But we know, for sure, that that's what the people behind this idea of a new museum in Lyttelton are going to do. And, in my mind, the council has to say no. The argument that the Historical Society people seem to be basing their request on, is the findings of a feasibility study. Which found that only 53 percent of “stakeholders” they've spoken to about it think they would have any chance of raising the money themselves. And that 53 percent are dreaming. But 100 percent of these stakeholders they've spoken to think it would be a worthy project. Which is what always happens. Everyone thinks it's a great idea but no one wants to pay for it. Or has any idea how to pay for it, apart from doing the usual thing and putting the hand out to ratepayers and taxpayers. And so they're about to run off to the council to try and get $8 million. They've drafted up a proposal document which claims a museum in Lyttelton would support tourism and education and create jobs. Remembering this is the town where the locals complain about the cruise ships and say they do nothing for Lyttelton because as soon as they arrive, the passengers get off the ship and shoot straight through the tunnel into town. Now, though, when it suits, they're saying a multi-million-dollar museum would stop these cruise ship passengers in their tracks. Dream on. What's more, the council is already shelling out millions of dollars for the Canterbury Museum development. And, instead of shelling out more for another museum in Lyttelton, it should be telling the Lyttelton Historical Society that, if their collection is so important, then put it on a truck and send it to Canterbury Museum. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Opposition Leader Chris Hipkins has insisted Labour will not support additional tax policies proposed by potential coalition partners. Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, Hipkins said Labour only have one tax policy that they are campaigning on, which is a targeted capital gains tax, and the rejection of any new taxes from any other parties is a bottom line for any potential coalition talks post-election. "If the Opportunity Party comes into Parliament and says look, a bottom line for us is that you must introduce a land tax, they'll be negotiating with National." They also discussed the comments Hipkins had made in Parliament about Christopher Luxon "hating" New Zealand, the new report showing the troubles facing aged-care, and the upcoming valedictory speech of Christchurch Central MP Duncan Webb. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.