Canterbury Mornings with Chris Lynch

How weird is this? We don't let people like bus drivers, taxi drivers and truckies drive with alcohol in their systems, but we let everyone else on the road do it. Apart from people under-20. But everyone else, all good. Now I know the difference between your average motorist and professional drivers - especially the likes of bus drivers and taxi drivers - is that they're responsible for the safety of passengers. But, just like the rest of us, they're also responsible for the safety of every other road user around them. And I think it's time to do away with this double standard and it's time we had have a zero alcohol limit for all drivers. They do it in other countries. So why not here? Because I think this coroner is pushing it uphill saying today that he hopes a case he's been looking into reminds us of the dangers of drinking and driving. I sense he's also banging his head against the wall. Because Stephen Burdes is also saying today there's nothing more he can add to what we already know about the dangers of drinking and driving. So he's just keeping his fingers crossed that, maybe, this latest example will get through to the muppets who think they're perfectly fine to drive with a few drinks on board. I don't like the chance of that happening. Because how many times have we heard about people dying on the roads because of alcohol and nothing changes? The case the coroner is referring today happened in February 2023. Michael Sadler and Tangiwai Heurea were regulars at a place called Slim's Bar in Ōpōtiki. And on the 10th of February 2023 they spent nearly eight hours there drinking. They arrived at 5:30pm and left at 1:10am the next morning. That would be their last night at Slim's Bar. Crashing on the way home after their car left the road on a gentle corner. They weren't wearing seatbelts. But, more importantly, the driver - Tangiwai Heurea - had a blood alcohol level five times the legal limit. They were discovered dead in their car the next day. You could say that they weren't the only ones at fault here. Anyone in that bar would have seen how trolleyed they were and could have done something. The person in charge of the bar that night probably has a few questions to answer too. But what it comes down to for me, is that we leave it up to individuals to decide whether they're ok to drive or not. And that's what makes it so fraught and dangerous. Fraught and dangerous because of those who think they can handle their grog and they've got no problem driving home. Even if they're a little bit tiddly. Fraught and dangerous too because, even for the responsible types, it's still a guessing game whether they should be driving or not. And we should not be playing guessing games when it comes to drinking and driving. The best way to remove the guesswork would be to make it easy as and tell people that, even if they have just one drink, they can't drive. Because, unless we do, people will keep on drinking and driving and dying. And coroners, like the one speaking out today, will keep on banging their heads against the wall. LISTEN 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 topics from the week, including Labour's public transport policy, the governments LNG levy backdown, and if the correct process was taken to select Labours latest candidate and current police Superintendent, Rakesh Naidoo. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Waimakariri Mayor Dan Gordon joined John MacDonald to discuss the issues that matter to Waimakariri residents. They covered the proposed council amalgamation options the council has put out for feedback, and the strong interest from potential partners to help buy back the Pegasus Golf Course from a developer. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What do you think needs to happen with public transport? According to some, we need to get more people using it. For all the usual reasons: less cars on the road. Lower emmissions. All of that. Which is why Labour has come up with this election policy which, for those of us in the greater Christchurch area, would mean paying no more than $20-a-week to take as many bus rides and ferry rides as we like. National's responded with its own idea. But I think they're both flogging a dead horse. At the bus interchange in Christchurch yesterday, people were saying they liked the sound of Labour's policy. The same with people using the Diamond Harbour ferry. Bring it on, was their reaction. But no surprises there. Because, you ask anyone if they want to pay less for something and, of course, they'll say yes. Which is what this policy would mean. At the moment, Christchurch public transport users pay a maximum of $30-a-week. Labour is pledging to take that down to no more than $20-a-week. And, being election year, the government has responded straight away with its own idea. An idea that it, obviously, didn't think was worth including in the budget a couple of weeks ago. Nevertheless, today we've got transport minister Chris Bishop saying the government could take $450 million from its emergency fund to put more buses on during peak periods. His thinking is that, if more taxpayer money is going to go into public transport, then it should be spent on improving services - instead of providing subsidies. But, do you know what I think? I think we could throw as much money as we want at public transport and it wouldn't make much difference. I think National's idea is better than Labour's. But I don't think either of them would achieve much. Not to mention the fact that taking $450 million out of the government's emergency fund to spend on public transport would be a very risky thing to do. And this is coming from someone who uses public transport at least a couple of times a week. I don't use buses to get to work. So I'm not on them every day. But, here in Christchurch, buses can be a great way of getting around. But, the thing is, there are two types of people in this world and I don't see any political party policy changing the way these people behave. The first type are the ones who have probably always used public transport and always will. They're already taking the bus now and don't need any encouragement to continue. Yes, they'll like the idea of paying less. But they're converts already. Then you've got the people who have always seen the bus as the loser cruiser and there's no way in hell they would start using buses just because it's cheaper. So that's why Labour's idea isn't going to work. As for Chris Bishop's idea of dipping into the emergency fund to put more buses on. I don't see that shifting the dial, either. Because we would need to spend way more than $450 million to have a public transport system that the non-users would even think about using. People would only buy into it if we had services like you have overseas in countries with way more people than us. Trains, trams, buses and ferries that run day and night - pretty much whenever you need them. That would be the gamechanger. But we're dreaming if we think anything like that is achievable here. So my advice to the politicians is this: don't think throwing money at public transport is going to get more people using it. It's not worth the money and effort. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

British actor, comedian and author Alan Davies joined Canterbury Mornings ahead of his first visit to New Zealand in a decade. He's returning with his new tour, Think Ahead, which he is calling his best show yet. Davies' Think Ahead tour will come to the Christchurch Town Hall on Wednesday, August 12. Tickets are available on Ticketmaster. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The reassurances from Labour leader Chris Hipkins that the party is no longer the smug, arrogant outfit we all got sick of three years ago are not only starting to sound hollow. They are hollow. Because if any other party had recruited a top cop for its party list without the top cop telling police bosses about it until the very last minute, Hipkins and his crew would be going nuts. And if he wants to deny that, then he's more arrogant than I'm giving him credit for. But, given it's not another party and it's the Labour Party that announced yesterday that Superintendent Rakesh Naidoo was number 13 on its list, it's not a problem, apparently. In fact, Hipkins is saying that Naidoo has handled the matter with integrity. I'd like to see him say that to Police Commissioner Richard Chambers, who is brassed off that Naidoo waited until last Thursday to tell him that he was intending to stand for Labour. And it wasn't until Sunday - the day before Labour released its party list - that the commissioner found out that Superintendent Naidoo had actually accepted a list spot. Which is very bad form, because who knows what information Labour's latest candidate has been privy to? Without anyone in the police having any idea that he's about to run for Parliament for the Labour Party. Hipkins isn't commenting on how long the party has been in discussions with the senior police officer, other than saying there had been a couple of conversations over the last few months. But the Police Commissioner didn't know about it until it was pretty much a done deal, which is not acting with integrity, as Hipkins seems to think it is. Acting with integrity would be having a quiet word with the bosses as soon as you start having those quiet conversations with the Labour Party. Because this isn't about a cop moving to Australia for a new job. This is about a senior cop signing up to a political party wanting to take down the current government. The current government that this particular officer serves, whether he likes it or not. So no, Chris Hipkins, this hasn't been handled with integrity. And for you to try and convince us that it has speaks volumes about the arrogance of you and your party. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I think we'd be biting off our nose to spite our face if we turned our back on this overseas company wanting to take over the running of the port of Lyttelton. Because this could be exactly the type of in-road to foreign investment that the government has been banging-on about but hasn't yet managed to pull off. Tell that to the unions, though. Which are all antse about executives from global port operator DP World being in Christchurch and wanting to do a deal to manage the port here for as long as 30 years. The port company and the port's owner - Christchurch City Holdings Limited - aren't saying much. Other than acknowledging speculation over what they describe as “a potential proposal” involving DP World and the port company. But the maritime union isn't holding back - making all the usual noises. Which you would expect it to make. Saying it would be a terrible move. Not just for Canterbury. But a bad move for the South Island and the whole country. It says profits would head overseas and it must not happen. But before you fall for all the noise, I want you to think about Fremantle, in Australia. Because it is just noise. Saying something should stay locally-run for the sake of it staying locally-run is noise. There's nothing the unions are saying about this that convinces me that the port company and the council which owns it shouldn't, at the very least, think about it. You might remember Fremantle from the 1987 Americas Cup. It's also a major port. A major port which has been operated by the same company that wants to run Lyttelton port for the past 20 years. And we need to be looking at Fremantle before swallowing all the rhetoric regarding this potential deal at Lyttelton. Because, in December last year, the company started work on an $18 million rail connection at the port. To move more freight by rail - from 22 percent to a third of the freight it handles. The company itself paid for this. What's more, it plans to have spent $1 billion upgrading port infrastructure in Australia by 2028. Which is exactly what it could end up doing here. And, if the port company and Christchurch City Holdings are in fact having these negotiations, then that's exactly the sort of stuff they should be talking about. They should be saying to DP World, if we agree to let you run Lyttelton port for the next 30 years, we want to see the same infrastructure investment you're making in Australia. Remembering too that Lyttelton needs to spend as much as $900 million on its expansion work. And, if they did manage to get that kind of commitment as part of any deal, then we'd be on to a winner. Not that I'm drinking all the Kool aid. Because there have been issues in Fremantle since DP World took over 20 years ago. The unions over there have accused it of putting profits ahead of jobs. But those kinds of accusations are made about the Lytelton port company already. The unions in Fremantle aren't happy about DP World wanting to use more automation. Of course they wouldn't be happy about it. Thing is, though, unions here are going to be concerned about all those things irrespective of who is running the show. So why not have an outfit with the money behind it running the port and investing in the port in a way we can only dream about? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you ever needed proof that victims of crime are taking a back seat to the criminals, this is it. And if you ever needed proof that the parole board is out of touch with the rest of us, this is it. Because on Tuesday this week, convicted rapist George Murphy Starling was released from Christchurch's Rolleston Prison after serving just two years of a six year sentence. Why's that? Because the parole board doesn't consider him to be an undue risk to the public. This is a man who drugged and raped two women in Christchurch who has been released from prison after serving two years of a six year sentence. It gets worse. But the question we need to be asking ourselves is this: When it comes to deciding whether to release a criminal from prison, what's more important? Public safety or the amount of time they've spent behind bars? In this particular case, there's only one answer. Because I don't give a damn whether this guy is considered to be a threat or not, which is what the parole board thinks and that's why it's let him out early. I give a damn about the fact that he went to the home of two women. He was waiting for them when they returned from a 21st party. He poured them drinks, vodka laced with sedatives, and after they became incapacitated and went to bed, he went in and raped them. That's not the only shocking part of this. Because he's not just a two time rapist. He's a three time rapist. In 2013, the same guy was sentenced to five years for another rape and got out after two. So we've got a three time rapist out of prison this week because the parole board doesn't consider him to be an undue risk to the public. As the judge said when he was sentencing this guy two years ago for raping the two women in their flat, the offending was pre meditated, with him arriving at their place with alcohol mixed with a drug. The judge said: “These rapes took place inside their own home. They were entitled to feel safe and secure in their own beds.” Can you imagine how this guy's victims must be feeling right now? Well, according to one report I've seen, one of them asked the parole board not to let him out because she doesn't think he's ready to be released. At the time this monster was sentenced, one of his victims said it had changed her life forever. That gives us some idea how they'll be feeling. As for the rapist himself, he has told the parole board that he now understands what consent is and that he must get consent if he wants to have sex with someone. For goodness sake. And that's enough to let him out early after serving two years of a six year sentence? He's a monster who should still be behind bars and this decision by the parole board is nothing short of monstrous. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ahead of the Qualifying Finals round against the Blues, John MacDonald up with Crusaders Coach Rob Penney at Rugby Park. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Reuben Davidson joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week. They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from early prison releases, the Pegasus Golf Course, and a petition gaining signatures to increase bereavement leave from three days to ten. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A Christchurch mother is calling for changes to bereavement leave laws. Sheena Hemens' 27-year-old daughter Lauren was killed in a car accident nearly three years ago. Hemens says grief kept her from working for months, but currently, the law only provides three days of leave. She's launched a petition to increase minimum bereavement leave to 10 days, saying many people don't realise how little time they get. Sheena joined John MacDonald to discuss her petition. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There was a story on the news last night about the government's push to have fewer local councils and how it's given them just a few months to come up with a plan. The threat being that, if they don't, the government will force it on them. And a couple of things struck me. First, it occurred to me how successful the government has been in getting these councils to toe the line. The councillors and mayors on the news last night were all going on about having the opportunity to choose their own destiny. Which, for some of them, will be looking for another job. One of them said it was great to do it to yourself instead of having someone else doing it to you, which they might have phrased a bit differently if they were given the chance. Nevertheless, I thought that if the government's objective was to make these councils sit up and take notice, then objective achieved. The other thing that occurred to me, and I see that Wellington mayor Andrew Little is saying the same thing, is that this local government reform has rip, shit and bust written all over it. Yes, 67 councils in a country the size of New Zealand is too much. And yes, amalgamating these councils makes perfect sense. I mean, I'm a big advocate of the greater Christchurch councils joining forces. Have been for a long time now. But, as Andrew Little is pointing out, establishing the super city in Auckland wasn't an overnight or rushed thing. He says the Auckland Council was created after a Royal Commission that ran for years. And he reckons it's going to be impossible for councils to properly design and submit proposals in the timeframe set by the government. And he's right. Although we know why the government's got the rush on, don't we? It's election year and it needs to be able to say before the election that it's delivering on its promise to overhaul the local government sector. But that's where the risk comes. Because if the government's motivation is to put itself in a position where it can trot out that line about getting stuff done, then we may end up with a local government structure no better than the one we've got. Yes, we might have fewer councils, but that might be about it. Because sometimes there's nothing wrong with taking your time to do something properly. And, for me, this is one of those times. We were talking about the Waimakariri Council yesterday and it's back in the news today, with this public consultation it's started as part of the plan it has to deliver to the government in just over two months from now. It's put three options on the table: staying on its own but picking up the work that ECan does in its neck of the woods, amalgamating with the Hurunui and or the Kaikōura councils, or joining forces with Christchurch City and Selwyn. Which is all horse before cart, just like the government's approach is horse before cart. Because right now things are still up in the air in terms of what these councils are going to be responsible for, especially with the government's intention to do away with regional councils such as Environment Canterbury. And until that becomes much clearer than it is now, it is futile asking councils to find another council or councils to join their team, because none of them have got any idea at the moment what they're going to be responsible for. So yes, press on with your local government reforms, but do it in a way that means we do actually end up with something better than what we've got now, and not just a rearrangement of the deck chairs. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What planet is the Waimakariri District Council on even entertaining the idea of spending public money to buy the golf course at Pegasus? You'll know the story behind this. People living in the area, north of Christchurch, are very upset that a large property development company has bought the land where the golf course is and wants to turn it into housing. The company - Wolfbrook Property Group - bought the land after the golf club at Pegasus went under. And it plans to try and use the government's fast track legislation to get things happening sooner rather than later. Like hell, say the Pegasus residents. Who include former cricketing great, Sir Richard Hadlee. He was at this public meeting last night where the Waimakariri mayor Dan Gordon announced his hair-brained idea the of the council going to Wolfbrook and offering to buy the golf course land back off them. Which, of course, is exactly the sort of thing the hundreds of people at the meeting last night wanted to hear. But it's bonkers. But here's what mayor Dan Gordon said last night: "We have agreed to test whether purchasing the golf course for the benefit of the community could be possible with other partners. "We've got the support of the council today to explore this, to see if we can protect this asset for the community and safeguard it for its future." Which is the sort of thing any politician likes to say in front of 400 people. Especially when they all start cheering and clapping. But, when you take away the emotion of it all, this idea just doesn't stack up. Because let's say the council did buy the land, it would then be on the hook for maintaining it as a golf course. Remember too that Wolfbrook bought the course for $6 million. Not to mention all the other costs it would have incurred going through the sale and purchase process. Is that the kind of money a local council should be spending on buying a golf course, just because the people living nearby say the place wouldn't be the same without it? Of course not. Now to be fair to Dan Gordon, he did say last night that the council would be looking for other partners to go into cahoots with to buy the land. But who's going to do that? If there was any other parties out there interested in buying the golf course land and keeping it as it is, don't you think they would have put their hand up long before now? Of course they would have. What's more - and this is the biggest issue I have with this - if the Waimakariri Council did go and buy the gold course land, what sort of precedent would it set? Because next time someone somewhere gets upset about a piece of land in their neck of the woods being sold off to developers, they'd go running to their local council pointing to Pegasus, wanting the same strings pulled for them. That's why this cannot happen. Because this is not just about Waimakariri. If this happens, every council will be expected to buy up land to keep NIMBYs up and down the country happy. And who wants that? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I reckon we are dreaming if we think having teacher aides in every classroom is the answer to aggro kids. New numbers out today show that New Zealand students have been restrained more than 9,000 times since 2023. That's an average of 15 a day. The vast majority happen at primary schools and, when we say they've been restrained, we're talking about situations where there is an imminent threat of harm and no other options are available. So picture that for a second: a school kid is behaving in such an aggressive or violent way that the only option available to their teacher is restraining them. Physically stopping them from harming themselves or others. That goes on 15 times a day, on average. Which is something not even the security guards down at Pak'nSave are allowed to do most of the time. But that's what we're expecting our school teachers to do. It's mad that we expect our teachers to step up and do that, and it's mad to think that having a teacher aide in the classroom, as well as a teacher, would make any difference. Because, quite often, we're not talking here about kids losing their rag. We're talking about kids who have suffered all sorts of trauma or abuse. And do you really think a kindly teacher aide in every classroom is going to stop them from losing it? Of course not. Which is why I think we need to seriously think about what some people might say is the unthinkable, especially here in New Zealand. Security guards in schools. Because this isn't just a behaviour issue. This is a workplace health and safety issue and a public safety issue. It's a public safety issue because we know the rest of the kids in these classrooms where this is happening are at some sort of risk, because restraints only happen when there is an imminent threat of danger. As for the workplace health and safety side of it, why should teachers be forced to put themselves in such risky situations? I'm not exaggerating here when I say that, if nothing meaningful is done about this, it could be fatal for some teacher. You imagine how stressful some of these situations must be, not to mention the physical exertion that must be required to get these kids under control, and what that could do to the old ticker. Not surprisingly, some are blaming the parents of these kids for what's going on. But I think that view is way too simplistic. Because, yes, there are some parents who are hopeless when it comes to discipline. But the kids we're talking about here aren't necessarily the products of no-hopers. Some of the kids being restrained will be neurodivergent, through no fault of their own, or their parents. Some of the kids being restrained will have suffered abuse and trauma, through no fault of their own, or their parents. So, we can blame the parents as much as we like. But that won't make teachers any safer. And I think the only way to do that, to make teachers safer at work and keep kids safer at school, is to have security guards on site. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Opposition Leader Chris Hipkins says if Labour wins power at this year's election, it's position on public funding for the Christ Church Cathedral will not change. Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, Hipkins said the party's verdict still stands. “I just don't think it's something we can prioritise at the moment,” Hipkins also addressed leaks from a Labour Party online Q&A, which included Aysha Verrall singing, Barbara Edmonds' “duckface” comment, and Greg O'Connor's criticism of the Fourth Labour Government. They also discussed Hipkins thoughts on the incoming 2% rise in MPs' pay. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What part of no does the Christchurch City Council not understand? Because, despite us knowing what the answer would be, councillors yesterday voted in favour of putting another $15 million into the Anglican Cathedral reinstatement project, providing the government came to the party. And, wouldn't you know it - within just a few hours of the vote happening - Finance Minister Nicola Willis was already pouring cold water on the idea. Saying the government has already contributed $25 million to the cathedral and there won't be any more. She said there are many pressing infrastructure needs and the cathedral isn't one of them. She'll get no argument from me on that one. Not that anyone should be surprised. Because she said the exact same thing last year when the people involved in the reinstatement went knocking on the door asking the government to come to their rescue. Which she reminded us of last night. Saying: “In declining the cathedral's funding ask, we noted that the requested amount represented a significant contribution for a building that would not be owned by the public, and where public use could be limited due to the cathedral being a private, religious space.” Which was a polite way of telling the cathedral people, and now the council too, that it was no the first time, it's no this time and don't bother asking a third time. Because, as far as she's concerned, it is end of story. And fair enough, too. Because it would be obscene, given the state of the country's finances and the state of our infrastructure, for more taxpayer money to go into it. I even think it's obscene that the City Council thought it was ok to ask for it. How more tone deaf could it be? It's end of story too as far as Labour is concerned. Chris Hipkins has previously said that he doesn't think more taxpayer money should go into the cathedral. And local Labour MP Tracey McLellan said the same thing last night. Winston Peters, though, has already pledged $15 million if he's in the next government. But I can't imagine that being one of his non-negotiables in any coalition talks. So I think the cathedral can kiss goodbye to any money coming from any government. In case you need it, let me remind you of the numbers. The reinstatement project is $90 million short. They've asked for a total of between $40 million and $45 million from ratepayers and taxpayers. And, so far, somewhere around $90 million has been spent. More numbers for you: when the vote was taken yesterday, 11 councillors and Mayor Phil Mauger voted in favour. Three were against and two abstained. And there were emotional scenes around the council table, apparently. One report I've seen says Councillor Melanie Coker was fighting back tears. Saying she was torn about spending the council's surplus, because of the other things it could be spent on, but said the cathedral is the heart of the city. She said: “We had an earthquake and it kept us out of the city. It was like a break-up with the city that we knew and we never got it back again, so we need to heal our broken heart.” Councillor Andrei Moore was very anti. He told the meeting that he'd done a survey and, of the 1,200 who took part, 91 percent were opposed to the council funding the cathedral. He said he wasn't prepared to ignore what the people had said and, if he did, he would be breaching their trust. He said: “I don't think we are doing the right thing.” Never a truer word said. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Even though I understand why a new independent supermarket in Christchurch has been told by the High Court that it can't sell meat for two years, I still think it's strange. The Harvest Market is in the same spot where a Mad Butcher franchise used to be until earlier this year. The people who ran the franchise also ran a grocery business alongside it. Which the Mad Butcher was happy with - as long as they didn't sell meat. But the Mad Butcher shop isn't there anymore because the franchise owners had a falling out with head office. And the Mad Butcher accused them of helping the Harvest Market guy set up the meat side of his business, because their nose was out of joint. That's why it all ended up in court. And the court has ruled that this two-year non-compete clause that prevented the grocery operation on the same site from selling meat still stands, even though the Mad Butcher shop is no longer there. In the eyes of the law, it makes sense. But how can you be accused of unfairly competing with a shop that is no longer there? And it does seem nuts that, at a time when we're being told that we need more competition in our grocery sector, we have this ruling that stops the Harvest Market from competing with a non-existent competitor. There is the chance that the Mad Butcher chain wants to set up shop in that part of Christchurch again. Because it was, after all, one of its most successful franchises. But why shut down competition for the sake of shutting down competition? Or more correctly, why shut down competition that doesn't actually exist? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I had the joy of using State Highway 1, south of Christchurch, over the weekend. Which is a bit of a goat track. And it's why there is a bit of excitement about the government announcing that it wants to look into making it a four-lane highway. At least between Christchurch and Timaru. Which, to many people, is a no-brainer. This is part of a wider study the government wants done into transport links between the ports at Lyttelton and Timaru. As well as a better highway, replacing the bridge at Rakaia and the role rail plays in freight movement will also be looked at. Which is only happening because it's election year. So that, when the National, Act and NZ First leaders turn up during the campaign and people start asking them about State Highway 1, they can say they're doing this study and kick it to touch until the 2029 election. But a four-lane highway - at least between Christchurch and Ashburton - is something that's been talked about for years. Which I've always thought is a no-brainer. But - after driving down south and back up again at the weekend - I've been thinking, would it actually be worth it? Is it really a priority? And what other government funding we might miss out on? Not that we're like a pig in muck when it comes to road funding. In the most recent round of government funding for roads, just 6 percent went to the South Island. Which, as I said at the time, was nothing short of pitiful. I wasn't alone. Leeann Watson from Business Canterbury said, considering the South Island's contribution to the national economy, the amount we get back in road funding is definitely out of whack. In terms of the government's upcoming study also including the potential replacement of the bridge at Rakaia, we've had construction consultant Mike Blackburn saying that needs to happen. Sooner rather than later. Mike says it's urgent because of the number of people moving south, buying houses in places like Ashburton and commuting into Selwyn or even into Christchurch. And that's where I'm landing, too. I reckon we need to face up to the fact that we're never going to have four lanes on State Highway 1, south of Christchurch. And I think we need to focus our attention on getting something done about the bridges at places like Rakaia. Not that I no longer think a four-lane highway would be brilliant. And not that I no longer think we're being ripped off not having one. But the reality is, it will never happen. New bridges, though, are a much easier sell when it comes to government funding. Because if a bridge packs a sad, you're shot. Yes, there are always alternative routes. But, especially when it comes to freight movement, the bridges between Christchurch and Timaru are much more of an issue than the two-lane highway. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger is defending One New Zealand Stadium for its lack of facilities for general admission concert goers. Some of the 12-thousand people with standing tickets at Saturday's 'Once In A Lifetime' show, were surprised to have to use port-a-loos and food trucks outside the roofed venue. The permanent facilities were designed for the seated capacity. Mayor Phil Mauger told Newstalk ZB's Canterbury Mornings this was always the plan. He also said that One New Zealand Stadium may have a smaller set up for the Foo Fighters if sales don't reach a certain threshold. "It'll be the cut down version for Foo Fighters if they don't reach a certain number of people." They also discussed the consultations taking place for Cathedral Square, and what can be done about accident-prone roads across the city. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sometimes it feels like an easy thing to say that politicians have no idea what really matters to us. What's important to us - the people who put them in their positions of power. Today, it may be the easiest it's ever been to say that sort of thing. Let's start with Labour leader Chris Hipkins. Who, I think, said one of the most arrogant things I've heard any politician say. This happened yesterday. When he was talking about pretty much the only policy his party has been able to come up with since it was turfed out of government at the last election. The future fund. Which would use some of the profits from our state-owned enterprises to invest in new start-up businesses. Chris Hipkins has been saying that Labour's not going to be announcing any new election policies until after next week's budget. Until it has a better handle on the government's finances before promising things the country can't afford. Yesterday, he went next level. This was after he said earlier in the week that he wouldn't be giving any more detail about Labour's future fund policy until after the election. He almost sounds like he knows he's got no show of forming the next government and doesn't want his people putting too much work into policies and things that won't go anywhere. I genuinely think that's what he and Labour are starting to sound like. Because, after the election, they won't be needed. But that's not the worst bit. Yesterday, when he was asked if he thought voters might want to know more about the future fund before the election, he said New Zealanders don't really care about the detail. This is in relation to which state owned enterprises would have to contribute some of their profits to the future fund if Labour formed the next government and put this policy in place. When he was asked about that, Hipkins said New Zealanders don't really care about those key details. He said: “I don't think the public really care which companies are going to go in or not. I think the public care about the fact that we're going to keep state assets and National's going to sell them.” The arrogance. And, at the same time as we've got the Labour leader trotting out that nonsense, we've got MPs debating a bill that defines the meaning of man and woman. That one's courtesy of NZ First, which says it's fighting “cancerous social engineering” and “woke ideology”. Do you think, in the grand scheme of things, pointless legislation like that really matters? And, on top of that, public service minister Paul Goldsmith has told government departments they've got until the end of next month to make sure they prioritise the English version of their names over the Te Reo version. It beggars belief, doesn't it? The arrogance of telling us to wait until after the election for policy details because, apparently, that's not important to us. And the pointlessness of a law defining what a man is and what a woman is; and the pointlessness of government departments having to change their logos because some people can't handle a bit of Te Reo. All of the examples I've just given tell me that our politicians have absolutely no idea what's important to us. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bruce Springsteen's Born to Run album is going to be performed in its entirety in the first Come Together concert for 2026 at the Christchurch Town Hall on Friday 29 May. One of the musicians involved is Christchurch's Adam McGrath, from local band The Eastern. He joined John MacDonald on Canterbury Mornings ahead of the big gig and he took his guitar along to cover one of "The Bosses" biggest hits. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I'll make a bet with you. These 9,000 job cuts in the public sector that the government's announced won't happen. It's easy to say. But making it happen is a completely different story. There'll be some, for sure. But the whole 9,000? They're dreaming. Because, from what I've seen and heard so far, they are flying blind. At the moment, there are about 65,000 people working in the public service. Cutting that by 9,000 to get it closer to 55,000 is what the government wants. Nicola Willis reckons that would save taxpayers $2.4 billion. But, as well as reducing the number of workers, the government also wants departments to make better use of AI technology. And this is why these 9,000 job cuts aren't going to happen. Because the government clearly knows no more about artificial intelligence than the rest of us. I despaired when I heard Nicola Willis saying she got one of her staff to have a play with it and produced a document within minutes. It was like me thinking I could educate a 16-year-old about social media. Pretending I'm all over it. Nicola Willis isn't the only one. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, for example, says he doesn't quite know how AI could be deployed across the public service. He says there are “enormous opportunities right across the board, and none of us know what they are yet. Some of them will be things that we've never even thought about.” And that's the basis they're using for getting rid of 9,000 jobs over the next three years. What's more, who says we have too many public servants? Probably the ones who say we should be more like Singapore. They'll tell you that Singapore has 16 government ministries and that's what we should have too. They'll say Singapore is a similar sort of size population‑wise. Singapore has 6.1 million people. New Zealand's population is 5.3 million. But guess how many public sector workers there are in Singapore? This is what these people don't tell you. We've got 65,000. Singapore has 158,000. So, not only does Singapore have way more government workers than we do on a purely numbers basis, it also has way more than us on a percentage of the population basis. The government in Singapore is using AI. But it's pouring a truckload of money into it too. The government here isn't talking about that. Because, yes, it might save $2.4 billion in wages and salaries reducing the number of public servants, but how much is it going to have to spend on technology? Because you can't just say “get AI to do it”. You need all the systems to talk to each other. At the very least, that's where it should be starting. Instead of the finance minister coming on the radio saying she's used AI to make a document. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

First world problems and all that but, is it really ok to make people use portaloos outside Christchurch's new $683 million One NZ Stadium? Some people who were in the general admission standing area at Saturday night's “Once in a Lifetime” concert don't think so. And I agree. As you may have heard - or found out yourself if you were there on Saturday night - people who didn't have seats but were standing on the pitch on front of the stage weren't allowed to access the toilets or the food outlets inside the stadium. And they had to use the temporary toilets outside and buy food from vendors outside, as well. So, combine a trip to the portaloo and then another queue to get a drink or some food and you can see why some people are saying today that they missed some of the performances because of how long it all took. Venues Ōtautahi, which runs the stadium, says this was always part of the plan. Which it may well have been. But is it good enough? I don't think it is. And here's the irony. As far as general admission standing ticketholders go, the toilet facilities at the temporary stadium were better than they are at the new stadium. At Apollo Projects, there's those portacom toilet arrangements. Not ideal either. But give me that any day over a portaloo. What's more, at the temporary stadium, everyone was in the same boat. Or on the same loo. Same with the food outlets. Everyone got the same access. There wasn't this two-tier situation going on. And, when you consider the fact that $683 million has been spent on this new venue, you wouldn't expect portaloos to be part of the equation, would you? I certainly didn't. The tricky thing is, the stadium has been so long in the making and most of us are excited as that it's up and running. Excited about the sports and concert events we're going to enjoy there. Not to mention the money it's going to being into Christchurch with all that new activity. And, because of that, complaining about it so soon after the thing has opened feels like a bit of an elephant in the room moment. Should we say anything or not? Well, even though I'm a huge stadium fan, I think we should. And I know some people will say it's just a communication issue and as soon as everyone's aware that's what the situation is everyone will be sweet with it. But I don't think that at all. Because, on Saturday night, the people in the general admission standing area were lucky it wasn't raining. What use is a stadium with a roof if a truckload of people have to queue in the rain to go to the loo? With the flash Harry loos inside taped off. Or queue in the rain to get something to eat and drink. Stadium boss Caroline Harvie-Teare, from Venues Ōtautahi, is saying today that the stadium was designed for 25,000 people and to allow for bigger crowds at large concerts, creating an external precinct has “always been part of the plan”. She says: “It's just how the building has been designed, so it's not a choice that Venues Ōtautahi have made.” LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When I first heard about Winston Peters' idea to give every newborn baby $1,000 so they can have a KiwiSaver account from birth, I liked the sound of it. Until I did some numbers. Which I'll get to. Announcing the NZ First policy yesterday, he said it would be compulsory for every newborn to be signed-up to KiwiSaver and the state would throw in $1,000 to get things started. He said the policy would ensure every child began their financial life as a KiwiSaver member and would be a nest egg for what he's calling “the KiwiSaver generation”. Which sounded pretty good on first blush. Until I did some numbers. Let's start with what it would cost the government. There were about 58,000 births in New Zealand last year. So, on those numbers, that would put the cost of this policy at around $58 million a year. And what would that $1,000 government contribution, on its own, be worth after 65 years? Assuming 4 percent interest for 65 years, it would come to $12,800. If we assumed 7 percent over 65 years, it would come to about $80,000. And, when I consider those numbers - plus the tens of millions of dollars of government money every year for that kind of return - I think it's a dud of an idea. But Winston does have another KiwiSaver idea that I think is an absolute no brainer. Making it compulsory. Winston and I are not on our own thinking this. Sam Stubbs, who is managing director of the Simplicity KiwiSaver outfit, does too. He says it has to be compulsory because we have to make sure everybody is saving for their retirement while they're working. And the only way to do that is to make it compulsory. Across the Tasman, it's compulsory for employers to contribute but not for workers. Which doesn't sound terribly fair to me. Because why should employers be forced to make contributions if the people who work for them aren't? I remember reading about the number of people who don't have a KiwiSaver account and some work that had been done to work out how much people are missing out on because of that. Collectively, with so many people not even saving the minimum 3 percent of gross salary, the KiwiSaver pot is going to be about $110 billion less than what it should be or could be if we all had an account we were putting money into. And it's not just the people who don't have accounts. About a third of those of us who do have KiwiSaver accounts aren't contributing anything. Which is why it has to be made compulsory. And it's not like people would be out marching in the streets if it was made compulsory. Because a survey a couple of years ago found that 62 percent of us support the idea. I don't know if that level of support may have waned since then because of the cost of living. Nevertheless, making KiwiSaver compulsory for workers is a no-brainer and a way better approach than NZ First's idea of making it compulsory for newborns. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I can understand why people living at Pegasus, north of Christchurch, are upset about the golf course there being sold to a large property developer. But, at the same time, how long can anyone expect the area they live in to stay the same? And, while I might not make friends with the Pegasus people saying this, I think they are just going to have to accept it. What happened is we got a tip-off earlier this week that the golf course was about to be sold. The resort-style golf club opened in 2009 and was one of the key attractions for people who moved there, but the club went belly up in March, owing about $9 million to creditors. We were also told earlier this week that there was a plan to use the Government's fast-track legislation to get houses built on the land. So our newsroom started looking into it. The Waimakariri Council said it was news to them. They said they hadn't been approached about rezoning the land, and they knew nothing about it being fast-tracked. There was nothing about it on the Government's fast-track website either. Then we found out that the deal on the land is due to be signed today, so maybe that will be the catalyst for trying to get it all fast-tracked. Much of the property would have to be rezoned for housing before it could be fully developed. I gather the first two holes on the course, as well as the clubhouse and the driving range, were rezoned by previous owners who had planned to build a resort and a hotel there. A housing development is not what Pegasus residents saw happening. They are gutted. “Heartbroken” is another way they're describing the way they're feeling. The question this all raises, though, is how long can we expect the areas we live in to stay the same? Whether we like it or not, I think it's unreasonable to expect no change. The concerns people in Pegasus have about a housing development swamping the golf course and changing the nature or the vibe of the area where they live aren't limited to Pegasus. And, yes, I'm sure having that big green area at Pegasus must be great. But nothing stays the same forever, wherever you live. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Matiu Walters and Marlon Gerbes from Six60 joined Canterbury Mornings ahead of "Once in a Lifetime" at One New Zealand Stadium - the first ever music gig at the new stadium. They discussed their journey as a band so far, the excitement to headline the first gig at the new stadium, and the look back at their first performances in Christchurch from years gone by. LISTEN 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 biggest topics from the week from fast-track projects, Air New Zealand being deep in the red, and if Pharmac should fund weight loss drugs such as Wegovy. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Where do you think government spending should be prioritised? According to new survey findings, a third of us reckon health funding and access to medicines is most important and must be given top priority. And I find it hard to argue with that, because we're all involved in the health system in some way, shape or form, aren't we? This is at the same time as we have the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister saying there's more belt tightening on the way, with a $300 million cut in the amount of new spending in this year's Budget, which Nicola Willis will deliver in two weeks. And it will be the third year in a row that there's been a cut in new spending, or the operating allowance, as it's officially known. So, instead of $2.4 billion in new spending in this year's Budget, there'll be $2.1 billion. That was the heads-up we got from the Prime Minister yesterday in his pre-Budget speech. But just as he was doing that, the findings of a new survey emerged which show how or where people think government spending should be prioritised. It's a survey done for pharmaceutical lobby group Medicines NZ, and it shows that a third of the people spoken to say their vote in this year's election will be strongly influenced by policies which improve healthcare. When people were asked which area of government spending was most important, 55 percent said health, 15 percent said economic development, 8 percent said infrastructure, and 7 percent said education. And of the people who said health was their main priority, 37 percent said hospital and specialist services were most important to them; 23 percent said GP services; and 16 percent said better access to medicines was their health priority. Which rings true to me, especially access to specialist services, because unless you have medical insurance, you can wait ages to see a specialist, can't you? Access to a specialist can, for some people, be the difference between life and death, so that's an area of the public health system I want to see more investment in. What about you? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Opposition Leader Chris Hipkins wouldn't say whether his internal polling indicates he would need Te Pāti Māori's support to form a government if Labour is successful in this year's election. Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, the Labour Party leader said the internal polling he receives shows Labour in the “high thirties”, and he is confident the party is on the right track to win in November. "My goal is to make sure Labour gets the most votes and is in the strongest possible position going into any post-election discussion." After it was revealed that an ex-Labour staffer is behind the social media account "luxury_marmite_sandwich", which has been trolling Government MPs, Hipkins said it had nothing to do with his party, and that some of the content posted by the page was objectionable. "To be very, very clear, that has nothing to do with us" "I have asked my office to go back to him (ex-staffer) and be very clear that no footage that he had access to from his time working for us should be used in any of the material that he is producing now." They also discussed proposed changes to climate change laws, whether Hipkins believes there should be any further public funding for Christ Church Cathedral, and his thoughts on Judith Collins as she bows out of politics this week. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Why do councils bother with public consultation when, it seems, they don't even listen to what people have to say? I'm asking that after the announcement by the Christchurch City Council that it wants to put another $15 million into the reinstatement of the Anglican Cathedral. That's on top of the $10 million the council has already committed to the project. I'm asking because, even though only a minuscule amount of people have told the council that it should, it wants to do it anyway. Back in February, the council launched a public consultation process to find out whether people thought it should give more money to the cathedral or not. Only 14 percent of the people who took part said it should, which equates to less than 200 people. Nevertheless, the council wants to go ahead with it anyway. To be slightly fair to the council, it only wants to give the cathedral project half the amount it was asking for. You'll remember too that the cathedral reinstatement people said they wouldn't be looking elsewhere for money until the council coughed up. Which, as I said at the time, was very arrogant. So they haven't got exactly what they were after, but it looks like they're going to get another $15 million. The problem with public consultation, of course, is that a lot of people just don't bother. Either because they don't have the time or inclination, or they just don't have faith that they'll be listened to. And I know that, even when you run a consultation process, not everyone's going to be happy with the outcome, because everyone has different opinions on things. That said, though, how the Christchurch City Council can even think that 14 percent is some sort of ringing endorsement for more ratepayer money being spent on the cathedral, I'll never know. Handing out another $15 million makes a mockery of this consultation process. The council will probably try and defend itself, pointing out that this $15 million will only go to the cathedral if they can manage to get money from elsewhere too. The council will also point out that it will only hand over the money if the church sells some of its property to put more money into it itself. And it might even say something about 14 percent explicitly supporting it and another 51 percent not having an opinion either way. But that still leaves the 35 percent who said they were explicitly opposed to more council money going into the cathedral. A final decision is expected on 26 May, but the fact the council is even considering it tells me that it shouldn't have even bothered asking what people think. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When I was a first-home buyer, I can honestly say that I never expected any parental assistance with the finances. Now, granted, my father was no longer alive and I probably thought it would be a stretch for my mum to help out. But I had no expectations. And, as far as I can remember, I didn't grow up with any expectation that the Bank of Mum and Dad would be there to get me onto the property ladder. Fast-forward to today, though, and we find out that nearly 50 percent of young adults do expect financial help.That's according to the latest OneChoice Kiwi Housing Trends Report, which says 48 percent of 18-to-39 year olds say they need and expect help from their parents to get into their first home. Which I think is very unfair on parents, to have that expectation. I'm sure it's probably very natural to want to help your adult kids buy their first homes. None of mine are at that stage yet. But the bigger question is whether it's fair to have these expectations placed on parents.And I don't think it is. The most common way for parents to help out is to use the equity in their home to get a loan, which they then pass on to their kids. Which is fine. But what if life throws those parents some sort of curveball and not having as much equity in their home as they used to works against them? If one of them needs to go into care, for example. Which is pretty much what a financial adviser is getting at today. The way I'd describe what he's saying is that it's a bit like being on the plane and putting your own oxygen mask on before you help the kids put theirs on. Tom Hartmann, who is a personal finance expert with Sorted, says he's concerned about parents disadvantaging themselves by putting money into their kids' homes. He says you shouldn't be dishing out money to the kids to buy houses if it means retirement becomes more of a struggle than it should or could be. “Before someone is trying to help the next generation, they also need to take into account how they're going to fill that gap.” He also says parents helping out with money for a first home need to be clear from the outset whether it's a loan or a gift. And to formalise it. So, if it's a loan, then people should get legal advice and get a loan agreement drawn up so that everyone's clear what's going to happen. As I say, my kids aren't buying houses yet. And when it comes to helping them out, for me the bigger thing to consider is whether buying a house still makes sense. Because I don't see houses necessarily being the asset they used to be, partly because I don't see future generations enjoying the same level of capital gain that we did. What's more, owning a house might deliver you some financial gain down the track, but owning a home costs a lot of money day in, day out, doesn't it? So is it really worth it? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins won't be loving the news out today that the coalition government is on its way to a second term, but Christopher Luxon shouldn't be either. According to the NZ Herald - Motu research Poll of Polls, there is an 88.3 percent chance of the coalition getting back in this year. Election results from the last 12 years have been run through 4,000 simulations, and it's shown there is nearly a 90 percent chance of us having the same government as the one we have now after November. The Poll of Polls says National would have 37 seats - down 12. That's 12 current National MPs without a job after November. But not just that, National losing 12 seats makes it even more dependent on Winston Peters. Which, given what Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis have been saying about NZ First these last few weeks, is the last thing they want. They might bang on about strong, stable government but the last thing National wants come November is to have to go into coalition talks again with Winston Peters. And that's why Christopher Luxon will be unhappy about these numbers today. And, if he's not unhappy, he should be. Because, according to this new Poll of Polls, NZ First would have twice as many seats - going from eight to 16. Which you won't hear me poo-pooing because I think it's a very real prospect. Not just because of what's happening in Australia with the One Nation party, and with Nigel Farage's reform party in the UK, but also because people here are so disillusioned with Labour and National. Nevertheless, going from 8 MPs to sixteen MPs would be amazing for NZ First, wouldn't it? Act would have 10 seats - down one from 11, so it would be NZ First saving the current coalition's bacon, which National will just hate. All up, the National/ACT/NZ First combo would have 63 seats. That's assuming, of course, that NZ First would stick with National and ACT. On the other side, Labour would have 43 seats - making it the largest party in parliament - up from 34 - but still not in Government. The Greens would have 11, down from 15, and Te Pāti Māori would have three seats, down from five. So, all up, the left would have 57 seats, and Labour would be sitting there, the largest party in parliament, but back in opposition for another three years. So, what do we make of that? I think it's pretty much inevitable. It doesn't excite me, but there's no way Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori deserve to be in government. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I have my reservations about the Government's new fast-track laws, because it encourages that whole “do something for the sake of doing something” mentality. And my reservations are only being amplified with this news that Christchurch City Council staff want to use the fast-track legislation to get on with the job of rezoning the land where the old temporary stadium is, in Addington, so it can be sold to developers. It's not the legislation itself that I'm concerned about today. I'm concerned that the city council hasn't thought this through enough. Because, even though I love One New Zealand Stadium just as much as the next person, I think it would be a mistake to put all our eggs in one basket. And I can see a time when we might actually regret deciding to do away with the facility at Addington.Because, even though the Crusaders match at the stadium tonight is another sell-out, which is brilliant, it's not always going to be the case. So wouldn't it make sense for us to keep the grounds at Addington? I'm coming around to thinking that it would.So, what's happened is council staff are recommending to councillors that they ask Resource Management Minister Chris Bishop to fast-track a change to the land's zoning. That would let the site be used for things like retail and housing. I gather it would also allow car parking and parks of some sort. If city councillors agree with council staff and do go to Chris Bishop, and he agrees to use the fast-track legislation, that would mean most of us would be excluded from the process. Things would happen much quicker, six months compared to two years, but only those affected by the change would get to have a say. And you can bet that the definition of those directly affected would be pretty narrow. That's why I think that, before the council runs off to Chris Bishop and fast-tracks things so it can sell off the land, we need to calm the farm a bit and work out whether it is actually a good idea to get rid of it or not. And I'm not convinced that it is. When Newstalk ZB's Jason Pine was in town the other week for the Super Rugby Pacific Super Round, he was telling me that the temporary stadium is a brilliant venue for football, because of the shape of it, apparently.But also the capacity. In fact, he was saying that he would love to pick it up and move it to Wellington. That's how good he thinks it is. So why would we get rid of it? What's more, who has the council actually spoken to about this? I know the rugby league people would probably love to return there. What about Mainland Football? Maybe they'd like to see the Addington stadium kept on. See what I mean? There's been this assumption over the years that, because we've considered it to be the “temporary” stadium, it would go once the new one is up and running. And that seems to be what city council staff are thinking too, with this recommendation that they try to get things fast-tracked. There's no denying that flogging it off would bring in some coin for the council. It's got a rateable value of $6.6 million. But if it was rezoned for housing, it would be worth $26 million. Nevertheless, is that something we should even be doing? I don't think it is, until we have a much better understanding of whether there might actually be a need for a second, smaller stadium, and not just the shiny new one. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National's Hamish Campbell and Labour's Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week. They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from the OECD's latest report, The Government's plan to introduce a test for citizenship, and if the high number of short-term-rentals are ruining Christchurch's CBD. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Quite rightly, people living in the central city in Christchurch have had a gutsful of the number of places being rented out as Airbnb-type accommodation. They're speaking out today, saying they don't want to live in what they call “pretend neighbourhoods”. And they want action. And I'm with them. Because I reckon the council has sat on its hands way too long on this one. It seems to me that it's been happy to turn a blind eye to what's going on, in the belief that having so many Airbnbs in the centre of town is some sort of sign of progress. But it's not. Because, the way it's turned out, it's working completely against the council's objective of having more people living permanently in the centre of town. These residents aren't imagining things, either. Because the numbers back them up. In the last year, 484 new homes were built in the central city - but the number of people living permanently in the area in that same period has only increased by 50. That's less than 1 percent growth in the number of people living in the centre of town. So what's happening with the rest of the apartments and townhouses? Some might still be on the market. But, again, here are some more numbers to back up what these central city residents are saying. In one new development, residents there say about 80 percent of the places have become Airbnb-type properties. At another one, on the corner of Kilmore and Manchester streets, where there are 25 new townhouses and the people living there reckon only four of them appear to be occupied by long-term residents. As one of these central city residents is saying today: “I don't want to live in a pretend neighbourhood.” Ester Vallero is her name. She moved into the central city quite a while ago, in 2018. She says, since then, the number of homes around her place has increased. But, as she put it, the excitement of getting new neighbours and the promise of living in a vibrant central city has fallen flat because of the number of places that have been snapped up and being rented out as holiday accommodation. As another central city resident says, being surrounded by Airbnbs is worse than living next to a hotel. Because there's no reception, no security and the cleaners only deal with the inside of the property. And so it's the permanent residents living nearby - like him - who end up dealing with things like overflowing rubbish and recycling bins. There is a tiny, tiny bit of hope on the horizon. Because, next month, Christchurch city councillors will decide whether to make property owners renting out places for holiday accommodation pay business rates, instead of residential rates. They'll also decide whether to change resource consent requirements for owners renting out their places for holiday accommodation. But I don't think that goes far enough. Because that won't necessarily lead to less Airbnbs. What would, though, is doing what's been done in other cities around the world. In Barcelona, for example, by 2028 there'll be no short-term apartment rentals. The idea behind that is to get more people living full-time in these places. Now, I'm not saying we should go that hardcore, but I think a limit on the number of places in the centre of town that can be used for Airbnb accommodation would be a great start. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger has defended the co‑governance model of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Committee, which is investigating potential regeneration of the residential red zone. He says progress had stalled, and locals wanted the council to “get on with it.” “It was going round in circles, so we decided to grab it by the throat, sit down, and get on with it and make decisions.” The City Council has agreed to engage with community housing providers, Kāinga Ora, iwi, charitable trusts, and private developers, focusing on more than 10 hectares of red‑zoned land. Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, Mauger also acknowledged concerns from central city residents about the rise of Airbnbs in the Christchurch CBD, but believes the market will correct itself. “If there are a lot of Ubers around, the price goes down. If there are a lot of Airbnbs, the price will go down, and people will think, ‘I'm not making money from this,' and put them back on the market.” “So it'll sort itself out, I'm sure.” Mauger also discussed his idea to establish a solar farm in Bexley, as well as his views on the Government's push for council amalgamations. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I heard Barry Soper say yesterday that, despite all the hard talk, the Government's so-called fast-tracking of local government amalgamation won't actually happen anytime soon. Certainly not before the election. Which is true. Because this is a big change the Government wants to see happen. But, in my mind, it can't happen soon enough. The fast-tracking bit is the councils being told that, if they don't come up with an amalgomation plan within three months, the government will do it for them. Waimakariri Mayor Dan Gordon is already pushing back. He's not excited about the idea. Saying his community has made it clear that it doesn't want change. Tell that to the Government, though. Which admits that it didn't campaign on local government reform at the last election but believes there is “broad support” for what it's planning to do. There's no doubt in my mind that having nearly 70 local councils in a country the size of New Zealand is crazy. So, of course, something has change. But what that change looks like, is what matters. And for me, there's only one option for us here in the greater Christchurch area. And maybe it will only happen of the Government forces the issue. Because I don't see people like Dan Gordon jumping on board of their own accord. But the only realistic option here is to do something I've been in favour of for quite a while now. A super-city. Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger is saying today that the Christchurch City Council has already said it's keen to take over the work Environment Canterbury does. So why not go the whole hog and join ECan, Christchurch City, Selwyn and Waimakariri together? It makes sense to me. It's being reported today that, to keep the government happy, Christchurch is going to have to amalgamate with at least one other council. How crazy would that be? Amalgamating with just one. Christchurch amalgamating with Selwyn, but not with Waimakariri. Crazy. But, every time a super-city is mentioned, some people are quick to point to Auckland as an argument against it. The Auckland super-city brought together seven city and district councils, and the regional council back in 2010. But a super city in the greater Christchurch area would be nowhere near the same scale. We're talking here about just three councils - Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri. Plus ECan, of course. Half of the people living in Selwyn still come into Christchurch every day for work and school, and they contribute nothing towards the cost of the running of the city. They're using the city's roads and so many of the other facilities that they pay nothing for. Not to mention the relatively small distance between Selwyn, Christchurch and Waimakariri. Which is why, for me, a greater Christchurch super city is a no brainer. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you woke up this morning hoping things had somehow sorted themselves out in the Strait of Hormuz, sorry to disappoint. It's still the cluster it was yesterday. In fact, worse, actually. With hostilities ramping up overnight. Which will probably have Singapore's Prime Minister saying “told you so” to anyone who poo-pooed the comments he made after meeting with Christopher Luxon yesterday, that he doesn't see things getting any better on the fuel front for another six months. Maybe longer. Which tells me one thing: we need to do more to prepare for that here. In my mind, there is one thing The Government should be doing. Which I'll get to. So, Christopher Luxon has been in Singapore with the finance minister and the trade minister and a delegation of business leaders for the signing of a new trade deal. But, in light of what's happening in the middle east, they also confirmed the fuel for food deal that's been tacked on to the trade agreement. They came up with that after the war in Iran started impacting oil prices. Which pretty much says we'll keep sending food products to Singapore, even when things get ropey - as they are at the moment. And, in exchange for that, Singapore will keep sending us refined fuel. It was after doing the paperwork and signing on the dotted line when Lawrence Wong, the prime minister of Singapore, said he sees shipping disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz extending into next year. He says infrastructure in the Middle East has been destroyed and shipping operators will want to know they're not going to be attacked before they send their crews through. Not to mention the insurance issues shipping companies must be dealing with in that part of the world. Quite rightly, Lawrence Wong says that won't happen overnight, and he thinks the disruptions to fuel shipments will continue for at least another six months. Potentially longer. Which means one thing: higher prices are here to stay. And, as we've found out over the last few weeks, it's not just fuel that's affected. There's fertiliser. There's plastics. Medicines. Which is why I think Christopher Luxon and Finance Minister Nicola Willis need to spend the time on the flight home from Singapore drafting a recommendation to cabinet to ramp things up. Because they need to listen to what Singapore's PM is saying and act on it. And, in my mind, that has to be relief for major diesel users. Yes, I know diesel prices have been down again. But, if we've learned anything from the past couple of months, it's that when oil prices go up, diesel users are impacted way more than petrol users. And that's why we need to listen to what Singapore's Prime Minister is saying and prepare for another six months or more of this. And we should be getting ourselves ready to subsidise major diesel users. I'm talking here about manufacturers and distributors of essential food products. It wouldn't have to kick in straight away. The Government could say that, as soon as diesel prices go higher than petrol, subsidies will kick-in for the big food producers and trucking companies. Because the price of diesel affects all of us. The higher the price of diesel, the more we'll end up paying at the supermarket. And, if the government is serious about trying to keep some sort of lid on the cost of living, this is the way to do it. If the Prime Minister of Singapore, where we get 30 percent of our refined fuel from, thinks this is going to go on for another six months, we need to be ready for when the price of diesel goes through the roof again. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

ACT Leader David Seymour seems to be going all Winston Peters on it, with his party's new immigration policy. There's stuff in it I think is ok. But there's one part I don't think is okay. This ridiculous idea of banning immigrants from getting any sort of benefit until they've been here for at least five years. I'll tell you why shortly. But essentially, ACT doesn't want immigrants getting any sort of free ride. It wants people here on temporary work visas to pay for the privilege of being here - charging them $6-a-day to help pay for infrastructure. That's another crazy part of this policy. Federated Farmers is already saying it would just put people off coming here. Which is true. If someone has got a choice of where they go to work, they won't go somewhere where $42 disappears from their pay each week. As well as the tax they'd already be paying. David Seymour also wants us to get tougher on deporting immigrants who commit serious crimes. Which I don't have a problem with. And, he wants people coming here to be better at English - with a higher standard of English required before they're allowed in. I don't see any problems with that. ACT also wants to set-up a specialised enforcement unit targeting overstayers, which has the Green Party all excited. I heard its immigration spokesperson saying it sounds like ACT wants to set up a New Zealand version of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency in the United States, or ICE, as it's known. I think others are saying too that we already have a unit targeting overstayers. So I'm indifferent on that part of David Seymour's plan. But, as I say, the aspect of this policy that I have a real problem with, is banning immigrants from getting any sort of benefit until they've been here for at least five years. You imagine someone moving to New Zealand, things going ok for the first two-or-three years but, then, they lose their job or get crook. They can't afford to travel back to their home country, so what are we going to do? Do we say “Oh sorry mate, get back to us in two or three years - that's when you'll be entitled to the unemployment benefit or the sickness benefit or whatever.” What happens to that person? They end up on the street probably. And is that what we want? Someone's life spiraling out of control, all for the sake of kicking immigrants off this so-called benefit gravy train some people seem to think people who come here from other countries are on. No thanks. And what's more, we'd deny them a benefit, but they'd still be entitled to ACC. It doesn't stack up. LISTEN 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 topics from the week from Coalition dramas, the medias behaviour in Parliament, and if the Residential Red Zone should be built on again. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Is it a flip flop? Is it a sign of things to come? Or is it just something Labour leader Chris Hipkins said off the top of his head when he was asked about it yesterday? Means testing the NZ Super pension. Because, back in 2023 - when he was Prime Minister - Hipkins completely ruled out the idea of means testing the pension. Now, though, he's saying he's open to the idea. And thank goodness he is. Because we can't go on the way we are - dishing out the pension to anyone and everyone, whether they need it or not. I will never see the pension as an entitlement. As some sort of reward for reaching the retirement age. And it seems Hipkins is finally coming around to that way of thinking too. Now he says he wouldn't want to see means testing across-the-board and he doesn't want to change the retirement age. His thinking there is that some people just can't physically keep working beyond 65. And I get that. He says, generally speaking, they tend to be people who have been in lower-paid jobs and they are the people who should be getting the NZ Super pension. But he says questions have to be asked whether someone who is still working full-time and being paid a six-figure salary should be entitled to the pension. And my answer to that is no. It always has been. Tell that to some people, though, who think the pension is unlike any other benefit and everyone should get it. No questions asked. No questions, such as: are you working or are you retired? Basic questions such as: if you didn't get the pension, would you be out on the street? Here's another one: do you need the pension to buy groceries or do you want it to buy beers at the pub with your mates? We don't ask those questions. But Chris Hipkins is saying that he's open to the idea. Which is somewhat surprising for a Labour leader. Especially, a Labour leader who, so far, has unveiled next to no pre-election policies or promises. He claims he's holding off because he wants to wait until the Budget in a few weeks time. So he knows how much is in the Government books for him to play with. But you don't need to wait for that detail to know we're in a mess with our pension commitments and something has to be done about it. It is also a bit rich of Hipkins to be talking about means testing the pension on one hand but, on the other hand, wanting to give anyone and everyone free doctor's visits. Whether they need it or not. That's just about the only policy he has released - the capital gains tax to pay for you and I to go to the doctor three times a year free of charge, whether we can afford it or not. Nevertheless, despite the contradiction, it's brilliant to hear some commonsense coming through. The argument some people put up against means testing, is that people who still work after 65 pay secondary tax on their pension. The inference there is that they don't get the full amount, so what's the problem? But that doesn't sway me. Because we have an ageing problem - meaning our NZ Super bill is only going to go in one direction. That's why we can't keep paying it out to people just because they've made it to 65. And, rather than just talk about it, Chris Hipkins and all our other politicians need to have the fortitude to do something about it. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Winston Peters has gone too far this time. Last week, Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis were telling us not to trust him. They‘ll be saying it even louder now. After the NZ First leader released emails to the media which show how the Prime Minister was talked out of expressing “explicit public support” for the war in Iran. And I'm in no doubt that peters has betrayed Luxon's trust. The two of them, apparently, had what are being reported as “crisis talks” last night. With a spokesperson for the prime minister saying the NZ First leader has put politics ahead of national interest. Which, of course, he has. And, if I was Christopher Luxon, I'd be ropeable. Because that's what he's done. He's put politics ahead of national interest. And i would have thought, after all the huffing and puffing about cool heads being needed when it comes to foreign affairs, that he wouldn't have released these emails. It's this claiming credit thing that he just can't resist. Like that time when Christopher Luxon went on social media and said he'd done a trade deal with Southeast Asian nations. And Peters responded with that one-word tweet saying “we”. As in “we” did the deal, not “you”. But releasing these emails about the Iran war is next level. Because it shows a very clear difference of opinion within the government. With the prime minister thinking the attacks by the U.S. And Israel were and are a good thing - but saying something different publicly. Which happens all the time in governments. But you don't go telling the world about it. Which is exactly what Winston Peters has done. Just as an aside, even though I think Winston Peters is in the wrong here, it does show how out of his depth the prime minister was when this all blew up. As the released emails show, he was all gung-ho and wanted the government to show “explicit public support” for the war when it started. But, as we saw publicly during those first few days (which is backed up these emails), it was Winston who was all calm the farm and don't panic. That's what he was saying to media on the Sunday after the attacks started. It seems to me that one of the things Winston is going to campaign on in this year's election is “experience”. Because last week he criticised the prime minister for putting his leadership to the test with that confidence vote. It was clear that he thought Luxon was naive doing that - because it only invites another confidence vote next time a bad poll comes out. Now, by releasing these emails, he's pointing to Luxon's naievity on the foreign affairs front. Which is true. Christopher Luxon is way out of his depth when it comes to foreign affairs and international diplomacy. But you don't go showing to that to the world the way Winston Peters has. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.