Canterbury Mornings with Chris Lynch

My confidence is shot and my patience is wearing thin. That's my answer to the question I've got for you. Which is: How would you rate your level of confidence in and patience with the Government? After yesterday's GDP result, the knives are well-and-truly out. We've got former Finance Minister Sir Roger Douglas saying Nicola Willis isn't up to the job and should resign. Add to that a new poll result which says that 55% of us think the country is on the wrong track and 45% of us think the current government is worse than the previous Labour government. Sir John Key isn't having a bar of resignation talk about Nicola Willis, though. He says out of anyone in the current government, she is far and away the best person to be Finance Minister and Economic Growth Minister. He thinks she has the goods to deliver better economic days – but what else was a former National prime minister going to say? Two people I was talking to last night who voted for National at the last election weren't as generous as Sir John. And they, like I do, think Sir Roger is right – Nicola Willis isn't up to the job. Which is why my confidence has gone. As for my patience wearing thin, what I'm saying there is that I'm prepared to give the Government a little bit more time to show that it's listening. Proof of that would be moving Nicola Willis on and giving Chris Bishop the job. He's the only person in this Government who I think would be better than Nicola Willis. But just because the pickings are slim, it doesn't mean changes shouldn't be made.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I wonder if the person who called me a tofu-eating, sandal-wearing, treehugger yesterday will have a bit of a re-think when they see what I've got to say about Environment Canterbury declaring a nitrate emergency. I'm with Federated Farmers, which is saying it's nothing more than a political stunt. But it's not just that, it's a very naive political stunt. Because show me one of these so-called “emergency” declarations that have done any good. What about the Christchurch City Council's climate emergency? Is that still a thing? Or have they quietly pulled the plug on that one? The other thing that makes ECan's stunt particularly naive is that it's the outfit still dishing out consents for more dairy farming in Canterbury. There are about 950,000 dairy cows in Canterbury and ECan is currently considering applications for another 10,000. I'll come back to Federated Farmers because they're not the only ones who aren't happy about this emergency declaration – some ECan councillors themselves are brassed off, as well. So what happened yesterday is one of ECan's outgoing councillors put forward the motion to declare the emergency and for ECan to “take a leadership role to urgently address the issue of groundwater pollution impacting drinking water sources and supplies”. Vicky Southworth is the councillor who put forward the motion at what was her very last ECan meeting. It was her last meeting, and it was the council's last meeting before next month's elections. The vote was close —9 in favour, 7 against— and some of the councillors who voted against it were pretty angry at yesterday's meeting. Nick Ward is one of them. He said it was “grandstanding”. Another councillor, John Sunckell, said he's spent 15 years trying to reduce nitrates, and “I just feel really pissed off with this little political stunt”. They both said nitrates levels are expected to decline over time and that rural communities had worked hard and collaboratively over decades to lower nitrates, and that “emergency” was the wrong word to use. Federated Farmers agrees. It's slamming the move, with its vice-president Colin Hurst describing it as a “shameless political stunt that won't help anyone”. If Councillor Southworth was so concerned about the nitrates, she wouldn't be leaving. She'd be putting herself forward for re-election, just like outgoing chairperson Craig Pauling. He voted in favour of the nitrate emergency, but he's moving on as well. Again, if he's so worried about it, then he'd be trying to get elected again too. Instead, they can walk away feeling all virtuous, thinking they've done something positive and have made a difference. Do me a favour. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Another warning from Labour for its potential coalition partner Te Pāti Māori. MP Takuta Ferris has twice attacked ethnic Labour party volunteers who sign-waved in the Tamaki Makaurau by-election, claiming they were taking a Māori seat away from Māori. Party president John Tamihere echoed Ferris' comments yesterday, despite the party previously apologising. Chris Hipkins told John MacDonald the party needs to respond – the ball's in their court, and how they respond matters. He's also criticising Rawiri Waititi for only answering journalists' questions in te reo Māori yesterday. It was the first time the party has fronted since Ferris doubled down on his comments, and Waititi refused to answer media questions in English, but later spoke English in the House. The Labour Leader told MacDonald any minister in a government he leads would be expected to answer questions so all New Zealanders could understand. He says if Waititi wants to communicate with Kiwis —including Māori who don't speak te reo— using both languages would be a better way of doing that. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Get a grip. That's my advice today to the people complaining about the music festival planned for the area near Bottle Lake Forest, in Christchurch, over the new year period. Because I think the organisers are treating you very well and going above and beyond. The Rolling Meadows festival is normally held at Waipara, north of the city, but the organisers hope to have it in Christchurch for the first time this year. And because it's near people's homes, there have been complaints and there's even a petition doing the rounds, with people worried about the noise and disruption. The organisers have listened and they've done a couple of things. Which I'll get to. When I was thinking about where I stood on this, I almost settled on the side of the residents, because of the numbers. The number of people expected to attend and the number of vehicles that are expected in the area over the three-day period. They're not insignificant. Up to 10,000 people are expected to attend, with 5,000 expected to camp on site, and 4,000 vehicles a day are expected on the only public access to the festival car park. So there's going to be a lot of people converging on that area over those three days from December 29 to 31. But what I came back to is it's just for three days. Three days when quite a few of the locals are likely to be away on holiday, anyway. Three days when the organisers are going to be bending over backwards to try and keep these people happy. First of all, they've offered to pay for alternative accommodation for residents. They're also going to hire people to patrol the streets, deal with rubbish and keep homes safe. What's more, it's understood they've gone even further and have also offered to finish the performances earlier each night and reduce the noise levels. That's still not good enough, it seems. Which might be making the organisers a little bit nervous because they're yet to get consent from the city council. They say that if that doesn't happen, they'll just go back to having it in Waipara. Sure, the music blasting late into the night might be a pain in the backside if you're not into it, but it's just three nights. Good on the Rolling Meadows organisers for going the extra mile. Some people though, will never be satisfied.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If the amount of money spent on ACC claims over the past five years for e-scooter injuries doesn't convince you that tighter laws are needed, I don't know what will. And if the amount of money spent on ACC claims over the past five years for e-scooter injuries doesn't convince you that NZTA made a big mistake deciding not to make e-scooters subject to the road rules - again, I don't know what will. The figure relates to injuries all over New Zealand. But it appears that us lot in Canterbury have copped it the worst. Or maybe we're the most reckless. The flatness of the place probably has something to do with it. Because, Christchurch especially, is brilliant for riding anything. Which is maybe why new data out today shows that, in the past five years, there have been more e-scooter injury claims in Canterbury than anywhere else in the country. Here, there have been 1,761 ACC claims lodged by Health NZ. Compared to 1,378 in Auckland, which has way more people - they've had claims. The $55.6 million in claims between September 2020 and now has the AA saying - again - that there aren't enough rules around e-scooters. Saying it's crazy, for example, that it isn't illegal to ride an e-scooter drunk. And it wants alcohol restrictions for e-scooter riders. No argument from me on that one. It is crazy. The AA also thinks it's crazy that there's no age limit and no mandatory helmets. No argument from me on both of those, either. But it's going to be very tricky to do anything about any of those things as long as e-scooters aren't considered or treated as vehicles. Which is the big mistake NZTA made, when it gave e-scooters this dispensation. Just so the private e-scooter operators could get their way and operate without any consideration for the road rules. No licence required; no obligation to follow the same rules as other road users; no previous experience required; no helmet required. There's not even a speed limit enforced. Plus, you can ride anywhere and everywhere. The other thing about this $55.6 million in ACC claims, is that e-scooter owners and e-scooter companies don't pay ACC levies. People bang on all the time about people coming here from overseas and getting free ACC cover - the reason being that you can't sue in this country and so we have to provide cover for people from overseas. The exact same thing is happening with e-scooter users. Private owners and people who use the hire scooters get free ACC cover. which, over the past five years, has cost us $55.6 million in claims. The AA says time's up and tougher rules are needed. I'm saying that isn't going to happen until we classify e-scooters vehicles. That's the nub of the problem and that's what needs to change. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by Labour's Reuben Davidson and National's Matt Doocey to delve into the biggest topics of the week. On today's agenda: the manhunt for Tom Phillips and his children has come to an end, but the coverage has only just begun. There's a fresh plan to restore the Christ Church Cathedral, and the Government has announced some new offences for shoplifting. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I'm no apologist for shoplifters. I think it is appalling that retail crime costs retailers $2.6 billion a year. And that more than half of them not only have to deal with shoplifters coming in and helping themselves to stuff, close to 60% of retailers also have to put up with threatening behaviour from these thugs. But I'm not sold on this plan by the Government to turn “innocent until proven guilty” on its head for people accused of shoplifting and, instead, assume they're guilty from the start until they themselves can prove they're innocent. I'm coming at it from two perspectives: the practicality of it, and the risk of it becoming a bit of a slippery slope. Yes, as Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith was saying on Newstalk ZB today, it would be similar to a speeding ticket, where you get the ticket and it's on you to prove that you weren't in the wrong. Except speeding tickets are issued by the police, and I don't hear the Government saying that they're going to have police writing out tickets for shoplifters. Already, if you go to Westfield Mall and get a parking ticket, you can get out of that because they don't have authority to issue them. The same thing will happen with shoplifters. The other reason I don't like this idea is that I see it as a slippery slope. If we start saying shoplifters are guilty until they can prove that they're innocent, then what or who next? If it's okay to tell someone accused of shoplifting that they're guilty until they can prove otherwise —instead of forcing those making the accusations to prove their guilt— then why not do it with other crimes? When it comes to the law and the justice system, whether we like it or not, everyone needs to be treated equally. Whether we like it or not, that includes people allegedly involved in criminal activity. Which is why I think it would be wrong to start telling people accused of shoplifting that, unless or until they can prove their innocence, they're guilty. I'm no shoplifting sympathiser, but this mucking around with one of the basic foundations of the justice system is the wrong approach. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I've really surprised myself. Because, even though I think it's totally shameful that people have been helping Tom Phillips keep his kids in hiding for nearly four years, I'm torn when it comes to how important it is that these people face consequences for their actions. To the point where I've realised that it's not as important to me as I thought it would be to me. Locals in the area are already poo-pooing the chances of the police tracking them down. Especially if they're going to rely on people dobbing them in or people giving themselves in. Local farmer and former Waitomo mayor Mark Ammon is one of them. He says it's unlikely. He says: "If it was me, I'd be just keeping quiet and hoping whatever leads the police get, didn't lead to me.” He reckons the vast majority of locals back the police, but he doesn't think anyone will pipe-up because everyone knows everyone and, even though they support the police, they won't want to narc. He does say though that it may also depend on the three children's willingness to share information. Which brings me to psychologist Kirsty Ross, who is saying some really interesting things which I think are relevant to the likelihood of them spilling all the beans. In the short-to-medium term, anyway. She's saying today that they will have been told a story that justified their father's decisions and actions, saying “they've been in an echo chamber for four years”. “They will have been a really tight unit. This was such an impressionable age when they were taken and four years is such a long period of time to have one person as their sole protector, provider, teacher. That influence cannot be underestimated.” It can't be underestimated. And what I would add to that is, can it be undone? Can that influence over four years be eroded to the point where the kids are happy to give away details of who has been helping their father? And who's to say they even know? Which is why the likes of Children's Commissioner Dr Claire Achmad are saying today that these kids are going to have to be treated with the proverbial kid gloves. Which is not going to involve much drilling for information, is it? But back to how I'm feeling about the police setting out to find the people who have supported their father while they've been in hiding. And why I'm torn about it, even though I think these people are despicable for what they've done. Here are the reasons in my head as to why the police should go after them. If they provided the firearm used to shoot the officer the other morning, then they have blood on their hands. And by enabling Phillips to keep his kids hidden for so long, this person or these people have been complicit in denying the kids of all the things kids shouldn't be denied – time with both their parents, an education, freedom. I could go on. But here are the things I'm thinking about that make me wonder whether it's worth the police even trying. First and foremost, the kids are back safe. That's been the number one priority, and it's been achieved. Secondly, from what we're hearing, the locals are very unlikely to narc on their neighbours and the people who have been involved are very unlikely to come forward. And, finally, I think because of what that psychologist is saying about them being in an echo chamber for nearly four years, it's unlikely that the kids will spill too many beans. It's for those reasons, that finding these supporters is not as important to me as I thought it would be. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I was wrong and the police were right. After yesterday's events, I'll admit that I was wrong when I said over the last few years that the police were pussy-footing around with Tom Phillips. That instead of waiting for him to come out of hiding with his three kids, they should've been more gung-ho on it and gone after him. Yesterday changed all that and proved to me that the police did do the right thing. Even though it dragged out for years, they did the right thing waiting. If they hadn't, there could very well have been more than one person dead at the end of it. Something my thinking hasn't changed on though, is the shameful way people have obviously been helping Phillips to stay in hiding for nearly four years. The police have pretty much said that this has been happening, and, if you talk to anyone familiar with the community there, they'll tell you the same thing. And that person or those people —however many there are— should be ashamed of themselves. What has amazed me while this whole thing has been dragging on is the number of people prepared to defend Tom Phillips. In some people's eyes, he's been a father who just wanted to do the best for his kids. A father driven to the brink by the system. I'm not blind to the complexities of situations like this and I know there will be a lot to it that we don't know about – a lot we don't need to know about. But how anyone could think it was a good idea to support this guy, I'll never know. Because without their “help”, those kids could have been back safe long before now. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What does kicking overstayers out of the country actually achieve? With just under 21,000 overstayers in New Zealand, the Government is planning a crackdown. But the Green Party wants an amnesty. Reason being that most people living here without visas are what the Greens describe as being “active in their communities”. Plus, they've got families here. Or, to put it another way, if someone overstays their welcome, they're committing what people sometimes refer to as a “victimless crime”. And I think we need to ask ourselves what kicking overstayers out of the country actually achieves. If all it does is give us an excuse to bang our chest and say to the world “don't mess with us”, then is it really worth it? I'm starting to think that it isn't and maybe this amnesty idea isn't so bad after all. It's not new and it's not just the Greens that have been pushing it. Just before the last election, Labour leader Chris Hipkins talked about bringing-in an amnesty for overstayers who had been living in New Zealand for more than 10 years. But not everyone in Labour was keen on that. Andrew Little was Immigration Minister at the time, and he said: “We have to think about the signal that we're giving to people if they think ‘oh gee, this is a government that just routinely gives amnesties. If we stick around long enough, we'll be ok'.” At the time I said that if we went ahead with this amnesty, we'd be telling the world that we are the people's republic of pushovers. I said that, nowhere else in the world would you find a country willing to turn such a blind eye to illegal immigrants. But that was then and, two years on, my thinking is changing. Because I think it's very easy to be all anti-overstayer and anti-amnesty without asking the question: what's in it for me if an overstayer is kicked out of the country? When you think about it, the answer to that is “absolutely nothing”. We might feel good because we're putting these illegal aliens in their place. In their place and out of our place. But how does it make New Zealand a better country? Answer: it doesn't. As the Greens' immigration spokesperson Ricardo Menendez March is saying today: "People without a visa need support. Most are active participants in our communities, have family here, and are also more vulnerable to exploitation." He says overstayers should be treated with dignity and respect and be allowed to become residents instead of being put on the next plane out of here. Different story, of course, if someone is here without a visa and commits a serious crime. As for every other overstayer, why wouldn't we let them live here legitimately? Because what's in it for us if we kick them out?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by Megan Woods and Matt Doocey to delve into the biggest stories of the week. They discussed the tougher immigration policies the Government is introducing to tackle overstayers, the struggling and overworked justice system, and housing intensification in Christchurch. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sir Ron Young, who used to be a high court judge and used to be chair of the Parole Board, thinks shorter sentences could take the strain off the justice system. He says shorter sentences make people less likely to re-offend because they don't spend as much time with other offenders and that would mean less people going through the courts. There are two ways we could respond to that. We could think about it with a long-term, logical view and let our head guide our thinking, or we could let our heart guide our response. Sir Ron is saying this today after the release of Chief Justice Dame Helen Winkelmann's annual report, which says the justice system is under considerable pressure because of under-funding, security issues, delays, and heavy workloads. Which probably won't be much of a surprise to anyone who has had dealings with our courts. But what do we do about it? Sir Ron thinks shorter sentences are the answer. He's saying today that offenders who get shorter sentences and go through rehabilitation are less likely to join gangs and re-offend. And, with longer sentences becoming more common, they're making the crime problem worse because they mean people are more likely to continue committing crimes, and that's putting more and more pressure on the justice system. I can see both sides of the argument. My head tells me that there is something in what Sir Ron is saying. But my heart tells me that it's a terrible idea, because it doesn't actually address the problem, which is a justice system pretty much on the edge. A justice system struggling because, as our top judge says, it doesn't have enough resources: there aren't enough lawyers wanting to do legal aid work, there's been an increase in the number of murder and manslaughter trials, and they're all taking longer. But is dishing out lighter sentences to, apparently, reduce the pipeline of criminal offending, the answer? I say it isn't. Because reducing sentences just to take the pressure off the justice system doesn't help the victims of crime in the here and now. If there's anything our struggling justice system doesn't need, that's a further erosion of public confidence. Which is what would happen if we saw criminals getting off lightly, just because we're not prepared to resource the system in a way that delivers what the system is there to deliver: justice. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We would be mad to pull out of the Paris Climate Change Agreement. ACT leader David Seymour thinks differently though, saying its emissions targets are "disconnected from science and blind to New Zealand's realities". He says net zero targets have been set with no regard for the real cost to firms, farms, and families, and he wants out. Out of 197 countries, 193 are signed up to the accord. David Seymour wants us to join what would be a very exclusive club of five. I can kind-of understand the thinking of the people who would like us to end our involvement, because New Zealand is a tiny cog in the climate change machine and really, what difference can we actually make? The other reason people are anti-the Paris agreement is their impression that the big countries —the big polluters— aren't really doing their bit. So if they're not, why should we? I get that. The thing is though, when it comes to climate change you have to take a long-term view, and you have to think about the bigger picture. And it's not just about the climate itself. The main reason I want us to stay involved is the same reason David Seymour wants us out: the economy. He says the targets we've signed up to are forcing farmers off the land (which you have to question), forcing people out of the regions, and making food and electricity more expensive. But whether we like it or not, our free trade agreement with the European Union has specific references to climate change and the Paris agreement. If we did pull out, there could be serious trade and economic consequences for us. So we have to stick with it. Whether we like it or not. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour and National appear to be aligned on the Paris Climate Agreement. Yesterday ACT called for New Zealand to leave unless the terms of the deal change, but the Prime Minister said no. Labour's Chris Hipkins echoed Christopher Luxon, telling John MacDonald leaving the deal would cause more harm than good. He says it would be a disaster for us – walking away from those commitments would mean people overseas would stop buying our products. Hipkins says our largest export industries rely on New Zealand's clean, green reputation. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

At one point after the earthquakes, I had the insurance company telling me that it wanted to replace the driveway before the sewer line that ran under it had been repaired. When I explained to them that, maybe, that wasn't the most practical way of doing things —that it might make more sense to wait until the underground work had been done before putting the nice new driveway down— they agreed. If only the Christchurch City Council had someone giving the same advice. Because it very obviously needs it, with news that it's digging up a road it spent just under $1 million re-sealing 10 months ago, to replace a water main. Last October the council spent $936,000 re-sealing Glandovey Road, in Fendalton. It's now digging up the road to replace a water main and that work is going to cost ratepayers $1.9 million. Mayor Phil Mauger says it's an “embarrassment” for a council trying to build public trust and confidence. Is it ever. He's saying: “It's an absolute embarrassment to me and the council. It really is not good. The shit is going to hit the fan.” But it's a bit more than an “embarrassment”. It's yet another example of why all those council candidates around the place are wasting their breath, and wasting their advertising, and wasting their signage costs telling us to vote for them to keep the rates down. They can bang-on about that as much as they like but, when their council does stupid stuff like this, they can forget about keeping the rates down. The council's infrastructure general manager, Brent Smith, says the upcoming water main and sub pipe renewals were "unforeseen" and that, where possible and practical, the council tries to do capital and maintenance work at the same time. But when Glandovey Road was resealed, there was no water main work scheduled. Not needed, scheduled, there's a difference there. Because wouldn't you think that if you were going to spend close to $1 million re-surfacing a road, you'd check a few things to make sure there wasn't anything else that could be done at the same time? Roger Cumming, who lives on Glandovey Road, thinks so. He reckons the council must have known about the state of the water main before it did the re-sealing work back in October, because pipes were bursting there quite often. Roger says sometimes there were two blow-outs in one day. This was happening before the council re-sealed the road and afterwards. He says it's a waste. Mayor Phil Mauger says it's an embarrassment. But I'd say it's incompetence. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You know a Government is in trouble when you see a major news organisation running an online poll asking people whether they think the Prime Minister has had a good week or not. Which I saw the other week. And you know a coalition is in trouble when you get one of its senior members telling a public meeting that the Prime Minister is hiding. Which is what NZ First's Shane Jones did yesterday. Things come in threes, of course, so let's add the findings of the latest Ipsos Issues Monitor Survey, which has found that voters see Labour being most capable of doing something about the cost of living. And that people have more confidence in Labour, the Greens and Te Pati Māori collectively to do something about 17 of the top 20 issues facing New Zealand, with National owning just three: the economy, crime and defence. But even on those issues it's losing ground. So what conclusion can we take from all that? There's only one. People are losing confidence in the Government. To see how bad it's got for the Government, you just need to think about that stat about the left block being seen as having much more of a handle on the cost of living and the 16 other issues they beat the Government on. Because, hand on heart, are you telling me that - if there was an election right now - and you couldn't bring yourself to vote for National, ACT or NZ First, that you could bring yourself to vote for the likes of Labour? Or the Greens? Or Te Pati Maori? If I had to vote today, I'd have no idea who to vote for. The Ipsos monitor is a quarterly survey that asks New Zealanders what they consider to be the most important issues facing the country, and the political parties they have faith in to sort them. Its latest survey shows the cost of living is still the number one issue concerning voters, with 60 percent of people saying it's an issue. And most people think Labour is the party to deal with it. The second most-concerning thing for people is the hospital and wider health system. Most people think Labour is the party to sort that out too. The third most concerning issue is the economy. National still holds public confidence on that one. Housing supply and the cost of housing is the fourth most concerning issue for voters. And more people have confidence in Labour on that one, too. Rounding-out the top five is crime and law and order. National still beats Labour on that front and the Government will have been very relieved with the latest crime stats which show crime is down. But, whichever way you look at it, people are losing confidence. And it's not just in the data. It's also in the reactions we've seen to recent Government anouncements. The supermarket stuff last week. The debacle with the paywave surcharges and the Government thinking it had a brilliant solution which, we all worked out pretty quickly, won't save us any money. They're just a couple of examples. And I know that some people will say that people are always down on the Government during winter. But I don't think the first day of spring is going to bring any relief for the Government. I'm not surprised the Government is getting such harsh treatment criticism. But I am surprised that so many people think the parties on the left could do a better job on so many of the big issues facing the country. I don't have much faith or confidence in any political party. What about you? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Associate Health Minister Nicole McKee is talking nonsense when she says most of us who drink alcohol do it responsibly. If she really believes that, then she needs to get out more often. But I don't think there's much we can do about it because when it comes to alcohol, the horse has already bolted. She made the comment when she announced changes that will stop people opposing liquor licence applications if they don't live in the area, allow hairdressers to serve alcohol without a licence, and let pubs and clubs operate outside trading hours during major televised events. Changes that have the alcohol lobby delighted and health campaigners despairing. The one change they aren't making —which was on the cards— is a limit on the hours alcohol can be sold at supermarkets and bottle stores. They looked into stopping sales after 9 o'clock at night, but decided not to. Not that that will change things in Christchurch and Auckland where the councils have already decided to do what the Government has decided not to do. Either way, the reason the Government is giving for not cracking down on alcohol sales at supermarkets and bottle stores is that most of us who drink can control ourselves and “drink responsibly”. If that was the case, then why are alcohol-related cancers on the rise? Because we drink responsibly? No. If Nicole McKee is correct, why is it that alcohol is estimated to cost the country $9.1 billion in harm every year? Because those of us who drink, drink responsibly? No. I think the Minister is just saying it for the sake of saying it. Alcohol Healthwatch executive director Andrew Galloway is one of the people not happy with the Government. He says there is clear evidence that reducing access to alcohol reduces harm. He says: “More than likely, if anyone's going shopping for booze after 9pm at night, it's to top up.” Pointing to the most recent New Zealand health survey which showed that one-in-six adults —or 720,000 people— have what it called “hazardous drinking patterns”. Alcohol is also estimated to cost the country $9.1 billion in harm every year and is responsible for 129,000 ACC claims. You're not going to hear me arguing against those numbers because they are reality. You're also not going to hear me arguing that the Government isn't doing enough to deal with the alcohol problem. Because I don't think it can. Because, when it comes to alcohol, the horse has already bolted. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's just over four years since the Commerce Commission released its first report on the supermarket sector in New Zealand and, yesterday, the Government announced what it's going to do. Which, in my view, will achieve nothing. To be fair, Nicola Willis wasn't in Government four years ago and it was Labour that received that first report and went about hiring the Grocery Commissioner. Who, I think we can all agree, has done next-to-nothing. My supermarket bills certainly haven't got any cheaper since he's been at his desk. So the Government is going to make a change to the fast track legislation specifically targeted at making it quicker for an overseas operator to move in to New Zealand and start building supermarkets here. The law change is going to be done by Christmas and then the likes of Aldi and Lidl will be falling over themselves rushing to set-up shop here. As if. Because it's been my view all along that, if these overseas outfits wanted to be here, they would. A country the size of ours means nothing to the other big operators. No matter how much red tape the Government wants to get rid of. Bearing in mind too, that no supermarket chain is a charity. Let's take German operator Aldi - which is often touted as an international operator that could come here and create more competition. It's kind-of here already. Because it's been registered with the New Zealand Companies Office since 2000. But it hasn't bothered doing anything more than that - focusing on Australia, instead. But, despite Aldi operating across the Tasman, Australians are still paying through the nose. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission put-out a report earlier this year saying that Aldi is among the most profitable supermarket chains in the world. Prices in Australia have risen sharply over the past five years, with the supermarkets increasing profit margins during that time. Aldi being one of them. As for Nicola Willis claiming that Costco might want to set up a few more stores, that wouldn't make supermarket prices cheaper for people everywhere. The Minister has acknowledged that she doesn't see this as any sort of overnight fix. She says the lack of competition in the supermarket sector has developed over the past 20-or-30 years and told Newstalk ZB today that she'll know this policy has worked when we have another competitor operating in all the main urban centres. Don't hold your breath, minister. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If this doesn't convince you that the insurance system in this country is broken, nothing will. Consumer NZ has revealed that in the past 25 years, the cost of insurance has increased by 900%. The largest increase of anything in the Consumer Price Index. If you've bought insurance of any type in the past, maybe that won't surprise you. Because insurance is a necessary evil and with necessary evils, we tend to shrug our shoulders and fork out the money. But here's what makes this news all the more outrageous – and this is the bit that you really need to get your head around. Insurance is 900% more expensive than it was, while cigarettes and tobacco are 600% more expensive – even with the huge taxes that have been put on them to try and get people to quit smoking. Despite all those taxes, insurance costs are still increasing at a much faster rate than tobacco. Which is the absurdity and shows how the insurance market is out of control. Rebecca Styles from Consumer NZ is saying today that they want a review done of house and contents insurance prices to make sure they're fair. I think I can tell her straight away that they're not. Consumer NZ also wants the Government to develop a switching platform to make it easier for us to change insurance companies, like we can do already with electricity companies. It says people have limited ability to change their insurers. But changing insurance companies is one thing, whether you can afford the premiums is another. Rebecca Styles says some people are just dropping it altogether. "The anecdotal feedback we've received is people are making what seem like extreme pragmatic decisions - 'oh my mortgage is paid off, well I'll drop my insurance as soon as that's done'.” She says: “I ask them, 'what will you do if there's a natural hazard or something, you're not covering for that … they're like 'oh well I'll live in a caravan'. Taking big risks with their financial future, really." Are they ever? Reducing insurance cover or getting rid of it altogether would be the absolute last thing I would do. But that doesn't mean I'm happy paying exorbitant prices and that doesn't mean I think the insurance system is in great shape. Because it clearly isn't.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I think it would be very easy to push-back on Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson's call for changes to the KiwiSaver scheme to make it easier for self-employed people to save for their retirement. But I'm not going to. She wants to see changes because people who work for themselves are contributing nowhere near as much as employees —partly because they don't get the benefit of an employer making contributions— and she says that could mean they end up living in poverty when they retire. A tax expert agrees, saying a retirement savings scheme must work for all New Zealanders, regardless of how they earn their income. According to a new survey, between April last year and March this year, only 44% of self-employed New Zealanders actively contributed to KiwiSaver compared to 78% of employees. And of those self-employed people who did contribute, 41% of them didn't get the government contribution because of irregular income or low earnings. I say it would be easy to push back on what the Retirement Commissioner is calling for, because people who work for themselves are sometimes seen as having it made. That's, generally, the view of people who have never owned a business or have never been a sole trader. I've been a sole trader before and it's not easy. And I think we should be doing more to help these people get ready for retirement. The question we need to ask ourselves is whether someone who goes out on their own in business —knowing full well that it's a risky thing to do— should have some sort of backstop in the background for their retirement, or more government support for their retirement. If you were to look at it in a very black and white fashion, you could say they shouldn't be supported. You could say to a business owner or a sole trader that, if they want the freedom and benefits of working for themselves, then it's on them to save for their retirement. But I don't see it that way. Because even though there can be big opportunities and positives working for yourself, quite a lot of people still get burnt financially. And, as the Retirement Commissioner says, what happens to these people? People who have next to nothing saved because they've just been focused on keeping their business afloat. So wouldn't it be better to help them out sooner rather than later?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We'll be chewing through the power in the south this week with the frosty weather. Which is the "ideal time" for Transpower to reveal that the budget for a major upgrade of electricity transmission lines in the South Island has increased again and that South Islanders will be paying for it. Which raises the question: Is this taking user-pays too far? And I think it is. What's happened, is Transpower is upgrading its lines north of Twizel. Because, the way things are going, they won't be able to cope with increased demand for power in the next few years. But it's going to mean higher power prices for those of us in the south. Because Transpower says we're the ones who are going to benefit the most. This is at the same time as new data from Statistics NZ shows power prices have gone up 6.2 percent in the past year and Consumer NZ says one-in-five people have had difficulty paying their power bill in the last 12 months. Transpower's original budget for the upgrade project was $77 million; earlier this year it increased to $164 million; and today we're finding out that it's sitting at $193 million. The project is being driven by growing electricity demand because of population growth, electrification of industry and transport, and new developments in Christchurch and Selwyn. If nothing's done, the grid won't cope and we could see the system overloading within the next five-or-so years. But I'm with the likes of Westpower's Mark Blandford, who supports the project but isn't happy at how costs are being allocated to South Islanders, which he says penalises the regions. John Harbord, from the Major Electricity Users Group, supports the need to invest in the country's electricity grid but is worried about the impact on power bills. He says some businesses are finding electricity price rises so expensive that they're struggling to operate. Which backs up the case for everyone around the country to be carrying the cost of these upgrades. Tell that to Transpower, though.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How do you feel about people being allowed to hide their convictions? There are two ways of doing it. 1) Just don't tell people about it. Or use the clean slate legislation, which wipes your record clean if you've had no convictions for seven years. If you've been to prison for your offences though, you don't qualify. Concerns about the legislation are being raised after an Auckland man with historical indecency convictions was able to pass multiple police checks, become registered as a teacher, and abuse nine girls. Which has law expert Bill Hodge saying that the law needs an overhaul. But I think we would be better off getting rid of it. Because the bigger picture here is whether we think someone should be able to hide their convictions after a certain period of time so they can get on with their life without it hanging over them. I think there should be complete transparency, and here's why: If you're an employer, under our health and safety laws, you are responsible for the safety of anyone and everyone working for you. To do that, you need to be confident that you are bringing people into your business or your organisation who are of, what they call, “good character”. How can you do that if there are things about someone you don't know? Things like past criminal convictions? Remembering too that the convictions we're talking about here aren't things like murder. But let's say, for example, someone was a menace on the roads when they were younger and had numerous convictions because of that. Seven years down the track, would you want to know about that if you were looking at giving them a job? I would. What about someone who had convictions for violence that weren't quite serious enough for them to end up in prison? Someone who had a history of going out on a Saturday night and getting lippy in the pub? Seven years down the track, would you want to know about that if you were looking at giving them a job? I would. Dishonesty convictions? You'd want to know about those too, wouldn't you? Imagine how better that would be for the person with the convictions, as well? Everything would be out in the open, there'd be no fear of people finding out through word-of-mouth and the problems that would create. I'm all for giving people a second chance, but only if all of the cards are on the table. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Questions have been raised about where a Christchurch homeless community being booted out of a church carpark will go next. City Council's issued an abatement notice requiring Avonside's Holy Trinity Church carpark to stop being used as a campground by 5pm. An extension is possible if a new resource consent, allowing camping, is obtained. Labour's Christchurch East MP Reuben Davidson told John MacDonald the problem isn't the people, but the fact we don't have enough housing. He says we all have role to play in addressing homelessness. National's Vanessa Weenink told MacDonald there is a role for the city council to play, to potentially build more community housing and boarding houses. She says there needs to be a variety of options, as there's currently not enough choice nor housing stock. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What would you say to a $40,000 pay rise? Yes please? If you're the chief executive of Environment Canterbury regional council, you would. It's been revealed that in the last financial year, Stefanie Rixecker's pay increased by 9.3 %, upping her salary by $40,000 to just under $480,000, making her the highest-paid regional council boss in the country. And this wasn't one of those decisions by the Independent Remuneration Authority, which sets the pay levels for politicians, which also gives politicians the excuse of saying they have no control over what they get paid. This decision was made by the elected council members. An increase that the chair of ECAN, Craig Pauling, is busy defending. He says the $40,000 pay increase is "appropriate and deserved". Appropriate and deserved because the chief executive is a respected leader and is running ECAN during a tricky time for local government. Craig Pauling says: “It is important to our council that we have a high-performing and respected chief executive at the helm, during this significant time of change for local government.” Time of change alright. Which is what the Government has been telling councils. And I imagine the noise from Wellington will get even louder when news of this pay increase makes it to the Beehive. The chair of the council can say all he likes about the chief executive being brilliant at her job and how she has a lot on her plate and how it's her job to lead ECAN through change and all that, but what he is missing, and what every one of those councillors who voted for this unfathomable pay increase is missing, is that a pay increase of just under 10% is la-la land stuff. On several fronts. The most obvious is what a $40,000 pay increase for the chief executive of a regional council looks like to the rest of us. Those of us who pay rates to ECAN. The other reason why this move is so wrong right now is because it looks to me like ECAN is explicitly ignoring the noises coming from the Government about local councils needing to cut their cloth. How can you have these kinds of expectations coming at you —as well as the likes of regional development minister Shane Jones declaring war on regional councils— yet still give your chief executive a huge pay increase? It shows just how out of touch our regional councillors are. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

More than 20 thousand secondary teachers are walking off the job today to strike over the lowest pay increase offer in a generation. Post-Primary Teachers Association members will picket outside dozens of schools and MP offices after rejecting a 3% pay increase over three years. Opposition Leader Chris Hipkins told John MacDonald teachers deserve more than the Government's offering. He says that if they accept this offer, they'll effectively be taking a pay cut as it's below the rate of inflation. Hipkins says they at least deserve a pay increase that keeps them at the level they're at now. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You won't get me tooting for the striking high school teachers. Because I don't think they're reading the room at all. On the picket lines, unhappy that they've been offered a 3% increase over three years. And this is nothing to do with the kids not being able to go to school today, because high school kids don't need babysitting. They can just stay at home and work on their assignments, or go to the mall, or go into town. The reason I think the teachers are going to find it difficult to get a lot of love today is because I think most people are like me and don't think that every single teacher signed up to the union deserves a pay rise. And think that a teacher's pay should be based on their individual performance in the job. I reckon plenty of teachers feel that way privately, as well. Yes, they might want to earn a bit more themselves, but I bet you there is no shortage of teachers who think some of their colleagues aren't up to it. Who think some of their colleagues don't deserve to be recognised with a pay rise. But that's the system as it is at the moment in the state school sector – pay rises for everyone. Once up on a time, I probably would have been happy with that one-size-fits-all approach, but what good is a mind if you can't change it? And I have. I think, like pretty much every other worker in society, teachers' pay should be based on how well they do their job. Whenever performance pay for teachers is discussed, questions about measuring performance are raised. But, at a time where everything can be analysed to the nth degree, I'm pretty confident that we could come up with a robust system to evaluate and measure an individual teacher's performance. Hard-liners would probably say that it could or should be down to test results and exam results and nothing else. But I think that would be too simplistic. Yes, results would have to part of it, but not the only things measured. For example, how would you measure the performance of a teacher who might have several kids in their class who need specific support? They might be neuro-diverse, or they might have learning difficulties because of things like foetal alcohol syndrome. That's where parent feedback would come into it. Because while a student with learning difficulties might not score highly in all these tests and things the Government is bringing-in, their parents would notice whether they were engaged in school or not. You imagine a parent saying to a principal that their child has never been so enthusiastic about learning and how much they love their teacher – there's a performance measurement right there. But it is ironic, isn't it, that teachers are busy evaluating and marking the kids on their performances, but no one measures or evaluates theirs. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Canterbury's top police officer believes the current policies around arming New Zealand police officers are appropriate. Multiple investigations are underway following a double police shooting in Christchurch that left one dead and another seriously injured. The Council of Licensed Firearms Owners says it's an example of what happens when police aren't trained to handle firearms in high pressure situations. Canterbury District Commander Superintendent Tony Hill told John MacDonald training's ramped up in recent years to be some of the best in the world. He says that most of the occasions they've looked at over the last few years hasn't been a question about a lack of access to firearms, so he thinks the settings are right for the current environment. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We are going to pay more for water services. But even though it's coming about because of government policy, I'm not blaming Wellington. I'm blaming our councils. Councils that should be ashamed of how they ran down our water infrastructure to the extent that millions of litres of water disappear every day because of cruddy pipes. And the consequence of that neglect and incompetence is going to hit us in the pocket. Two examples. In Christchurch, household water bills are expected to increase by $900 a year. In Selwyn, the yearly increase in water charges could be as high as $1800 a year. Local Government Minister Simon Watts is saying the Government's Local Water Done Well policy, which is the alternative to Labour's doomed 3 Waters policy, is "the best approach” to sorting out our water infrastructure. But I wonder if you're starting to realise that Labour's approach wasn't so bad after all? Under that model, control of drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater would have been taken away from local councils and handed over to new water authorities. It would've taken away ownership of water infrastructure, too. I'm more than happy to put my hand up and say, at the time, it was the ownership bit that got me going. Back then, I thought the then-Labour Government was offering peanuts to take over ownership of water infrastructure. But I am more than happy to put my hand up now and say that wasn't the big deal I once thought it was, and I think we would have all been better off under Labour's model. Because not only are we going to be paying more for our water, but there are also going to be a truckload more water entities than there would have been. Under 3 Waters, there would have been 10 entities. Now, it's already looking like we'll have more than 40 water service providers involving different councils. So more bureaucracy and more costs, all in the name of local ownership and control. All in the name of local ownership and control by local councils which, because of their neglect of the water infrastructure year-after-year, are going to be hitting us with big increases in water charges. Local councils who have failed us. If councils had done what they should have done and not kicked the infrastructure spending can down the road time and time again, then maybe we wouldn't be feeling so fleeced. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How would you feel about New Zealand building small nuclear reactors to generate more power? That's what the Maxim Institute think-tank is calling for. Saying that, if we did, more of the world's biggest technology companies could be attracted here to establish big data centres and that would add billions of dollars to the economy. Thomas Scrimgeour from the Maxim Institute says the rest of the world is going nuclear on the power generation front and we need to catch up. He also thinks New Zealanders could be convinced that small nuclear power generators are a good thing. Saying that, in the 1970s, it was assumed that New Zealand would one-day use nuclear energy to generate power. But that changed in the 1980s because of nuclear testing in the Pacific. I'm not as confident as him. I'm open to finding out more about nuclear power generation. But I think if you did something like a referendum on it, most people would be against it. I may be wrong. But that's my hunch. Because our nuclear-free policy has muddied the waters bug time. Our policy doesn't even let ships that are nuclear-powered into our waters. Let alone ships carrying nuclear weapons. And, because of that, a lot of people think if nuclear weapons are bad then anything and everything nuclear is bad. But my mind is more open than that. I'm not saying it would be easy to convince me that we should be using nuclear energy to generate power. I'd have just as many reservations as the next person. But why can't we at least agree to look into it? You know what would happen, though. Even the exercise of investigating further would be hijacked by those who just cover-up their ears and don't want to know. Or, more to the point, it would be hi-jakced by those who want to cover up not just their own ears - but everyone else's ears, as well. But I'm up for us looking into it. The reason the Maxim Institute is pushing this thinking today is that it wants us to take advantage of all the big technology companies wanting to set-up big data centres. Especially for artificial intelligence. They're saying there's big money in that for New Zealand, potentially. Microsoft has committed $1 billion to local data centres. While Ammazon Web Services' Auckland development is expected to contribute around $10.8 billion to the economy over the next 15 years. We need the power to run them and attract more data centres here. But they need truckloads of power and, as things are at the moment, we aren't in a position to offer truckloads of power. Which is why the Maxim Institute is saying we need to go nuclear. My mind is open to it. But what about yours?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When I first heard about the police shooting and killing someone they had actually gone to help, like most people, I wondered how the hell that could happen. This is the shooting in Bryndwr in Christchurch overnight on Wednesday, which left a woman dead and a man critically injured. As always happens, the armchair experts haven't been slow in coming forward. For example, demanding to know why the police couldn't have shot the woman in the leg, rather than taking her life. But unless we have been in the position of a dealing with something like that —a situation where the woman had been in danger but then threatened police with a knife— we can't really criticise the police. And can you imagine how the officer who fired those shots is feeling today? But what I am asking is whether or not this tragedy has had any impact on my attitude towards the arming of our police. And I can honestly say that my attitude hasn't changed. Despite the tragic outcome, I still think our police need to be armed – in fact, more so than they are already. You might remember the survey by the Police Association which found that 69% of police officers wanted to be armed on a regular basis. That's more than two-thirds of our cops who said they reckon they need guns to keep themselves safe on the job. Over the years, some people have said that arming every police officer would do more harm than good. Here are a couple of examples: Poto Williams, when she was Police Minister, said that arming officers would “change the community's relationship with the police”. Which I thought at the time was a load of nonsense. And I still do, because the relationship has already changed and it's putting the lives of our cops at risk everyday. Which is why more than two-thirds of them said in that survey that they want to be armed more regularly. The late Chester Borrows —who was a former National MP and a former cop— was another one anti-guns for cops. I remember him saying that a general arming of the police would see more officers being shot and more civilians being shot. His view was more guns, more deaths. But how I've always seen it, is that it's very weird we have a workplace health and safety system in New Zealand that is hellbent on keeping workers safe at work by making sure they're sitting at their desk in the right position, but we're more than happy for police officers not to be kept as safe at work as they could or should be. Which is why over recent years, I've come to think that police officers should be able to carry a pistol at all times. And, despite the tragic events in Christchurch the other night, I still feel that way. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Mental Health Minister's defending claiming his Government's inherited Hillmorton Hospital and its failings from the Labour-led Government of the time. A review of Canterbury's mental health services reveals significant failings, contributing to murders by patients in 2022 and 2024. Minister Matt Doocey told John MacDonald it's a fact. He says the report lays bare the state of Hillmorton in June 2022, and that is the reality of the system they inherited. Labour's Megan Woods told MacDonald this needs to not be about politics. She says it's something they all have to take responsibility for, and it's something they've got to work on. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ronan Keating has been performing for over 30 years. He debuted in 1993 as the frontman of Boyzone, going on to have an extremely successful solo career from 1999. Keating joined John MacDonald to talk about his rise to fame, life as a grandfather, and what we can expect to see at Selwyn Sounds in 2026. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I can recall a conversation I had about a month ago with Labour leader and former Covid-19 Minister Chris Hipkins about Part 2 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into his government's pandemic response. And he was saying that he was waiting to be invited to appear, and wouldn't be asking for an invite, and wouldn't be gate-crashing. That was around the time that he was also saying the Inquiry was a platform for conspiracy theorists. And I said at the time that, if Chris Hipkins was eventually invited and he declined, then he could forget about being Prime Minister again. Since then, it turns out he has been asked to front-up to the inquiry in person - and he has declined. Dame Jacinda Ardern, former finance minister Grant Robertson and former health minister Ayesha Verrall have also been asked to appear. And they've all declined as well. All of them, on the basis of advice from lawyers who are being paid by the taxpayer, that appearing at the Inquiry could attract abuse towards family members and that images and recordings from the Inquiry hearings could be “tampered with and misused”. All of that's probably true. But, even then, this is nonsense. Maybe Hipkins, Dame Jacinda, Robertson, and Verrall need to be reminded that former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson fronted up in person to the Covid Inquiry in Britain. He didn't hide behind written responses. Which, as we know, are always full of weasel words that go unchallenged. It wasn't a holiday for Boris, but he fronted. And because Chris Hipkins, especially, isn't fronting, he is political toast. Imagine if he had said to the others, “Okay, you guys aren't going, but I'm still the leader of the Opposition, so I am going to front”. If he'd taken that approach, he would've had a few days where it might have been uncomfortable for him, but it would be over and done with. Because if you have a very low opinion of the way Labour handled the pandemic, your low opinion isn't going to get any worse if Hipkins is grilled in-person at the Inquiry, is it? In fact, you might even admire him for fronting up. You might even give him credit for it. But he's not. And in doing so, he's written-off whatever he chance he had of leading Labour to victory next year. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Like anyone, if I can get something for free - I'll take it. But if it's something I have to pay for, then I'll pay it. Which is how I'm feeling about all this fuss over the new Woodend Bypass, north of Christchurch, being a toll road. Granted, I won't be a daily user, so the financial impact on me won't be the same as it will for someone who uses it every day. But let's get a grip. Toll roads are the future. Tell that to Waimakariri mayor Dan Gordon, though, who is very upset that NZTA plans to charge car drivers $2.50 for a return trip on the bypass. He says many families can't afford that. It will cost $5 for trucks, by the way. I'm not sure what planet Dan Gordon has been on for the last 12 months. But this idea of the new bypass being a toll road was being hinted at by the Government more than a year ago. Last July, Simeon Brown was Transport Minister and he was saying back then that charging people to use the new road was definitely on the table. But Dan Gordon's not the only one upset about it. The principal of Kaiapoi North School isn't happy, either. Jason Miles reckons most locals will just avoid the toll road altogether - so they don't have to pay - and they'll use the road that goes past his school instead. And he's worried about the impact that could have on the safety of his students. Now if I was awarding a prize to either the mayor or the school principal for the strongest argument against the road toll, I'd give it to the school principal. Because, ever since the bypass at Woodend has been discussed, safety has been a major issue. So, yes, it would seem counterintuitive to spend billions on a bypass only to have it create other safety issues because of people not wanting to pay to use it and using an alternative route. But these days - if we want something, we have to pay for it. Which is what Nick Leggett from Infrastructure New Zealand is saying too. He says if we say no to tolls, we're saying no to new highways. He says: “It's disappointing to see local mayors lining up to oppose tolling the proposed Woodend Bypass. We all need to face facts. If we want safer, faster, better highways, the users of those roads need to be willing to pay something for them. “As a nation, we naturally want the best of everything, but that doesn't come for free.” Nick Leggett goes on to say: “The fairest and most sustainable approach is for those who use the road to contribute to its upkeep and operation. It is not fair to ask all taxpayers, many of whom will never use the road, to foot the bill.” And he won't be getting any argument from me. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If I asked you who you would rather go and have a beer with, Christopher Luxon or Chris Hipkins, who would you choose? I'd choose Luxon any day. One slight technicality is that he doesn't drink. But he'd have a lime and soda or whatever he likes to drink, I'd have a beer and we'd probably have a very nice time. Reason being that on the occasions that I've met him in person, he comes across as a very good guy and good fun to be around. I've met Hipkins several times too, but I think he'd be a bit more earnest or serious than Luxon. So why isn't that coming through in the poll results? Why aren't there more people wanting to go and have a beer with Luxon? Why are there almost as many people who would choose have a drink with Chippy? Which I know isn't the official question polling companies ask voters, but you get what I mean. According to last night's 1News-Verian poll, Christopher Luxon's popularity as Prime Minister is the lowest it's been in two years. Last night's preferred prime minister result had him on 20%, and Labour's Chris Hipkins breathing down his neck on 19% – which has all the headline writers predicting his demise. Here's an example of one: “Luxon's leadership running out of oxygen as polls tighten”. You may think these poll results are a load of nonsense, but I don't. Because it wasn't just the 1News poll that came out in the last 24 hours. We also had a Taxpayers Union poll out yesterday which showed a very similar result in preferred Prime Minister. That poll had Christopher Luxon on 20.2% and Chris Hipkins on 20.2%. So do I believe these poll results? Yes I do. And why do I think Christopher Luxon is so unpopular with voters? I'm taking my cue from National Party voters I've spoken to recently who are shaking their heads. The common themes that come through are that Luxon is letting Winston Peters and David Seymour run rings around him, that his government —especially his Finance Minister— isn't delivering anything meaningful, and that he's still blaming everything on the previous government. Not that the last government achieved much, but surely people expected the bar to be a bit higher with this government. So that's why he is polling so low – people see him as a let down. He's seen as weak, letting Seymour and Peters rule the roost and he doesn't own the problems he's trying to fix. He's still pointing the finger at Labour more than halfway through his government's three-year term. That's letting him down big time. And people don't think his government delivering them anything —especially on the economic front— and that he should be giving Nicola Willis the flick and giving someone else the finance job. Because these National voters I've spoken to are saying that she has been a big disappointment. But when you're the leader of the party and when you're the Prime Minister, you're the one who cops it. And Christopher Luxon is copping it. And he deserves to cop it. And if we did go and have that drink – that's what I'd be telling him. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

TOPIC 1 EDITORIAL: STADIUM TRAIN I love this plan for an express passenger train to get people into Christchurch for events at the new One New Zealand Stadium, which is due to open in April next year. But I'll love it even more if the councils around here chip-in to pay for a new railway station at the corner of Moorhouse Avenue and Colombo Street, which the rail company behind the plan is describing as a “key ingredient”. Because, otherwise, there's a 4.3 kilometre journey by road from the current station at Tower Junction - which could take about 22 minutes by car. Private outfit Mainland Rail has come up with the idea to get nearly 6,000 people into Christchurch from Rolleston and Rangiora (and even possibly Ashburton). It's saying an express service from Rolleston would get people into the centre of town in 20 minutes. It would be about 25 minutes from Rangiora. It's worked out how it can work-in with the KiwiRail freight train schedules and it's already bought second-hand carriages to run the service. But it's the new railway station on the corner of Moorhouse and Colombo that needs sorting out. And, with the likes of Selwyn and Waimakariri councils not putting any money at all into the stadium itself, this is the opportunity - at last - for them to have some skin in the game. Especially, considering that this service is all about getting people from their areas into town for the big matches and concerts. Maybe even Ashburton council could get involved. ECAN, as well - considering it's been pushing the idea of commuter rail services in the Greater Christchurch area. I know there will probably be no shortage of people who think that, if a private company wants to set-up this service, then it should cover all of the costs. Including the costs of a new train station. But I don't see it that way, at all. Because some sort of drop-off point for train passengers at that spot on the Colombo/Moorhouse corner would be brilliant - and not just for people using the stadium trains. There'll be others too who think it should be KiwiRail paying for it. But you can forget about Kiwirail coming up with the money anytime soon. If at all. So, if this thing is going to fly, then it's time for our local councils to step up. Who wouldn't want to see tourists getting on and off the Tranz Alpine service to the West Coast in the centre of town? Instead of that toy town train station at the back of Tower Junction. And if we are really serious about getting people in Rangiora and Rolleston to even entertain the idea of taking a train to work instead of driving, then we need to offer them something better than a train to Addington. This idea has the potential to be the start of something bigger and I think it's brilliantSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You can tell council elections are coming up, because that's the only reason the Christchurch City Council is going to start using high friction road surfaces at pedestrian crossings, instead of speed humps. Even though it knows that speed humps are safer. Even though it knows that it won't slow down traffic. But you've got to keep people sweet when there's an election coming up. They're starting with a pedesttian crossing Halswell, with the local councillor saying they're doing it so that people don't get brassed off. Andrei Moore says: "We are putting safe infrastructure in without pissing everyone off.” And there's your evidence that this isn't being done for safety. It's being done to try and calm down all the whingers ahead of October's election. Talk about shallow. I know when these speed humps things started appearing, twe all thought “what the hell are these things all about?” And, since then, it's become incredible fashionable to slag them off. But this is the problem when you get a bunch of people sitting around a council table all thinking they're road safety experts when the only thing they're expert in is pandering to voters. Apparently, the plus side of these high friction surfaces is that vehicles are less likely to skid, but they do nothing to slow traffic down. When some muppet is screaming up to a pedestrian crossing and has to slam on the brakes, they'll be at less risk of skidding. At least with the speed humps, even the muppets are forced to slow down – that's not going to happen with your high friction surface, is it? Cost is another thing in favour of the high friction surfaces, as opposed to the sped humps. A report I've seen says installing a speed hump —including the aspahalt, the road marking, and the signage— costs somewhere between $30,000 and $55,000. Whereas, the anti-skid, high friction road surface costs between $25,000 and $35,000. The fly in the ointment there though is that this special surface costs more to maintain than your speed hump. But are these speed humps really that much of a problem? What's so bad about something that forces drivers to slow down – especially when they're approaching a pedestrian crossing? There's nothing wrong with that. And, if you are totally honest with yourself, do speed humps really have that much of a negative impact on your life? Or do you think you might have fallen into the trap and followed the crowd in your opposition to speed humps? Because I reckon that, in the grand scheme of things, they aren't a problem at all. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Local politicians from both sides of the political divide are slamming police process around the proposed restructure in wider Canterbury. Federated Farmers, City Councillors, and schools are concerned at the lack of community consultation. Banks Peninsula MP Vanessa Weenink told John MacDonald the communication, for a start, hasn't been well managed. She says police will need to do a lot to assure her, and the community, that what they're doing is the right step. While Labour's Tracey McLellan says the community's rightly concerned about the internal-only consultation, which is not at all in line with expectations. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When I heard Transport Minister Chris Bishop talking about the Government's changes to the road user charges system, I had a bit of a Max Bradford moment. Max was the National Party minister who told us back in 1988 that his reforms of the electricity sector were going to mean cheaper power prices. Which is what Chris Bishop was saying yesterday about the plan to ditch petrol taxes and move all vehicle owners to road user charges which, at the moment, are only paid by people with diesel, electric, and heavy vehicles. He said: “From a cash flow point of view, it'll help people. At the moment, when you go and fill your car up you pay petrol tax at the pump, right there at 70 cents per litre, roughly.” The part of yesterday's announcement that really caught my eye was NZTA not being responsible for collecting and processing the road user charge payments. Instead, that's going to be farmed out to private operators which the government says will encourage “fairer competition”. And, in saying that, the Government is trying to sell some sort of idea that by not having NZTA involved, these charges are somehow going to be cheaper. Which is why I had Max Bradford ringing in my ears. Because he was talking nonsense when he said his reforms back in 1988 were going to mean cheaper power prices. And Chris Bishop is talking nonsense if he expects us to believe that contracting private outfits to take over is going to mean cheaper costs for vehicle owners. The minister says it's possible we'll pay our road user charges through an app, which is why the government wants to get private operators involved. Because it doesn't want to spend the time and money developing the technology and the systems. But will this “fairer competition” it's talking about really mean things being cheaper at our end? Of course not. And this is not me having a dig at any of the companies who might have heard that announcement yesterday and saw an opportunity. Because that's what business is all about: seeing opportunities. And, again, this isn't me having a dig at businesses, but they don't do these kinds of things for free. Being in business is all about clipping the ticket as much as possible. And no business is going to want to get involved in the new road user charging system if it can't clip the ticket. That's just how it is. Which is why I don't like the Government's plan to take NZTA out of the picture. Yes, I support the shift to everyone paying road user charges, because that makes sense. Because when you use a road, it makes no difference whether you drive an old dunger or something more modern – you're still using it. With road user charges, you pay depending on how many kilometres you drive instead of how much fuel you buy. And if you've got the most fuel-efficient vehicle on the market, why should you effectively pay less to use the same road as someone who can only afford an old gas guzzler? You shouldn't. So the move to us all paying road user charges will get no argument from me. What I am pushing back on, though, is the plan to get private companies running the new system. To let private companies clip the ticket which, as far as I can see, will only lead to us paying more. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

With the Government wanting artificial intelligence to be used to mark high school exams, I asked a ChatGPT bot how it felt about that. And here's what it said: "If the Government were to ask me to mark high school exams, I would feel (if I could feel) cautious optimism, with a big dose of responsible hesitation." The bot said, on the upside, it could process thousands of scripts quickly, never get tired, and not suffer from the end-of-day brain fog that human markers do. It also wouldn't mark one student generously and another harshly on a bad day. And it could apply marking schedules with perfect consistency. The bot also said there would be downsides. It said exam answers aren't always clean-cut. A brilliant, unconventional insight might not fit the marking template, but a good teacher sees its value. That's harder for AI to interpret correctly without "massive nuance training". It said AI can reflect biases in its training data. Even small disparities in language use, cultural references, or phrasing could disadvantage students if the system isn't carefully designed and constantly audited. The ChatGPT bot also told me students, parents, and teachers would rightly ask how something was marked, and public confidence could be eroded. It said, on balance, it would be in favour of "hybrid marking”, with AI doing pre-marking and humans handling the grey areas and double-checking. So AI would be a support tool. In short, the AI bot said: "I'm capable. But I shouldn't be trusted alone. Exam marking is too important to hand over fully to a machine - at least not yet." See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Opposition leader says he's worried Police are retrenching from rural communities. A planned staffing restructure could move some permanent posted rural officers move to work from 24/7 hubs in Rolleston and Rangiora. Officer headcount won't drop. Chris Hipkins told John MacDonald he's been through this in his own area, in Wellington's Upper Hutt. He says it means Police presence reduces. He says rural communities are being sold the same story it won't affect local policing but the reality is, it will. The Labour leader says Minister Mark Mitchell was happy to see more Policing in Auckland city, and it's time for the Minister to walk the talk and tell the Commissioner he wants rural areas better provisioned. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Canterbury police say they'll still serve rural communities under a plan to centralise officers. They're mid-way through two weeks of internal consultation on a plan to shift some officers from smaller rural stations, to larger 24/7 hubs in Rolleston and Rangiora. District Commander Superintendent, Tony Hill, told John MacDonald rural liaison officers will still work with smaller areas, and police will respond and come in from one of the hubs. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.