Canterbury Mornings with Chris Lynch

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.

There's that saying that you should never waste a good crisis. And, according to Winston Peters, the trucking companies are taking that advice and using the current fuel crisis as an opportunity to get what they've always wanted. Which is a rule change to let them carry more weight on their trucks. The Government's looking at allowing that as part of its response to the fuel situation, saying it would mean the truckies using less diesel. But Winston Peters say he's not on board with that, and we should be making greater use of rail. And I agree with him. In fact, I've long held the view that it's crazy the number of trucks we have on our roads and that we should be transporting more stuff on trains. It's crazy we have so many trucks because our roads, generally, are pretty tinpot, aren't they? Tinpot roads are not designed to cope with those heavy trucks. Let alone heavier trucks if these changes go through. Which is exactly the point the NZ First leader is making today about increasing the weight limits for trucks so they can carry more on each trip. Winston Peters says: “these weight limits are put there for good reasons, because of potholes and bridge strength and what have you." And what makes this even crazier, when you think about it, is the government is also talking about pressing pause on fuel tax increases next year. So, on one hand, it wants to let trucks carry more weight - which would undoubtedly mean more damage to the roads - and it wants to stop the fuel tax increase which would mean less money to fix the roads. How does that stack up? Answer: It doesn't. What's more, Winston Peters is accusing the freight industry of using the fuel crisis to get what it wants. He's saying today: "this isn't the first time the trucking industry's tried this on." I can't verify this for sure, but I'll take Winston on his word when he says that trains are two-and-a-half times more fuel efficient than trucks. He's also saying today, as the Minister for rail, that there are thousands of wagons available. So is he on to something? I think he is. And I think we need to see rail as a solution not just to any fuel shortage we might have to deal with in the short term - but long-term, as well. On an ongoing permanent basis, less trucks and more trains. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins says Christopher Luxon is running away from scrutiny after he cancelled his regular weekly interview on TVNZ's Breakfast programme. "The reality is that's part of the job. You're going to be subjected to scrutiny, you're going to be asked tough questions." Speaking on Canterbury Mornings, Hipkins was asked by John MacDonald whether he held the same view when former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern cancelled her weekly interviews with Newstalk ZB's Mike Hosking in 2021. "I thought she should have continued to do it, but ultimately that was her choice. I made a different choice, and that was to keep doing those interviews." When Hipkins became Prime Minister in 2023, he reinstated the weekly prime ministerial interview on the Mike Hosking Breakfast. They also discussed Labour's support for the India free trade agreement, his views on drinking culture in parliament, and his reaction to a parent being taken to court by the government over their child's chronic absence from school. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Anyone who didn't feel excited for and proud of Christchurch over the long weekend might need to check if they've still got a pulse. Because what a ripper. And anyone who thinks our brand new One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha isn't going to be Christchurch's greatest asset then, maybe, they were at home all weekend and didn't see what was going on. Thousands of visitors in town for the Super Rugby Super Round. Numbers thrown around say 14,000 people visited - 4,000 of them from Australia. ChristchurchNZ had estimated it would pump $6 million into the economy. But it's now saying that it will probably be more than that. I'm in no doubt about that. I see the church pub alone sold 50 kegs of beer on Friday night. We did some numbers over dinner last night and worked out that that would have been at least $50,000 in beer sales. At one pub. On one night. That doesn't count the beer sold on Saturday and sunday. Naturally, Crusaders boss Colin Mansbridge is pushing for Christchurch to host the Super Round again. I think he's got a multi-year deal in his sights. And, crucially, Super Rugby Chief Executive Jack Mesley isn't ruling it out. Although, he's hardly going to poo-poo it when he's here and everyone's on a high because of how well it went. But he did say before jumping on the plane back to Sydney that Christchurch definitely has a head start over other New Zealand cities. Which we do. Tell that to the Mayor of Dunedin, though, who is saying this morning that they're going to be looking into the viability of hosting the Super Round in Dunners. One ting that occurred to me at the weekend, was who needs Russell Coutts and Sail GP now we've got this brilliant stadium facility? Which is why I think it is going to be Christchurch's single greatest asset. If it isn't already. I know that Friday night, especially, was a milestone. It was the end of a very long wait. It was another one of those symbolic and emotional moments when we realise just how far we have come as a city. And I know not every Crusaders game at One New Zealand Stadium is necessarily going to attract 25,000 people. And I know that not everyone is a rugby fan. But you can't deny the good the Super Round did for our city over the weekend, and the good the stadium is going to continue doing. Just imagine what it's going to be like next month when Six60 headlines the first big concert at the stadium. Which is sold out. You imagine what it's going to be like when the Warriors play here in June. Again, another sell-out. And imagine what it's going to be like in July when the All Blacks play France under the roof. That match is well on its way to being sold out too. So the weekend was just the start. And what a brilliant start it was too. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ahead of the first fully ticketed event at One New Zealand Stadium, John MacDonald caught up with Greg May, owner of central city bar, Smash Palace. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ahead of the first fully ticketed event at One New Zealand Stadium, Venues Ōtautahi CEO took John MacDonald on a tour of One New Zealand Stadium. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Make no mistake, today is a massive day for Christchurch. Normally, you'd say the official opening - when the ‘hoi-polloi' gather to cut ribbons and make speeches - is massive. But today's the day. Because today, the stadium becomes ours. And I'm with Mayor Phil Mauger who is saying that it has been worth every penny. It's a spend that not everyone has been and will be happy about. But as the mayor is also saying today, he doesn't think people realise yet the benefits it's going to bring the city. Primarily, he's talking about the economic benefits. And who can argue with the benefits from this weekend alone? 25,000 people at the stadium tonight. Tens of thousands more tomorrow and Sunday. And, as ChristchurchNZ boss Ali Adams is saying today, the stadium will bring people here who will leave with a changed view of the city and some of them will come back. Not just for another visit - but to study, work and invest here. But it's also the social benefits that the stadium is going to bring us. It's a bit of a cliche - but, isn't it amazing, how things change over time? I can still vividly remember going to the old AMI stadium at Lancaster Park with my mate, Adam, taking our two first-borns to see the Crusaders play under the lights. My daughter and my mate Adam's son were preschoolers and we had it all organised with enough snacks to keep them happy and enough clothes to keep them warm and all of that. Sometimes, of course, half a game would be enough for the wee ones, and we'd shoot off home at half time. I can still see the photo. My little girl in her black and red poncho and black and red beanie. Fast forward to today and it's the kids arranging to take me to the big opening game. Buying me a ticket for Christmas, telling me the social plan beforehand and afterwards. Which I suspect will see me heading home to bed long before they're ready to call it a night. And just like Lancaster Park or Jade stadium or AMI stadium (whatever you want to call it), I know that our new stadium is going to be the place where future generations of Cantabrians fall in love with the thrill of rowdy togetherness. Because this isn't just a massive pile of concrete and steel in the centre of town. This is going to be the place where we will celebrate the wins. Together. Where we'll accept the losses. Together. Where we'll be moved by the artists and performers who will come to Christchurch from all over the world. We'll do all of that together. And if you're going to any of the super round matches this weekend - or whenever you end up going - I guarantee that's one of the first things you will feel. I know that because, even at the crusaders training run last week, the overwhelming thing that got me as I walked through those shiny new doors was “here we all are again”. 15 years later - here we all are again. And that's why I am absolutely fizzing today. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ahead of the Super Round weekend in Christchurch, John MacDonald caught up with former All Black and Crusaders legend, Dan Carter. They discuss Dan's time as a Crusader during the earthquakes, what he reckons of the new One NZ stadium, and the 'Every Drop Challenge' that Dan is hosting at half time on Super Round Sunday. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

With One NZ Stadium finally opening its doors ahead of the Super Rugby Super Round, John MacDonald caught up with current Speaker of the House and former Christchurch Regeneration Minister, Gerry Brownlee. They discussed his role in getting the stadium off the ground by convincing cabinet of its importance for Cantabrians, and if he thinks the stadium has matched his expectations from over a decade ago. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

With the Super Round days away, planning to get to the new One New Zealand Stadium will be a necessity for the over 25,000 fans who will be coming to the first event. Environment Canterbury Chair Dr Deon Swiggs' joined John MacDonald to discuss the "Event Direct" initiative, providing shuttle buses to and from pickup points across the city. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A dog's breakfast. That's the only way I can describe the National Party's handling of the speculation over Christopher Luxon's leadership. Because “nothing to see here” never works. What's more, I just don't believe what they're saying. Luxon called the confidence vote yesterday and came out of the caucus meeting saying he had the backing of his MPs and that was that. He wouldn't answer any questions from reporters after he read out his statement. But he did take the opportunity to fire a broadside at them, saying he was disappointed with the recent media coverage and wouldn't be engaging in “speculation and rumour”. But, as the likes of Thomas Coughlan from the NZ Herald have been quick to point out, this wasn't made up by reporters. What was reported was what was actually happening. National MPs talking out of school. Telling the media what they really think of Luxon. Not that we should be surprised by this misguided attack on the media. Because the reason this has been such a dog's breakfast, is that the party and its leader have been in complete denial. Especially, since last Friday.That was when the NZ Herald first reported on party whip Stuart Smith having no luck reaching his leader to tell him that some of his MPs weren't happy with his performance. And it got really weird yesterday when Smith himself - who had told One News on Monday night that he was definitely going to be at yesterday's caucus meeting providing the storm in Wellington didn't muck up his travel plans - was a no-show. He said on Monday night he'd been trying to fly to Wellington but had been delayed by the weather. But he did intend to get to the capital on Tuesday morning. Then next morning, he announced in a statement issued by the Prime Minister's office that he wouldn't be attending because he had a “longstanding personal appointment”. I'm sorry. But that's just nonsense. Because, if you're the party whip, it's your job to be at caucus meetings and you don't go making longstanding personal appointments that clash with the caucus schedule. What's more, this is the guy who was saying on Monday night he'd be there. Then he wasn't. Because of this longstanding appointment. This is the sort of Keystone Cops stuff that might be acceptable from an opposition party, but not from a party in government. A party in government that has never been shy of picking holes in Jacinda Ardern's promise that her government was going to be the most open and transparent government in the history of governments. It wasn't, of course. But how rich of National to criticise Labour and be just as smoke and mirrors on it. Because, for me, this isn't just about the National Party. This is about the government. It's not just about a party leader. It's about the Prime Minister. That's why “nothing to see here” doesn't cut it. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Selwyn Mayor Lydia Gliddon joined John MacDonald in the studio for the first of their regular catchups. They discussed some of the biggest issues for Selwyn ratepayers, including the potential cutting of council jobs to keep rates down, what she thinks of the 'Super-city' debate and if she thinks the Christchurch City Council missed a trick by not asking Selwyn to foot some of the bill for One NZ Stadium. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Excitement is brewing across Christchurch as One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha will finally open its doors on Friday. Christchurch City Council Senior Project Manager Dr Richard Gibbs joined Canterbury Mornings and discussed the part he has played in producing the world-class turf at One NZ Stadium, and his thoughts on the lack of horses that won't be moving with the Crusaders to their new home. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I can't think of one negative impact people moving here from overseas have had on my life. Not one. I can tell you plenty of good things. But not anything negative. Which is why I'll never understand why immigrants get such a bad rap. It's an easy excuse, though. Not happy about something? Blame the immigrants. And it's NZ First's Shane Jones is talking the nonsense he is. Warning us of a “Butter chicken tsunami” of new immigrants if New Zealand goes ahead with this free trade agreement with India. NZ First is opposed to the agreement, because it says it doesn't cap the number of students who could come here from India. Which is an argument that has already been put to bed because there are no limitations on the number of international students who can come here from any country. Tell that to Shane Jones, though. But I'm with the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, who has hit back. He was asked about it at the media conference after yesterday's cabinet meeting. Initially, he was a bit wishy-washy. But then he let rip. Saying New Zealand is a better place because of immigration. Without immigration, a lot of things would struggle to keep going. People moving here fill labour shortages. Think of the nursing staff in the hospitals. Think of all those construction workers i see walking to work first thing in the morning. Think of all the people who have migrated here to work on our dairy farms. People move here to invest, as well. Think of the people from overseas who have started businesses or bought existing businesses. Think of the wealthy immigrants who have taken advantage of the golden visa scheme who are investing big money here. These are genuine benefits. Not to mention the benefit we all get from the extra diversity. Every time I go through town, I love the fact that I see the same mix of people I've seen in other cities around the world. Some people, though, seem to think that's a bad thing. These are generally the ones who will celebrate St Patrick's day - but won't want a bar of Diwali. But where are you on this one? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Green Party wants us to electrify everything, saying the current fuel crisis is a good reason to produce as much of our own energy as possible. Which, by the way, is kind of ironic don't you think? The Greens wanting us to produce our own energy, but not wanting us to drill for oil and gas? Nevertheless, that's what co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said in the party's State of the Planet speech yesterday. She wants to kick things off with solar panels. And one of the Greens' policies in this year's election will be cheap government loans for solar panels and batteries. Which I think is one of those ideas that sound good but, when you think about it for more than five minutes, the cracks start to appear. Nevertheless, Chlöe Swarbrick says cheap government loans would cut the upfront cost barrier that stops people going solar. And she says it could cut household power bills by $1,000-a-year. Which all sounds fine. But would it be enough to make me go solar? Probably not. Because the thing i can't get past with solar, is the upfront cost and the mystery that surrounds the so-called financial benefits. You will have seen and heard the stories I'm sure about people paying all the money to get solar panels on the roof at home and not seeing their power bills get any cheaper. There are also the conflicting reports about the merits of selling solar energy back into the national grid. Whether the payback is worth it. Until that murkiness no longer exists, I don't see myself rushing to go solar anytime soon. As for this idea of cheap government loans for solar panels and batteries, here's the issue I have with it. Yes, it would take away the upfront cost. But debt is debt. Irrespective of how low the interest rate is. And, while the greens claim you might end up with cheaper power bills, you'd still have this debt to service. So your monthly power bill might be cheaper, but you'd still have to service the loan from the government. According to the energy efficiency and conservation authority, a small-to-medium solar set-up will cost somewhere between $8,500 and $11,500. That's just for the panels. The batteries, on top of that, can range from $5,000 to $15,000. So let's go with the median prices and say that your panels will cost you around about $10,000 and the battery around about $10,000, as well. So, $20,000 all up. In the scheme of things, that isn't all that much. But, according to the energy efficiency and conservation authority, it takes on average seven-to-10 years for solar to pay for itself. For the money saved on power to pay back the upfront cost of installing solar. And that's where this policy from the greens doesn't stack up. Because if it's going to cost $20,000 upfront and they say people are going to save $1,000 a year on their power bills, then it's going to be 20 years before their solar set-up pays for itself. And that, for me, is enough to say thanks, but no thanks. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Over nine-thousand punters turned up for the Crusaders open training session at One New Zealand Stadium on Thursday evening. John MacDonald also went along and spoke with a few fans at the final test event before next week's Super Round. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After hearing Chris Bishop on Newstalk ZB this morning, there are two things about the National Party and its leader that I am in no doubt about. I am in absolutely no doubt that Christopher Luxon has to stand down before he's pushed. I'm also in no doubt that, if that happens, National will be toast in this year's election. But, when you weigh it up, there's no way this speculation and doubt about the prime minister of our country can continue. And that's the key point here. We're not just talking about a party leader. We're talking about the prime minister.And how can we take a government seriously when its own MPs don't take their leader seriously? NZ Herald political editor Thomas Coughlan is reporting today that Christopher Luxon is expected to face the most difficult two weeks of his leadership when Parliament returns next week. He's reporting that Luxon is up to his old trick of covering his ears and not listening to what people are saying.With National's Kaikoura MP Stuart Smith, who is also National's party whip, unable to reach Luxon in the week before Easter to tell him about ructions in the National Party caucus. Being the party whip, Stuart Smith is obliged to tell the party leader if drums are beating and MPs aren't happy with their leader. But he couldn't reach Luxon. Or, more to the point, Luxon didn't want to hear from him. Because, as Thomas Coughlan is reporting, if the two had spoken, it would have likely led to a caucus meeting, which could have led to a change in leader. So Christopher Luxon was avoiding Stuart Smith to stop a certain chain of events from happening.Which Chris Bishop kind-of denied when he spoke to Mike Hosking, but he was a million miles away from being anything close to convincing. Bishop is due to front again with Jack Tame on TV this weekend. His boss will be hoping for a more ringing endorsement than this morning's failed attempt. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week. They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from Christopher Luxon's leadership, the new warrant of fitness changes coming this year, and their thoughts on The Crusaders losing the pre-match horses at One NZ Stadium. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I've never had a problem with the chlorine that's been in Christchurch's water. Which is why I'm not at all upset at the news that it's going to be in the water forever. What's happened, is city councillors have been told that - even if they spent $1.5 billion on infrastructure upgrades over the next 20 years - the chlorine would most likely still be needed. That's because of all the hoops that have to be jumped through to get a chlorine exemption. On top of that, rates would have to go up to pay for ongoing maintenance. Nevertheless, i think the council needs to bite the bullet and spend the money. Because, for me, this isn't just about chlorine. But what i see potentially happening, is councillors using the chlorine bit as an out. As an excuse for not spending money on infrastructure upgrades. When that is the last thing, they should be doing. City Councillor Yani Johanson seems to be on the same page as me. He reckons that, despite the $1.5 billion price tag, it's still worth looking into and he wants the public to have a say. But Mayor Phil Mauger says it would be nothing other than a waste of money. He says: “it's all very well saying you can throw a shedload of money at every contractor in the country, digging up every road that we've got. But it's not worth it.” Phil's got some alternative ideas, which I'll get to. But what he's advocating for is a continuation of what pretty much every local body politician in this country has done and continues to do. Kicking cans down the road. They're experts at it. Whereas, what Christchurch should be doing is seeing this as a critical piece of infrastructure spending that is needed in New Zealand's second-largest city. Especially when you consider the alternatives ideas floating around. Instead of the big spend-up on new pipes, Phil Mauger reckons it would be better for the council to do things like buying filtration systems for people to have at home and setting-up chlorine-free water stations around town. Picture that. The council sending out filtration kits in the mail - the way it sent out those portable toilets after the earthquakes. And the council running water station around town where people could go to get chlorine-free water. Really? People bang on about the city needing to look less like a disaster zone. What do you think the council distributing filtering systems and running water pick-up points would look like? And, all the while, crossing its finger and hoping that the underground infrastructure doesn't pack a sad. It makes no sense. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.