Canterbury Mornings with Chris Lynch

This fuel situation is starting to feel like herding cats. You've got the government, on one hand, going on about seven weeks supply. Don't panic, keep calm and carry on. The government is also talking about this rescue package for low-to-middle income earners. Then you've got the hoarders filling up drums and jerry cans with petrol and diesel. I met one on the weekend. He was doing the drums and the cans but he was also using the fuel tank in his boat for storage. He was a tradie and said all the farming mates he was out with are doing the same. And now we've got businesses deciding to take their own course of action, and some are either putting their prices up or adding fuel surcharges. One in Christchurch has just announced that, unless customers go to them, they're going to have to pay an extra $5 while the fuel prices remain high because of the situation in the middle east. It's even offering free finance options for people with a community services card. Didi, the rideshare outfit similar to Uber which operates in Auckland and Wellington, is also introducing a fuel surcharge from Wednesday. Charging passengers 5 cents per kilometre. Which raises the question: is this reasonable, given we're all in this boat together? My view is that a specific surcharge is much more reasonable than a random increase in prices. There's a pie shop in the nelson area that has just announced that the prices of its pies are going up 50 cents. The owner of the shop says the increase is happening immediately, and she's doing it because the fuel prices have increased her costs by 20 percent. She says she has no option. The thing is, though, how do customers know her costs have gone up 20 percent? How does the bakery owner know that charging 50 cents more for a pie is what's needed to cover that increase? And more to the point, when this is all over and the fuel prices are down again, are the pies going to be 50 cents cheaper? I bet they won't be. Which is why I think a temporary surcharge is a fairer way of doing it. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I reckon the Government is going about this fuel price rescue package the wrong way. It seems to think it's doing the right thing picking low-to-middle income earners who, it assumes, are struggling to pay the higher fuel prices. Of course, someone on the minimum wage, for example, is going to be harder hit by $3.30, $3.40, $3.50 a litre than someone earning $100K. Finance Minister Nicola Willis says the people the Government wants to help are the working New Zealanders who have little option each day but to get in the car and drive to work. It wants to avoid a blanket cut to the fuel tax and it doesn't want to invent a new scheme of income assistance from scratch. As the Minister puts it, she wants something that doesn't involve any paperwork. Which sounds like tax credits to me. But I think the Government needs to lift its sights and think a little bit more strategically about this. It should be thinking about the wider consequences of higher fuel prices, however long they continue. And, instead of paying a few bucks to people on the lower pay grades, what it should be doing is providing support or providing interventions for the likes of food growers, food manufacturers, the transport and logistics sectors. Because all of those groups, they're paying higher fuel prices. But they don't just suck them up like your average motorist does. They pass them on, don't they? Which means the low-to-middle income people being compensated for spending more on diesel and petrol for their vehicles will still be paying more for their bread and their fruit and their veggies. Any savings will just be cancelled-out by costs passed on to them from the food processors or producers, the manufacturers, the transport sector and the farmers at the supermarket checkout. Maybe the Government's trying to avoid the type of criticism that would inevitably come its way if it did what I think it should be doing. Because there would be no shortage of people saying it was just looking after its people and the fat cat farmers and the corporate food manufacturers. Can't you hear it? But all the Government would have to say to quieten-down those people is that, if it didn‘t, they'd be paying more anyway. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Zealand's economy wasn't doing as well as we thought, even before war broke out in the Middle East. Latest Stats NZ data shows GDP rose just 0.2% in the December quarter – well under the Reserve Bank forecast of 0.5%. Inflation hit 3.1% in the quarter, above the central Bank's forecast of 2.7%. The Herald's Liam Dann told John MacDonald if the Iran conflict continues, we could be at risk of "stagflation" – a combination of high inflation and low growth seen in the 1970s. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

While I don't like the idea of us being dragged into the AUKUS military alliance with Australia, the UK, and the US, I think what the government's doing creating something along the lines of an ANZAC defence force - I think it makes a truckload of sense. The plan is that by 2035 there'll be an integrated, combat capable Australia New Zealand defence force. Combat capable is the particularly interesting bit. I don't know about you, but I was a little bit surprised when I heard about this plan. Although it does seem that it's been on the cards for a while now, especially when you consider some of the new kit that the Government's buying for the New Zealand Defence Force and how it matches what Australia's got. As for AUKUS, Defence Minister Judith Collins was asked whether this will align us with it. And she said it won't. But the proof of course will be in the pudding. And it's probably easy in some ways for Judith to say that given that her political career is finishing up. Nevertheless, in principle, I think it's a no brainer. As Judith said this morning, we're a very small country in terms of population, but our defence force has got to spread itself very thinly over a very wide area. Here, throughout the Pacific and the Antarctic region. She says effectively joining forces with Australia is a much more clever way of making the most of our defence resources and making the most of Australia's defence resources. So no argument from me. But I'm not convinced about us being able to do this without being dragged into the AUKUS alliance in some way, shape, or form. And I'm picking that former Prime Minister Helen Clark will be thinking along the same lines. Because last year, when there was speculation or discussion that the Government might be thinking about signing New Zealand up as some sort of second tier member of AUKUS, she said we shouldn't be touching it with a barge pole. According to Helen Clark, if you're an ally, you can get dragged into all sorts of things that you shouldn't be dragged into or don't want to be dragged into. Although I think we're seeing that allies are learning to say no to each other a bit more often. Which is why Donald Trump's nose is out of joint. But if we go on what Judith Collins is saying, and I'm prepared to, the New Zealand Defence Force will still think for itself and will still be in charge of its own people. She says, "We'll make our own sovereign decisions. These are our people in our uniforms." And here's what I think is the most reassuring part. Judith Collins says "If the Australians were doing something we weren't happy with, we'll pull our people out," noting that Australia would be free to do the same. So the way I see it, this is nothing more than a common-sense approach for a tiny country which has let its defence force run on the smell of an oily rag for far too long. We're playing catch up now, sure, but we are dreaming if we think we can do it all on our own. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's no doubt the Government has failed us on food prices. But then, it was always going to. In fact, any politician who says they're going to bring food prices down is dreaming. This election year, if you hear any of them saying they're going to get on top of the costs of living and you'll be paying less at the supermarket if you vote for them, just block your ears. Tell them to go and talk to some other mug because you know it's impossible and they'll never do it. And this is not me having a go at any particular political party or any particular political ideology. Remember last election, we had Labour trying to push the idea of no GSTon fruit and veggies? Grant Robertson had always been against it but, obviously, realised Labour was pushing it uphill, and he just went along with it because he thought there might be enough clowns who would fall for it. I didn't. I saw it for what it was. Because prices for things still go up whether or not there are taxes. That was Labour‘s big idea last election and we're yet to see anything meaningful from them this time around. That's because politicians can do very little when it comes to food prices. If you've been at the supermarket and thought the price of mince is a bit steep, you'd be right. In the past year, mince has gone up 23.2 percent. The largest increase on record. Fruit and vegetable prices are up too, by nearly 10 percent. Now, granted, there have been some decreases month-on-month, but that doesn't change the fact that, compared to this time last year, we are paying way more for food. Nicola Willis talked a big game on food prices. She was going to crack down on the supermarkets. She was going to bring prices down. She hauled the Fonterra boss into her office to talk about the price of butter. It was all grand gestures with very little to show for it. But that's not Nicola Willis' fault. Just like she wouldn't be able to take the credit if prices went down. And it's not Nicola Willis' fault or the fault of anyone in the current government because, when it comes down to it, politicians don't and can't bring food prices down. If you want to point the finger at anyone, point it at the people who believe politicians when they say they can. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour Leader Chris Hipkins doesn't want people to read too much into him considering his political future as ripples spread from personal allegations made by his ex-wife. Jade Paul posted claims on a private Facebook page on Sunday that are now deleted, none of which related to unlawful conduct. Hipkins says it wasn't a long deliberation, saying that he recognises the political spotlight can mean loved ones pay a significant price. "I still love my job and I am absolutely committed to it." Speaking about the since-deleted post, the Leader of the Opposition said he denies the allegations and is not commenting further on them at this stage. "I'm putting my children first, and I'm not going to get into a public debate with my ex-wife about the breakup of our marriage." He also spoke to John MacDonald about the Governments position on potentially aiding the United States in the Strait of Hormuz, and the rise of fuel and food prices in New Zealand. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Maybe my head is in the sand, but all this excitement about fuel prices isn't making me any more inclined to buy an electric vehicle. Tell that to the people who are getting all excited and buying them. In big numbers too, it seems. So we've got the government warning that petrol prices could hit $4 a litre and EV dealers saying they're being run off their feet because of the ongoing situation in the middle east. BYD sold 80 on Saturday across the country. Normally they'd sell 25 on an average Saturday. So that's a major increase. Here in Christchurch, EV dealerships are reporting a major leap in sales too, with one of them selling out entirely in just two days. People are coming from as far away as nelson to get their hands on electric vehicles too, apparently. How things can change. In November, the EV dealers were ripping-in to the government for the changes it was making to the clean car standards for imported vehicles and we were all talking about the EV bubble busting. Fast-forward four months and throw in a bit of good old fashioned kiwi over-reaction, and the picture is very different. This war has only been going two-and-a-bit weeks but that's enough, it seems, for some people to want to go all EV on it. I drive petrol cars. And, at this point, i have no intention of switching to an EV. One of my vehicles, especially, is a real gas guzzler. But despite that, I have never had any interest in owning an EV. I can‘t tell you exactly why. It's not a protest of any sort. It's not climate change denial. It's none of that. I'm just not interested. And I am no more interested now, despite the war and the fuel prices. And i reckon that, once the oil tankers start sailing again through the strait of Hormuz, most people will still be happy with petrol and diesel vehicles. The other thing too is, that if i was buying an EV, I'd spend quite a bit of time looking into it. You wouldn't get me seeing a few days of petrol price increases and going all knee-jerk on it. But the ev people are loving it that some people are. DTR motors in Hornby had six cars on the lot on Friday night. By Sunday, they were all gone. Alex Wu is the sales manager. He says: “people just showed up, even from nelson, paid and drove off.” He says the weekend was the most “explosive” sales period in the nearly two years that DTR motors has been operating in Christchurch. And that's without any rebate assistance from the government. Which Finance Minister Nicola Willis said yesterday wouldn't be making a comeback. Saying: "i simply don't accept the idea that giving subsidies to millionaires in Remuera would help those afflicted by high petrol prices." Nevertheless, EV's are in demand again. So how tempted are you? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I've got a story which has Covid-19 toilet paper mania written all over it. I was blown away talking to someone in Christchurch at the weekend who said they'd been out and bought a whole lot of extra food because of the fuel situation with everything going on in the Middle East. This is not something I endorse and it certainly isn't something I'll be doing. But maybe the fact that they are British has something to do with it. Because they were saying that they remembered the time when Britain invaded Iraq and the government telling people then to stockpile. They said they were told they should have a month's worth of non-perishable food in the cupboards. And that's what they did. So, as soon as they started hearing about fuel tanks in New Zealand running dry over the weekend, they shot out to the supermarket and stocked up. They told me they'd been thinking about the potential consequences if we get to the point where the 50-days' supply the government keeps talking about starts to get a bit low on it. What if the farmers start getting rationed? What about food production lines that need fuel? Not to mention fuel for the trucks that deliver food supplies around the country. For a very brief second, I started thinking that they might have a point. But it was a very brief second. They also said they thought we should be rationing fuel now, instead of waiting until there's a problem on the horizon. That, if a fuel shortage does happen, it's going to be all the other things that we rely on fuel for that are going to be affected. But you're not going to see me at Pak n Save filling the trolley up - just in case. Because if everyone did that then we really would have shortages on our hands. Just like there was no need for the rush on toilet paper during covid, there is no reason for us to be stockpiling food now. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Aside from trying to make sure we don't run out of fuel because of what's going on in the middle east, the other challenge the Government has on its hands is that we're not the country we were six years. Six years ago, when COVID first hit, we were much more compliant. Way more than we are now. Six years ago - by and large - we all went along with all the restrictions and the initial lockdowns without too much resistance. These days, it's a different story. Which is why i think the government would be pushing it uphill with some of the fuel conservation ideas being thrown around. I think it's brilliant that the Government is thinking about this now and not waiting until the tanks are starting to go dry. Which is about 50 days away from happening, according to Finance Minister Nicola Willis She says if new orders started being disrupted, then the Government would have to think about prioritising fuel for the likes of emergency services and the transport industry and other measures, such as car-less days, fuel rationing and working from home. Let's start with car-less days. The only way I could see them working was if insurance companies came out and said they wouldn't cover a vehicle if it was driven on the nominated car-less day. I don't think more working from home would make much difference, either. Because people would still use their vehicles. If anything, fuel rationing would be the only practical way of reducing fuel consumption. Because, if you can't buy it, you can't use it. LISTEN 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, including the release of the second phase of the Covid Inquiry, if more public money is required for the Christ Church Cathedral, and what is the landmark you think of when you think of Christchurch? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Three hundred and fifty jobs at Heinz Wattie's are on the line and we've only got ourselves to blame. I'm including myself here. Because all of us have pretty much fallen into the trap of thinking cheapest is best. And, more often than not, if we think cheapest is best then we end up buying stuff from overseas and turning our backs on local products. Before now, I've never really signed up to that whole buy New Zealand made thing. There have been various campaigns over recent years, haven't there? With the little buy New Zealand made tags and things. But hearing the news about Wattie's and thinking about the cheap fruit being dumped in New Zealand from China and the impact that alone has had on the company, I had a bit of an aha moment. That we really need to think seriously about the stuff we buy and where it comes from. I think buying New Zealand made probably matters more now than ever. The jobs at Heinz Wattie's are set to go because the company has plans to shut down three New Zealand factories. Frozen vegetables are one of Wattie's products that will disappear if the closures go ahead, with the company saying that it just can't compete with cheaper products being imported from overseas. So, it's the fruit thing all over again. Which raises the question: does New Zealand-made matter anymore? If I'm honest, I don't think it does matter to most people. But i think it should. Because, as well as the 350 workers affected, there are also around 220 growers in the canterbury region alone who supply the Christchurch site. So they'll be very worried too. And it's not just Wattie's we're talking about, either. As the union that represents the Wattie's workers is saying today, manufacturing closures are becoming more and more common. Other companies that have wound back their manufacturing here in New Zealand recently include carter Holt Harvey, Sealord in Nelson and Kinleith pulp and paper. And the people affected by these proposed closures have Wattie's in their blood. The average length of service is around 30 years. So it's probably fairly safe to assume that there will be generations of families who have worked at Wattie's. Union delegate Kathy Perrin has worked at Heinz Wattie's for 46 years in different roles and is saying today that the impact on workers will be devastating. We might say we care about buying products made here but, when it comes down to it, I don't think we actually do. But how important is New Zealand made to you? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There is another plan in the works to revive Cathedral Square with the Council asking for the public's ideas later this year The Christchurch City Council has announced they have a budget of $28.5 million set aside to put a revitalisation plan in action. Mayor Phil Mauger told Canterbury Mornings that he would like to put some of the money into the Christ Church Cathedral to fix it instead of only funding the redevelopment of Cathedral Square. "Some of it could go to the Cathedral, they're crying out for it, let's not spend or waste 28 million dollars in the square when some of it could go towards the Cathedral." They also discussed his idea to fix East Christchurch's wastewater issues, Whether or not he backs the Dux de Lux rebuild to be paid with council rates, and his thoughts on potentially bringing the Santa Parade to central Christchurch. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I don't think there'll be too many complaints about the report from phase two of the COVID inquiry. Because, for $14 million, we've all got something out of it. That's $14 million for this phase. Phase one cost us about $17 million. If you're anti-vax or vaccine-weary, you've got the bit in the report about officials not telling ministers that 12 to 17-year-olds shouldn't really have been getting two doses of the vaccine. Because of the risk of myocarditis. That was an absolute shocker that one. If you think Jacinda was a saint and saved us all, you're probably having a bit of a “told you so” moment. Irrespective of how patronising she and her ministers got the longer the pandemic went on, you'll be having your “told you so” moment because the report says, overall, New Zealand's approach was good. If you think the Government got it wrong thinking that the team of five million would stick together no matter what, you'll be happy with the report too. Because it says some of the mandates went on too long, and the Government failed to communicate well enough with us. In fact, i can't think of anyone who won't feel they've got at least something out of it. Except NZ First Leader Winston peters, perhaps. He says many people think the inquiry has been one-sided and the damage is done. The damage he's talking about there is the damage from the mandates. He says: “The employment and wage-scarring impacts of the mandates were significant. The Labour Government made no attempt to monitor these impacts and the devastating results that would come to our country. “These mandates and lockdowns cost thousands of jobs and had a devastating effect on our economy and people's health and livelihoods - all of which were avoidable.” And I agree with him that not enough thought was given about the long-term consequences of the mandates. Which, at the time, I supported. Winston Peters says: “the report brings questions that need to be answered by Hipkins and Verrall and all those other former ministers. They cannot brush this off.” One of those former ministers, Chris Hipkins, said on Newstalk ZB this morning that he doesn‘t think his involvement in the COVID response and the findings of the inquiry will put people off voting for him. And I agree with him. Anyone who holds a grudge now will always hold a grudge. And there's nothing Chris Hipkins can do to change that. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The rubber is hitting the road for us here in New Zealand with fuel prices on the up because of the situation in the Middle East. The Taxpayers' Union hasn't been slow in coming forward, saying the government should be cutting its fuel taxes. Temporarily, anyway. It says households shouldn't be forced to shoulder the full cost of global instability. It's spokesman Jordan Williams is saying that people are already struggling with the cost of living and the government needs to wear some of the burden rather than lumping it all on motorists. I get his argument and, more to the point, it's not just motorists who are impacted. Everyone is impacted because the price of fuel pretty much impacts the price of everything. Nevertheless, thank goodness the government hasn't jumped on the kneejerk reaction bandwagon with this one. With finance minister Nicola Willis saying that won't be happening. Which makes perfect sense. For several reasons. The main one being timing. We're only a week or so into this war and who knows what's going to be happening this time next week or two weeks from now. And that's the job of a government in times like these. Don't panic and see where things go. Especially, when there's the potential for the G7 countries - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States - to release some of the fuel they keep up their sleeve for times like these. They decided overnight that that doesn't need to happen right now. But they're due to have another think about later this week. The Automobile Association's principal policy adviser terry Collins has been warning that petrol prices could get close to $4 a litre. I think the likelihood of that has diminished and good on the government for holding its nerve. Tell that to Labour leader Chris Hipkins, though. He says back in 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine, his government heard about people not being able to afford the petrol they needed to get to work. At that point, a litre of petrol cost $3. Chris Hipkins says: “Once fuel inflation reached that point where people couldn't afford to go to work, because they couldn't afford to fill up the car, we made the decision at that point that the immediate priority was providing support to New Zealand households.” And he wants to see the same thing happen again. I don't - and I think the government's made the right move. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christopher Luxon is at risk of sounding a bit like Joe Biden. You'll remember the former US president bungled that election debate with Donald Trump and then people started calling for him to go and he said he wasn't standing down. Christopher Luxon sounded a bit like that when he was on Newstalk ZB on Friday afternoon and this morning. He said he was “absolutely not” considering standing down. That the only thing he was thinking about was the future of our kids and grandkids. I think he's absolutely right not to be thinking about standing down. Not that I think his colleagues won't try to roll him. That could happen. And, when I heard him on Friday, I wondered whether his denial of having any thoughts about standing down was a message for us or a message for his caucus. I'm in no doubt he was talking to his colleagues. Telling them very publicly that he's not going anywhere. He said he has no idea where the talk about him considering his future came from. He also said “hand on heart” he will still be Prime Minister and leader of the National Party when this year's election comes around. So not considering his future in the slightest. Nor should he. While I don't think he's anywhere near the best prime minister we've ever had nor the best leader National has ever had, he's not the worst of a pretty average bunch. Over the weekend, a poll came out saying that 51 percent of people want to see a new leader of the National party. But that same poll showed that the likes of Erica Stanford's star has faded a bit with voters. The other thing too with her and other names mentioned, such as Mark Mitchell is that, while they have impressed people with their portfolio work, do you reckon they'd be any good at being across everything? Could you imagine Mark Mitchell or Erica Stanford talking about inflation with any great authority? Chris Bishop would probably be the most credible on that front. Another reason why I think Luxon should stay, is that this is his moment to show that he can hold a steady course when things hit the fan. It's his chance to show that he can keep a team together when things are going a bit pear-shaped. Reason number three: the last thing this country needs right now is more turbulence. There's enough going on. Changing prime minister is way different than Labour changing leader back in 2017 when it was in Opposition. If Chrisopher Luxon is the leader he seems to think he is, then he'll ignore all that noise. Not for his sake. But for the sake of the country. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You know what the Government should do with this recommendation from a parliamentary select committee to ban under-16s from using social media? Ignore it. With the Government thinking about copying Australia's ban, a select committee has looked into it and it's come back with a whole lot of recommendations relating to the online world - including a recommendation that we go ahead with a ban. The committee says: “Harm to young New Zealanders from online platforms is severe and requires urgent responses.” The key word there is “harm” and, as the ACT Party is saying today, banning under-16s from social media won't fix that. The Greens are opposed to the idea too - with both parties saying it could just lead to kids using what they're calling “fringe websites”, instead. So the harm will still be there and the kids will keep finding it, whether-or-not there's a social media ban. As to why I'm against this idea. Number One: the horse has already bolted. Number Two: the horse is going to keep on bolting. Because that's what happens in the online world and the technology world. If politicians think banning kids under-16 from Tik Tok and Insta and YouTube is the answer, they're dreaming. What's more, if we're totally honest with ourselves, a social media ban would just let parents off the hook. Those parents at the supermarket, pushing their kids around in the trolley, and the kids all staring at screens - should the government be coming to their rescue because they either can't be bothered or are too weak to say no? Of course not. Experts from Queensland University think banning under-16s from social media is a pipedream. They say there is insufficient evidence to show social media is responsible for the increase in youth mental health problems. They say some marginalised young people actually benefit from social media. Example: I remember hearing someone who works with young members of the rainbow community saying that social media can be really valuable for the kids he works with. These researchers in Australia also say there is a lack of clarity as to what social media actually is. Nevertheless, a bunch of politicians who are already way behind the 8 ball on this think a social media ban for under-16s is the way to go. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nationals Vanessa Weenink and Labours Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week. They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from the Governments response to the strikes in Iran, a U-16 social media ban being backed by a Parliamentary select committee, and if Christchurch ratepayers should be footing a 10-million-dollar bill to reopen the Dux de Lux building. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Are we still living in the same country that told America what to do with its nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships? Are we still living in the same country that declared itself a nuclear-free zone? Which had Washington throwing its toys and telling us that it wouldn't be sharing intelligence with us if its ships weren't welcome. But that didn't put us off and the no nukes policy has been in place ever since. That was back in 1984. Fast-forward to 2026 and it is a completely different story. Which is why we've got former foreign affairs minister Phil Goff saying today that Christopher Luxon and Winston Peters are scared of US president Donald Trump. He says the Government's response to US and Israel attacking Iran has been “weak and uncertain”. Which it has. Not only that. Phil Goff is also saying today that New Zealand no longer has the courage to speak freely on international matters. He says the Government knows full well that Donald Trump's claim he was just responding to an imminent threat from Iran is nonsense. Fake news. Phil Goff says the Government also knows full well that the attacks on Iran are illegal. But it's too scared to say so because it's worried about what reaction it might get from, as Goff puts it, a president who is “volatile, unpredictable and vindictive”. He's not getting any argument on the volatile and unpredictable bit from former defence minister Wayne Mapp, who says that's exactly why the Government should be careful what it says. Because Trump is contrary and you never know what he's going to do. Wayne Mapp says: “You do something that really upsets President Trump, you're likely to be slapped with a 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent tariff.” And he says the way the Government is handling things protects New Zealand's interests. I disagree. Because, if we want to be an independent, confident country, we have to take a stand on things - just like we did back in the 1980s with the nuclear thing. Christopher Luxon's background as a CEO is his undoing in situations like this. Because chief executives are terrified of chaos. They like to have all their ducks lined-up before they make a decision or before they take a position on something. They are the people who run everything past HR and the legal team because uncertainty is no friend of your chief executive. So, of course, Christopher Luxon is going to say wishy-washy things like New Zealand “acknowledges” the attacks on Iran. Of course, he's going to say it's up to the US and Israel to determine whether the attacks are legal or not, because they're the ones with all the information in front of them. Anyone expecting anything different is dreaming. And, because of that, Phil Goff is right. We are running scared and we have lost the courage to speak freely on international matters. Courage we used to have in spades. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour Leader Chris Hipkins believes that the strikes on Iran from the US and Israel were illegal, and the Government needs to be clearer on its position. Speaking to John MacDonald, The Leader of the Opposition said he thinks a regime change is required in Iran, but legal avenues should've been considered. "It needs to be in adherence with international law, which this is not." If you're talking about a regime change, you need to have a plan to affect that" On the news that the Governments bootcamps for young offenders are restarting, Hipkins says he does not support them. "The first one was an abject failure, all of the evidence suggests they don't work." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Can you believe the Christchurch City Council is even entertaining the idea of pouring partially-treated wastewater into the sea to try and reduce the stench from the burnt-out wastewater treatment plant at Bromley? Don't get me wrong, I think it's shameful that the council has dropped the ball on this one in such a spectacular fashion. And don't for a minute think that my empathy for the people living with that smell night and day is anything less than what it has been. But this is a ridiculous idea cooked-up by mayor Phil Mauger. As Christchurch East MP Reuben Davidson is saying, there's a fair amount of hope but not a lot of evidence that this plan would work and not cause harm to the environment. He's right. The council is in panic mode and Phil Mauger is clutching at straws. A bit of background. Last week, Environment Canterbury told the city council it hadn't done enough to sort out the awful smell coming from the plant and said it had to come up with a plan within two weeks. Hence, this idea of sending partially-treated wastewater out to sea to take the strain off the treatment plant. The council also wants to add chlorine to ensure bacteria levels are what it thinks will be safe before it reaches the ocean. Since the big fire in November 2021, the ponds at the plant have been overloaded and aren't in great shape. And, when we had all that rain the other week, things went next level and the smell was probably as bad as it's ever been. Phil Mauger is saying today: “We can't sit back and expect conditions to improve on their own. Anyone who lives nearby knows the odour issues have become more intense, and we've been looking at all ways to help alleviate the stench.” Yeah, but this isn't how you should be doing it Phil. E-Can says it's surprised and concerned. My hope is that it will tell the city council to go back to the drawing board. Because why would we do something that could add to the water pollution problems we've already got? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark hasn't been slow in criticising our government's response to the attacks on Iran. She's not just criticising it - she's slamming it. Saying that it's “a disgrace” for not condemning Israel and the United States and, instead, criticising Iran's “indiscriminate” retaliatory attacks. Helen Clark says the Government knows full well that Israel and the US are breaking international law with these strikes and the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister should be saying so. She says the Government knows that negotiations regarding Iran's nuclear capability were underway and we should be ripping into Israel and the US for what they started on Saturday. But here's where I'm at. When I hear about people in Iran cheering and celebrating the demise of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who am I to criticise what's happened? Who am I to tell these people: “Oh no no, stop celebrating, it's not right what's happened. Israel and the US aren't playing by the rules.” Who am I to say that to those people? And who is Helen Clark to say that? This is the problem you get with people on the left side of the political spectrum, who seem to be incapable of seeing the bigger picture. Has Helen Clark and the opposition MPs lining up to criticise the Government forgotten about the death sentences handed out to some of the people involved in the recent mass protests? They want things done to the letter every time. But what if this brings a better life for the people of Iran? It's a big if. Because who knows whether this will be the end of the current regime running Iran or not? Regime change is easy to talk about but very difficult to do. Because it's not just the regime, it's who fills the vacuum afterwards. As we saw in Iraq. Yes, they got rid of Saddam Hussein, but then they got rid of the Iraqi army as well and that's when it really hit the fan with other extremists and terror groups all wanting a piece of the action. So, who knows how this is going to end up in the long term? But, when all is said and done, for me this is about the people of Iran. Which is why you're not going to hear me piling into our government the way Helen Clark is. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Isn't it amazing that, after all the time spent wringing our hands over the price of electricity, we still haven't bitten the bullet and gone full boar with solar energy? You might have heard Chris Hipkins hinting yesterday that, if Labour forms the next government, solar will be on the agenda. He isn't giving too much away but says, yes, ramping up the use of solar power will be one of Labour's election policies. There'll be no details, though, until after the Budget in May. That's because he wants to get a better idea of how much money he's got to play with. But, if last election is anything to go by, it looks like Labour might be resurrecting the policy it had back then of providing $4,000 grants to help people install solar panels. In my mind, it is ridiculous that we don't require new houses to be fitted out with solar panels. It would add to the cost of the build but, long-term, I think it would be a game changer. I'm not the only one who thinks this. Sir Ian Taylor is saying today that electrification is the future and solar is how we get there. Solar on homes. Solar on farms. Solar on commercial buildings. And I couldn't agree more. He says the cheapest electricity is the electricity you don't have to move. So his version of full-boar solar includes storage capacity - not just solar panels - at our houses, on our farms and on our commercial buildings. He says: “Every kilowatt generated where it is used is one that does not need to be transmitted across the country. that reduces losses. it reduces strain on the grid. and it reduces the need for expensive new transmission infrastructure that ultimately pushes power prices higher.” No argument from me. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor tells me several things, one of which is how much the late Queen really dropped the ball on this one. And that's putting it politely. She was the one who protected him when all the stories started to emerge. She was the one who, apparently, helped him out with some of the hush money paid out to one of his accusers. Which only fueled the impression - rightly or wrongly - that the Royal Family thought it was above everything and everyone else. Which is why I think this development is a brilliant opportunity for the monarchy. Because this takes the monarchy down a peg or two, which can only be a good thing in the public's eyes. King Charles obviously sees an opportunity. He hasn't been slow in coming forward, saying “the law must take its course”. We've also got the likes of Major General Alastair Bruce, who is a historian and a royal watcher for Sky News, saying that this is “the most shocking day for the British Crown, to have a former prince of the blood arrested”. Other commentators are describing the arrest as “extraordinary”, “unprecedented”, “spectacular” and a “body blow”. Whether it is a body blow remains to be seen. Because these developments overnight show that the monarchy is just as answerable as the rest of us. Which is no bad thing, is it? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Megan Woods joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week. They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from the Infrastructure Commissions report, NZ First pushing for English to become an official language, and they reflect on the February 2011 earthquake sixteen years on. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How do you feel about being told you need to spend more money? That's what the Reserve Bank's chief economist wants you to do. As expected, the bank's governor announced yesterday that there would be no change in the official cash rate because the bank doesn't want to do anything that could put the brakes on the economic recovery. Which some people are feeling the benefits of, while others aren't. Which the Reserve Bank describes as an uneven recovery. Meaning we're still in for a bit of a haul before we all feel some sort of benefit. Tell that, though, to the bank's chief economist Paul Conway who is giving us all a bit of a hurry along, saying people need to stop being so cautious with their money and get out and spend more. How realistic is that, do you think? If you're not having a “tell him he's dreaming moment”, then you must be one of the people who are already feeling the benefit of an economic recovery. But, generally, what planet is Paul Conway on, telling us to spend more? Because we're doing that already. Not out of choice. Not because we're feeling particularly flush. But we're spending more just to get by. Two days ago, new numbers came out showing that grocery prices are still going up. White bread prices up 57.9 percent in the past year. Chocolate up 20 percent. Not to mention mince. That's pink gold these days. Which is why I think this statement by the Reserve Bank's chief economist that we need to stop being so tight and start spending more is just ridiculous. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bic Runga is back with her first new album in fifteen years. She spoke with John MacDonald about her new album, Red Sunset, and touched on what genres inspired the album. "I'm always inspired by anything from the 60's and 70's especially." She also spoke about her biggest hit Sway, and its everlasting popularity thirty years on. "It found a life of its own, I never thought that would happen." Runga embarks on an Australasian tour with the new album and will return home to Christchurch to play the Isaac Theatre Royal on Sunday, March 29th. The new album, Red Sunset is out now all streaming platforms. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

One of the problems with politicians is that they often stake their political survival on big infrastructure projects. Which is why we've got Waimakariri MP Matt Doocey and Waimakariri mayor Dan Gordon jumping up and down saying like hell, there'll be no Woodend Bypass. The thing that's got them excited is the new national infrastructure plan released by the Infrastructure Commission which, in a nutshell, says we should be building more hospitals and less big roads. They'll be getting no argument from me. Dan Gordon is rejecting any suggestion the bypass is a lower priority than other projects. But he would say that. He says more than 20,000 vehicles go through Woodend every day, and that's only going to increase. He says: “The town is quite literally divided in two by the state highway and the risk this has posed for decades is not acceptable. As the community grows this risk only increases.” And he's not having a bar of the Infrastructure Commission's push for more tolling charges on roads, either. I think he's pushing that one uphill. Because, it's very clear to me that charging tolls to use roads is the way of the future. It has to be. because, as a country, we don't have the money. Meanwhile, MP Matt Doocey is saying there's no way the bypass is going to go down the pecking order. He says: “If experts think the date for exceeding capacity of the current road in Woodend is still some years away, they clearly weren't stuck in traffic last Friday night after work like I was.” He's not anti-tolls, though. Matt Doocey says if paying a toll means roads being built sooner and faster, then that's how it has to be. But I think he and Dan Gordon need to show some fortitude and, instead of banging-on about the Woodend Bypass just because they've staked their political careers on it, they should admit that we need to make the big calls as to what really is most important. Because I can't argue with what the Infrastructure Commission is saying. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chris Hipkins says we need to take the politics out of the Infrastructure Commissions National Infrastructure Plan. The Leader of the Opposition told John MacDonald that he thinks the Commission has done a "really good job" on their recent report, and we need to focus on the basics. "They've pointed out we have an over reliance on shiny new things, and we haven't done the basic maintenance of the things we've already got." "We need to take the politics out of it and focus on a long-term plan." On the rise of Winson Peters and NZ First in the polls, he said that Peter's lifetime in politics has given some unique political skills of reinvention. "At the moment, he's trying to be an opposition MP while also trying to be the third highest ranking minster in the current government." When asked if he has considered working with Peters to form the next government, Hipkins said that's something they will look at closer to election day. "We'll set out closer to the election where we've got common ground with other parties." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

NZ First is on the up, according to the latest 1News Verian poll. The result out last night had Winston Peters' party on 10 percent - its highest rating in that particular poll since August 2017. It comes just a few weeks after a Taxpayers' Union poll ranked NZ First the third most popular party in Parliament. Ask NZ Herald chief political reporter Jamie Ensor and he'll tell you more and more voters are liking the party because of its cautious approach on immigration and climate change policies. That it's a party that is seen as anti-establishment and has, as he puts it, “a charismatic no-nonsense leader”. That bit about Winston Peters being anti-establishment is a reference to his flirtatious relationship with the conspiracy theory brigade. Which tends to be the Winston Peters we see here at home. When he's running around community halls up and down the country barking into microphones. When he jumps on a plane, though, and heads overseas as the Foreign Affairs Minister, he's a completely different guy, isn't he? Nevertheless, whatever version we get on any given day, more people seem to be liking it. My theory is that NZ First is only on the rise because all the other options are so bad. I can't believe that two-and-a-half years on from the last election, I'm still in the same boat and have no idea who I want to vote for. That's how I felt at the last election and that's how I'm feeling now. I've spoken to plenty of people recently who say they're looking seriously at NZ First. People of all ages. What has surprised me most, is the number of young people who seem to like what the party is saying about immigration. These are people who aren't just seeing NZ First as an option because they don't think any of the other parties are offering anything. They're actually liking what the party is saying. And that's what we're seeing in the polls. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Isn't David Seymour the guy who got himself into government at the last election and then went and set up a new government department? But, despite the irony, I agree with him that we need fewer government departments and fewer Cabinet ministers. Previously, the ACT leader has described the public sector as "a big, complicated bureaucratic beast". There are the numbers to back that up. We have 82 cabinet portfolios, 28 ministers and 41 separate government departments and agencies. David Seymour thinks that's crazy and says ACT will campaign in this year's election on changing that. And, instead of having 41 government departments and agencies, he wants us to have no more than 30. As for cabinet ministers - at the moment there are 28, David Seymour thinks we need no more than 20. I remember Oliver Hartwich from the NZ Initiative think tank saying last year that we could get away with having as few as 15 cabinet ministers, instead of the 28 we have at the moment. But he thought that 20 was more realistic. As for government departments, they are monsters. They operate in silos. They compete with each other for funding. They don't talk to each other. That's why there's so much duplication. For example, do we need a Ministry of Education and an Education Review Office? I don't think so. Do we need a Ministry of Justice and a Department of Corrections? Possibly not. As for cabinet positions, do we need a mental health minister? Could that all be part of the health minister's job? And don't get me started on things like the Minister for the South Island or the Minister for Auckland that Labour brought in. So, I'm with David Seymour and I think we could do with fewer government departments and agencies. But it will never happen. Talking about having less government departments and less cabinet ministers is easy and politicians talk about it because they know it tends to go down well with people. But it will never happen. Because, whether people admit it or not, they still expect the government and its departments to fix everything. And, unless that changes, the government isn't going to get any smaller. And its list of departments isn't going to get any shorter. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week on Politics Friday John MacDonald was joined by National MP for Banks Peninsula Vanessa Weenick, and Labour List MP Tracey McLellan. They covered the latest national and local issues, including NZ First's announcement to campaign on a Māori electorate referendum, whether all events at One NZ Stadium should have a levy, electric e-trail bikes that are speeding around the city, and more. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christchurch City Councillor Yani Johanson thinks we should all pay a special levy when we buy tickets for all events at Christchurch's new One New Zealand Stadium. And he won't be getting any argument from me. Yani can't believe the news today that a levy is only going to be charged on tickets for concerts by international artists. He says it is “inconceivable” the levy won't be charged for all events, including rugby matches and everything else that happens there, because he reckons it's only fair that all people who use the stadium help pay for its upkeep. No international acts have been announced yet but, apparently, there are going to be some announcements in the next few weeks. And when the tickets go on sale, the council's events company - Venues Ōtautahi - which is going to be running the stadium, is going to add a $5 levy to the ticket price. The money from the levy is going to be used to pay for the extra toilets and extra food and drink facilities that are going to be needed when they have these big concerts. So it sounds as if we might be queuing up for portaloos even though it's a new flash harry facility. The point Councillor Yani Johanson is making, is that anyone who wants to go to any event at the stadium should make the same contribution towards the running of the place. He says: “A lot of these people buy expensive tickets to these events and are subsidised by the ratepayers in Linwood, Bromley and Aranui. I don't think that is fair.” But the head of Venues Ōtautahi, Caroline Harvie-Teare, says it wouldn't be fair or right to charge a levy for all events. Her thinking is that if you or I are buying tickets to see the likes of Bruce Springsteen or Pink or the Rolling Stones, we're not going to give two-hoots about a $5 levy on top of the ticket price. But she says it would be a different story for some of the smaller-scale, community-type events that are also going to be held at the stadium. She says a levy on those types of events could put some people off and so they would be less viable. But what I would say to that, is that the stadium is not a charity and if events can't pay their way, then maybe they need to be held somewhere else. What's more, do you really think a $5 levy would put people off buying tickets to see the All Blacks or the Crusaders? Of course not. Do you think a $5 levy would put people off buying tickets to see the rugby league world cup double-header in October? Or the Black Ferns when they play here? So, of course, this levy should be added to the ticket prices for every event. Yani Johanson is spot on. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Do you think there is anyone in New Zealand who believes the Government's line that it's a coincidence the findings of its inquiry into the Reserve Bank's COVID-19 response will be released a few weeks before the election? As the NZ Herald's political editor, Thomas Coughlan, puts it: the inquiry will ask the right questions at the wrong time. Because this has election campaigning written all over it. The official line is that the review is being done to “identify any lessons New Zealand could learn to improve the response to future major events”. But how credible is that, given the findings of the inquiry will be released just weeks before this year's election? Not very, according to Labour leader Chris Hipkins, who's saying today: “If this is a genuinely independent review that provides some lessons learned, it could be useful. But doing it right in the middle of an election campaign suggests that's not Nicola Willis' primary motivation here.” And he's spot on. Because it's not. The Government's primary motivation is to spend half a million dollars of taxpayer money on a report that is going to come out at the pointy end of the election campaign, which will do one of two things. It will either rip into the Reserve Bank in the way the Government hopes it will. So it can then say to voters, “do you really want the last lot who let the Reserve Bank get away with this trainwreck back in charge of the economy?” Or, the report will be a bit soft - not quite what the Government wants - but will still give it bragging rights about looking to learn from past mistakes. Unlike Labour, who it will accuse of not having the guts to front up to the COVID-19 Royal Commission of Inquiry. So it's going to be a win-win - especially for National. I think this would have way more credibility if the Government had come out yesterday and said it was launching the inquiry but the findings wouldn't be released until after the election. For the benefit of whoever the government of the day is after the election. If it had done that, I would have had no problem with the timing. Instead, this inquiry - which, in itself, is fully justified - is at risk of looking like nothing more than taxpayers coughing-up for the National Party's election campaign. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Is there anything about the Government's free trade deal with India that anyone likes? The prime minister and the trade minister love it. Winston Peters doesn't. And it seems Labour leader Chris Hipkins is coming around to thinking that he doesn't like it, either. He's concerned about the prospect of an unlimited number of Indian students being allowed to come here and work and the impact that could have on the job market. Which the trade minister is poo-pooing. Because we don't actually have any limits on the number of students who can come here from anywhere. Not just India. But I think we should. I know the trade minister will tell us until he's blue in the face that this is a trade deal - not an immigration deal. But he's pushing that one uphill with the likes of Winston Peters, who is picking up on the immigration side of it because there is no shortage of people who love to complain about foreigners “taking over”. Do you really think NZ First would be making as much of a noise if this was a deal with the UK or the US? I don't think so. So they're just tapping into some good old-fashioned xenophobia. That said - since the government announced the deal just before Christmas - whenever I've been speaking with young people especially about it, I've been surprised how strongly some of them feel about students coming here from other countries. And how many of them think there should be limits. Which I agree with, for several reasons. First of all, students don't come here with any skills. They come here to get skilled. I know they spend money and it's great for the tertiary sector because they pay higher fees being international students. But they don't come here and fill the workforce skill shortages we're dealing with. Secondly, the more students from overseas, the higher the demand for accommodation. Which means student rents going skyward. What's more, if we have no limits on the number of students coming here, then that increases the risk of students getting ripped off by employers. It also makes it tougher for domestic students to find the work they need to pay for their studies. But what do you think? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A lawyer believes the Christchurch couple who found $200,000 in their ceiling space should keep the cash that they found in their property. However, the High Court has decided that the couple are not owed a cent of the money, even though they handed it in with good faith. They uncovered the cash sealed in plastic bricks and concealed in insulation in 2021 and reported their discovery to police. Lawyer and former police officer Matthew Hague told John MacDonald that there's no question that the couple were innocent in their reporting. "They had zero involvement with anything untoward, they should be allowed to keep it" When asked if he thinks the couple will end up with the money, he said there is one thing going against them. "If you pay for something, that can be a factor for something to be returned, but they're not out of pocket." "In my view, they did nothing wrong" LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins has fallen into the trap that I could very easily find myself falling into if I didn't think a little bit more carefully about this plan by the Government to set-up a new shipping terminal in Taranaki to import liquified natural gas. This is the gas that's needed to generate power, alongside the other ways we generate power in this country - hydro, coal and wind. It's going to cost somewhere north of $1 billion, and the Government reckons it will be up-and-running in one-to-two years' time. I think it's dreaming on the timeline front. I also think Chris Hipkins is dreaming when he says $1 billion would buy a lot of solar panels. Because even though Energy Minister Simon Watts banging-on about us paying less for our electricity - or more to the point, not paying a truckload more for electricity - this isn't actually about you and me. Unless you run a big manufacturing or processing plant - in particular one of these big plants or factories that have been struggling with power prices. This is about industrial electricity supplies. This talk about importing gas first surfaced a couple of years ago when factories were actually closing because of high power prices. The big power companies looked into it, and they wrote a report for the Government which essentially said that it wasn't as straightforward as it sounded. They looked into the practicalities of importing gas and they said we could do it, but there are a few things to think about. The main ones being the price tag and how long it would take to get it happening. They said last year that it could be done cheaper than $1 billion - for around $200 million - but the gas would be 25 percent more expensive, because the cheaper option would use existing facilities. However, there wouldn't be the same amount of storage and so we couldn't buy as much in one hit and so we'd pay more for it. They also said it wouldn't be an overnight fix. It would be about four years before we started to see the benefits. Another main point in this report was that we could spend the money and wait for it all to come online, but there could be years when we don't even need the extra gas. But that's a bit like pouring money into a fire alarm and sprinkler system and not using it. You know it's there and it gives you security. That's how I see this gas importation business. It's a back-up. And so, what if it isn't needed all the time? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I've done a few things in my time. But one thing I haven't done is serve on a jury. For a long time, I put it down to me working in the media. But I was out of the media for a long time, as well. So I don't know why I haven't had the call up. But, apparently - according to defense lawyer John Munro - I might be somewhat unusual in my enthusiasm. He says people don't have the same sense of civic duty as they used to and aren't keen to do jury service. And, because of that, we need to be offering more carrots for them to make themselves available - starting with paying them more. I think that might help. But if someone has no sense of civic duty, paying them more to turn up isn't going to make much difference, is it? If more money is the only reason they do turn up - then do we really want them on a jury? Would they be there for the right reason? At the moment, you get $62 a day for jury service. Which is chickenfeed. As John Munro says, it's nowhere near enough - especially for people who are self-employed. At the same time, we've got this guy in Auckland saying today that he will never make himself available for jury duty again after his experience. He's really brassed-off after he took leave from his job and spent three days waiting around the court building doing nothing. He wasn't selected for any trials and, after three days, they told him he was done. Nico van Rooyen was very excited to be called up for jury service. But it's only left him out of pocket and a harsh critic of the system. He says: "I won't ever do it again. Believe you me, it's the biggest waste of time I have ever experienced, The selection process is a farce of gigantic proportions." He says 80 people waited at the district court for several hours and then, without any scrutiny, were reduced to 40. He was then told to turn-up at court the next morning. He did that and waited all day and was told to come back the following day. Day three, he turned up and at lunchtime he was told he could leave. He says the system needs a shake-up. “Not a single one of my friends or customers had anything good to say about jury service. Some said, ‘just make an excuse for work'. Some had been excused from it between three and seven times. But not me, mate. I wanted to do it.” Never again, though, he says. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Do you feel better off than you did three years ago? With it being election year, that's the question politicians are going to be asking you. It's the question I'm asking you too in light of the latest unemployment numbers - which are the highest in more than a decade. That's the overall number. In Canterbury, things are a little bit better. The unemployment rate here is down and we've got 12,000 extra jobs. That was in the three months to December. Nevertheless, we can't deny that the better things are everywhere, then the better off we will all be. Not surprisingly, Finance Minister Nicola Willis is saying that employment growth is up. She says people are feeling more confident about the economy. Which is why the data released yesterday showed that, despite the overall unemployment rate increasing, there are more people out there looking for work because they're confident that there is actually work out there for them. My view on that is that, yes, there is work out there - but you have to do a lot more than just email your CV and a cover letter. In some cases, you have to physically knock on doors - just like the old days. But back to whether or not we actually feel any better off. For me, it's a mixed bag. But I suspect that's a stage-of-life thing. The kids have all grown up - so life is naturally less expensive on that front. No school camps and sports trips to pay for. I'm not buying clothes or shoes for kids who keep outgrowing them. So life is cheaper for me on that front. Nevertheless, every time I go through the check-out at the supermarket, I'm still blown away by how much it costs. Not to mention what it's like if you've still got the kids at home and you're doing the weekly shop to keep them fed and watered. Then, if you've got a home loan, there's the mortgage rates. They're still on the up and who knows what further increases might be on the cards with the Reserve Bank still fighting the inflation battle. As one of our listeners, Paul, points out: “Inflation is up, interest rates are up, unemployment is up and redundancies continue. Store closures continue too.” I'm guessing Paul's answer to my question is that he doesn't feel any better than he did three years ago. But what about you? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I think the Government is making a terrible mistake ditching the second practical test for new drivers. I like some of the changes it's making to the driver licensing system. But getting rid of the second practical isn't one of them. I'll tell you why. But, first, what bits do I like? And what is missing from the changes? For starters, I like the idea of a zero-alcohol limit for all new drivers. At the moment, this only applies to new drivers under 20. The Government is going to apply that to all new drivers - whatever their age. I would have gone further and introduced a zero-alcohol rule for all drivers. But this is a good start. I also like the increased learner period for new drivers under-25 - which makes total sense because the numbers tell us, don't they, that any driver under the age of 25 is at greater risk of injury or death. So the more time they spend as a learner driver - which stops them running around town with passengers - that has to be a good thing. As to what's missing - I've always thought it's nuts that we only train and test new drivers within the town or city limits on 50 kph roads and do nothing to prepare them for driving on the open road. But my real concern is the second practical test getting the flick. I know Transport Minister Chris Bishop is saying New Zealand is a bit isolated in that regard. But doing something just because it's the way everyone else does it has never been a great justification for anything. When someone is starting out as a new driver, surely that's the time when you want every opportunity to iron out any bad habits. Because, like any bad habit, the sooner you nip it in the bud - the better. But with new drivers only having a practical test to get their restricted licence - and never being tested again until they're well past retirement age - that is not going to make our roads safer. The second practical test is the perfect opportunity for any bad driving habits someone has developed while they've been on their learner and restricted licences to be picked up and ironed out. Because, if they fail, they remember. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How on earth did we get to the point where we've got schools saying today that kids are starting school without some of the most basic skills? And when they say basic, they mean basic. According to the Auckland Primary Principals' Association, there are five-year-old kids starting school who can't talk, who can't feed themselves and who haven't been toilet trained. I think I've got a partial solution to this problem. Which would mean putting more pressure on parents to make sure their kids are school-ready. I'll get to that. But first, here's the scale of the problem. Nearly 90 per cent of Auckland primary schools say new entrant students are needing more help than ever before to reach a level where they're ready to learn. Massey Primary School assistant principal, Anna Watkin, is one of the educators speaking out today. She says her school is seeing increasing numbers of children entering the classroom who can't hold a pencil or recognise their name. She says: “They struggle with empathy, focus, and even basic things like toileting. It takes at least three years to catch them up to expected curriculum standards.” And this is not just an Auckland problem. I was talking to someone who said there are new entrants turning-up at the Christchurch school their kids are at who can't eat their lunch on their own. What's more, parents at their child's school have been warned that, if their Year One child wets or soils their pants, the teachers won't be cleaning it up. They'll call the parents and get them to come and sort it out. But that's putting the onus on the parents' way too late. The pressure needs to go on parents' way before Day One at school - and here's how you'd do it. I think every child about to start school should be tested for the basic skills you would expect them to have at age 5. So, they'd be tested to check they can do things like feed themselves and go to the toilet. You might think schools don't have time to do all that. But my response is that schools also don't have the time to deal with these kids once they're in the classroom, either. At least by testing them before they start, the school and teachers would have a warning that they're going to be dealing with kids who don't know the basics. If we were going to be really hard on it, we'd tell parents or caregivers to keep their kids at home until they can do these basic things. So, they wouldn't be allowed to start school until they could prove they were toilet-trained and all of that. I think that would be going too far. But at least if a child was tested for these basics before starting, schools would have a better idea or a warning of what they're going to be dealing with. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I am liking the sound of a law change being introduced in New South Wales, where they are no longer going to allow good character references to be factored into court sentences. You know the drill. Someone is found guilty of a crime, they get their mates to write to the judge saying what a great person they are and how they've done all these good things. The judge reads all these glowing references and, when it comes to handing down a sentence, gives them some sort of discount because of their “good character”. The New South Wales government has decided it's not having any more of that. And I think we should do the same thing here. Because someone's so-called good character means zilch to their victim or their victims, doesn't it? If we're going to make noises about the criminal justice system needing to be more victim-focused, then this would be a pretty good start. Because how galling must it be for the victim of a crime to turn up at the sentencing and hear about all these wonderful things that have been said about the person who offended against them? What's more, how galling must it be to not only hear how wonderful this person apparently is, but to also then witness the judge discounting their sentence because of these glowing reports. Even if someone has done amazing things in the past, that doesn't make their offending any less serious. It doesn't diminish the impact of their offending on their victim or their victims, does it? Not that good character references are going to disappear altogether in New South Wales. They're still going to be allowed during the trial process. But they're not going to be coming across the desk of judges when they're about to dish out sentences. The change follows a report by the New South Wales Sentencing Council which said the references are based on a vague and uncertain concept. It said just because someone has a good character reference, that doesn't tell the sentencing judge anything about the likelihood of someone re-offending or the likelihood of them being rehabilitated. Which makes total sense. It also says that good character discounts are traumatising for victims. I couldn't agree more. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Talk about déjà vu. The smell from the burnt-out wastewater treatment plant at Bromley has been a shocker this week and people have had a gutsful. City councillor Yani Johanson says making people wait for another three years is totally unacceptable and the council needs to get it sorted sooner. I think it's ridiculous that it has taken over four years for the problem to still exist. I agree that it should be fixed sooner. But I don't have any hope of that happening. Because the council has cocked this up from the outset and seems incapable of doing it any faster. Which tells me that it has learnt next to nothing. Remember it did the big mea culpa and admitted that, at the very least, it could have communicated better with people living in the area? And how it was going to do a better job blah blah blah. Right from the start, the council had this “we know best” attitude and was very dismissive of people's concerns. And it's still at it. It's doing a very good job of explaining why it's so bad this week - that the recent heavy rain seems to be behind it. Which is all very well. But, as I've said many times, people don't care what you know - until they know that you care. And I don't see the council showing too much care. Did you see the council guy on the news last night go all sheep-ish when he was asked about compo or support for people living with the stench? But it's not just Bromley that's affected. I was in Mairehau yesterday and the smell was really bad. But I'm not living with it all the time. Unlike Gaylene Ratima. She lives in Bromley and she woke up at 4 o'clock the other morning thinking the dog had done something on the carpet. She soon realised that the rotten egg smell had nothing to do with the dog and that it was coming from outside the house. It was the stench from the wastewater treatment plant seeping-in through the windows and doors - which were all closed. Imagine what that must be like. In fact, she reckons the smell this week is worse than it was after the treatment plant fire back in November 2021. Which is why councillor Yani Johanson is saying today that making people wait for another three years for the smell problem to be fixed is totally unacceptable and the council needs to get it sorted sooner. As he points out - the way things are going, it's going to take longer than it took to build the new One New Zealand stadium. The fire was in November 2021 - over four years ago - and the council's going to take another three years to fix it. Totally unacceptable.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.