Canterbury Mornings with Chris Lynch

Christopher Luxon is in a hell of a bind. Because he is dreaming if he thinks sacking Defence Minister Chris Penk is going to be enough to get National back on track. But if he did what I think he should do after that shambles of a leadership challenge yesterday, things would come to a complete standstill. Because he's not just running a party. He's also running the government and there's stuff the government has to keep on doing. And you need ministers, capable ministers, to do that. But if Christopher Luxon wants us to come anywhere close to believing that he has a caucus capable of holding itself together and not falling apart at the next hurdle, then he needs to go further than just sacking the Defence Minister. If he wants us to believe that, after what happened yesterday, he's anything more than a lame duck leader, he has to sack Chris Bishop and Erica Stanford too. Because with those two still lurking around, he's talking out of his backside telling us that they're all happy and united and stable. He's also talking out of his backside saying that Chris Penk has been given the heave-ho because he was the one who wanted to be party leader and prime minister. It's nonsense. Chris Bishop and Erica Stanford were the ones who wanted Luxon gone. But they were so pig-headed about it and were fighting against each other as much as they were fighting against Christopher Luxon. Stanford wanted to be boss. And so did Bishop. The person who has come out of this looking like the good guy is Mark Mitchell. There was talk that he was another one wanting Christopher Luxon gone. But he told Newstalk ZB this morning that that was nonsense. He also said he was 110 percent certain we won't see this happening again and seems very confident that National will recover from this, saying the party isn't “mortally wounded”. Obviously, he isn't going to say anything otherwise. But there's no way we can look at National now and think they're anything close to stable, with Chris Bishop and Erica Stanford still sitting around the Cabinet table. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I feel very sorry for Christopher Luxon. And that was how I felt too watching the coverage last night. Reporters falling over themselves at Wellington Airport asking him questions that he was never going to answer. And watching some of his colleagues who, in the last few days, were saying he was their man and they had no interest in getting rid of him. Last night, they were saying next to nothing. And that's being generous. “I'm on the phone mate,” was Chris Bishop's lame reply. Stoney silence was Erica Stanford's. I feel sorry for Christopher Luxon because, despite his many, many political shortcomings, let's not forget he was the guy who put himself forward to take on a party that was in complete disarray. He didn't have to. But he did. Sure, there was all the usual ego involved. But he did it. He took it over, sorted things out and led it to a significant victory in 2023. And, on the basis of most recent polls, it looked like National was or is on track to be able to form the next government in some way, shape or form come November, as well. Which is why what's happening today is so weird. Just 87 days out from the election. It follows a difficult couple of weeks for Luxon, with him copping flak for using Defence Force aircraft, criticising the business sector and surprising his colleagues with a captain's call on an MMP referendum. Which has had the vultures in his caucus circling all over again. Christopher Luxon doesn't need me to feel sorry for him. He's a grown up. But he doesn't deserve this. And the party needs to ask itself, what does National need right now? My answer, is it needs to stick with Christopher Luxon. If it doesn't, National will be toast. Because who could trust this lot ever again? Because all this talk about doing it for the country and fixing the basics and building the future will mean nothing to voters. The only thing the MPs wanting Luxon to go are worried about is building their future. The other thing the National Party needs, aside from keeping Christopher Luxon as leader, is it needs Luxon himself to run the party the way Helen Clark or John Key would. If he's stays on as leader, he needs to do an immediate cabinet re-shuffle and tell those ministers plotting to get rid of him that their days are numbered. That would mean the likes of Erica Stanford, Chris Bishop and Chris Penk losing their portfolios. Some people think they're great ministers. But there are plenty more fish and no one is indispensable. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee 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 ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.