Canterbury Mornings with Chris Lynch

There's one thing I like about the National Party's KiwiSaver announcement. And there's one thing I don't like.Let's start with the good bit. Making it compulsory for everyone to have a KiwiSaver account. It's amazed me how we say in one breath how critical it is for Kiwis to be saving for their retirement and then, in the second breath, tell people they only have to do it if they want. Which is like saying to people, what would you prefer? Getting your hands on every last cent of your pay right now? Or would you prefer to have some of it taken away and locked up in a KiwiSaver account? It's just like those TV shows where they tell kids they can have one lolly now or two lollies in five minutes. Most of them go for instant gratification. And that's how a lot of people are with KiwiSaver. But, if it was compulsory, they wouldn't have a choice.Which is why I'm a big fan of this part of what National announced yesterday. The other bit, though. I'm not keen on. This is where National wants employers to be forced to make KiwiSaver contributions for people working beyond the retirement age. At the moment it's voluntary. National wants that to change that. And says, if re-elected, it will make it compulsory for employers to continue making KiwiSaver contributions for staff who work past the age of 65.I'm not a fan. For several reasons. For starters, the retirement age is 65. And, until that changes, employers shouldn't be forced to pay into people's KiwiSaver if they decide to keep working beyond the retirement age. Another reason I'm not a fan, is that someone over the age of 65 who is still working is not only getting their wages or salary, but they're also getting the NZ Super pension from the government. And, looking at it from the perspective of employers, if National makes it compulsory for everyone to have a KiwiSaver account - as I think it should - that, on its own, will be an extra cost for businesses and organisations.This from a party that claims to be on the side of businesses. I also see it backfiring on the people themselves who don't want to stop working at 65. Because employers will be way less inclined to keep them on if they know they're going to be forced to keep paying into the KiwiSaver accounts of these older workers. Which would be a shame. Because no one can argue that people still have a lot to offer beyond the age of 65.But surely a wage or salary and the NZ Super pension is enough, without forcing employers to throw more money into their KiwiSaver accounts. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nurse Maude has opened their new state-of-the-art hospice in Merivale this week, with its $16m price tag which has been fully funded entirely from the community. Board Chair Jane Cartwright joined Canterbury Mornings after the ribbon was cut and their patients had moved in. She discussed why hospice care is so important not just for those who are nearing the end of their life, but for their loved ones as well. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How much does the number of people on the dole actually impact your life? If you're like me, it has no impact. I'm asking because Treasury is putting more flies in the government's ointment this week, telling it that its goal of having 50,000 less people on the dole in four years' time than there were when it came into office isn't going to happen. In fact - according to Treasury - instead of having 50,000 less on the dole, the numbers will actually be about 60,000 higher than the government's target. When it came into office back in 2023, there were 190,000 people getting the jobseeker benefit. The government wants to cut that back to 140,000 by 2030. But Treasury says that's more likely to be just over 200,000. So, 60,000 over target. Social Development Minister Louise Upston says it's her job to reduce the number of people relying on welfare. She's admitting that the target is ambitious. But she says she's not going to shy away from it, despite what Treasury says. Now, no argument from me that working is way better than being on a benefit. And, despite the clichés about dole bludgers, I reckon most people feel the same. Sure, there are some out there who think life on the dole is what it's all about. But they're a minority. I for one, have never seen the unemployment benefit as some sort of lifestyle choice. And I have never encouraged my kids to see it that way, either. That said, thank goodness we have these benefits. Because those of us who aren't on the dole, are all just a few steps away from it. I'd like to think that, if my job ended today, I would have something else lined up pretty quickly. But I might not. Which is why I never get me all worked up about “dole bludgers”. Some other people, though. They do. These are the people the government is pandering to with this target. Which Treasury, quite clearly, thinks is a pipedream. What we should really be getting worked up about today is that it seems there is going to be a growing need for the unemployment benefit over the next four years. Forget about this arbitrary target of 50,000 less. Spend less time worrying about that and more time worrying about the fact that it looks like unemployment numbers are set to go northwards. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If the device that tells you how many steps you've taken could also measure your faith in government departments, what would it be showing after this $33 million debacle at Immigration NZ? Despite the amount of money involved and the number of years it's taken to come to light, I'm not in the least bit surprised by this. But Immigration Minister Erica Standford is “furious”. Not only that, she's also saying that she's lost confidence in the public servants responsible for this failed technology upgrade. A technology upgrade that took seven years and chewed through the cash with nothing to show for it. What's more, Erica Standford says Immigration NZ used creative accounting practises to hide crucial information from this government and the last government. She says these “creative accounting practises” meant that the project's costs appeared to be below the budget agreed to by Cabinet. One report I've seen describes that part of the whole thing as “jaw-dropping”. But I'm not in the least bit surprised.Because I've had experience with government departments and I know how these kinds of things get a life of their own. I also know how antse people working in these departments are of the government minister they report to.You put those two things together and what do you get? You get $33 million of taxpayer money going down the gurgler. You get people doing what they can to avoid brassing-off their minister. And it would seem, in this case anyway, hiding information to avoid brassing off their minister. And you get people being sucked into these special projects and some of them pretty much see it as a job for life.I know, because I've sat in on meetings and workshops and briefings and wondered whether anyone involved in these projects actually remembers why the government department they work for exists. That's why I'm not in the least bit surprised by this. And that's why public service boss Sir Brian Roche - if he is serious about this investigation he's launching - then he needs to be looking way beyond Immigration NZ. Because who knows where else this is happening? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

One NZ Warriors CEO Cameron George is in town ahead of the Warriors first game under the roof at One NZ Stadium. He joined Canterbury Mornings ahead of a packed week of events in town ahead of the match against The Cowboys, and was asked what he thinks about the prospect of a South Island ever having its own NRL side. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"A slap in the face to all Iranian people." That's what an Iranian woman living in New Zealand is saying about this peace deal between the United States and Iran. And I can understand why she feels that way. Because she's saying it's another case of meet the old boss, same as the old boss. Which raises the question: is this actually a peace deal or is it a out of jail card for Donald Trump? Trump will claim it's a peace deal. But I don't believe that for a minute. But it will be enough to keep the president happy. He'll probably even add it to his list of wars he has ended. Conveniently ignoring the fact that was also the one who started it. But never let reality get in the way of delusion. The benefit for Trump, though, in this whole thing going on way longer than some people thought it would, is that some people will have forgotten why it all started in the first place. Even Trump seemed to forget pretty early on in proceedings. But Mehrdad Soltanifar hasn't forgotten. She's an Iranian living in New Zealand and she is gutted by what's happened. She's saying today that any deal with the Islamic Republic is unacceptable. She had hoped the conflict would lead to a regime change and she says any agreement with the current “monstrous” regime feels like “a slap in the face” to all Iranian people. But for everyone else who isn't Iranian, they'll just be thinking about diesel and petrol prices. But don‘t go thinking it's going to be back to the old days anytime soon. Just because Donald Trump has told the shipping companies to start their engines and get the oil flowing around the world again, the outfits that own and run the ships won't be quite so gung-ho. Global shipping company Maersk, which has 700 container ships and operates in more than 130 countries, is saying it's too early to know how the peace deal will impact logistics and maritime operations in the Middle East. And we know why that is. The risk of mines planted by Iran in the Strait of Hormuz. Just the other day, the International Energy Agency said it could take a minimum of two to three months of mine clearing for things to get back to what they were before the war. Which is why the shipping companies will be telling the commander in chief to cool his jets when he tells them to start their engines. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

CEO of One New Zealand and self-confessed Rugby League tragic Jason Paris joined Canterbury Mornings ahead of a massive weekend of Warriors action in Christchurch. Paris discussed One NZ's longstanding sponsorship of the Warriors, as well as the telco's partnership with Te Kaha, whether his loyalty to the “Wahs” would be tested if the South Island were to secure its own NRL team. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Don't you think it's a bit rich of Nicola Willis to be criticising Labour when, last election, she did exactly what she's accusing Labour of doing? Keeping us in the dark. Every politician is guilty on this front. Which is why I'm right behind the idea being floated by economist Cameron Bagrie today. He's saying that we need to set-up an independent outfit that would help us decide whether what politicians are promising stacks up financially. But let me take you back to the last election. When National was promising tax cuts and saying they were going to be paid for by taxing rich foreigners buying houses here. The party said it was going to get $740 million from the foreign house buyers and, because of that, we were going to pay less tax. And, pretty much straight away, economists and tax experts were poo pooing the idea. Which had us all wanting National to say who gave it advice that this was going to work, when everyone else seemed to think it wouldn't. And what was National's response? Not telling you. I do remember Nicola Willis saying she'd resign if the tax cuts weren't delivered. But she wouldn't - and Christopher Luxon wouldn't - give the type of detail she's now accusing Labour of hiding from us. Which economist Cameron Bagrie says could all be avoided if we had an independent fiscal watchdog, separate from Treasury. He's saying today: “We saw this in 2017, 2020, 2023. One side has a crack at the other in regards to making their numbers stack up. We've been here before. Not surprising.” It was happening way before 2017. Remember in 2011, when there was a pre-election debate in Christchurch, and John Key trotted out the line, which some people think won him the election. “Show me the money,” he said to Phil Goff, who was the Labour Party leader at the time. Fifteen years on, the only thing we can still rely on are the numbers and costings trotted out by the politicians. Labour's public transport policy is an example. They say $65 million and we'll be in bus heaven. I'm not convinced. Maybe I would be if we had this independent outfit Cameron Bagrie is calling for today. Just like we would have had numbers rather than the “just trust us” we got from National at the last election over the foreign buyers tax coviering the cost of you and I paying less PAYE. But we didn't. We thought it was smoke and mirrors. And that's what it turned out to be. Just like Labour's promises and the $18 billion Nicola says isn't accounted for. If we had more transparency, we wouldn't have to rely on politicians on one side telling us we can afford whatever they're promising and politicians on the other side saying no, we can‘t. To give Nicola Willis credit. She has been a fan previously of some sort of way to cost-out party policies. In fact, she wanted to see a publicly-funded outfit that would have done the numbers and worked-out the actual cost of election policies. Or election promises. It had the potential to work-out whether all the talk we get from political parties before an election stacks up. It didn't happen, though. Because ACT and NZ First wouldn't let it happen. But I think we deserve this kind of transparency. In think an agency separate from Treasury that would tell us exactly how things are on the fiscal front, would be brilliant. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

National's Hamish Campbell and Labour's Reuben Davidson joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week. They covered some of the biggest topics from the week, including Labour's public transport policy, the governments LNG levy backdown, and if the correct process was taken to select Labours latest candidate and current police Superintendent, Rakesh Naidoo. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matiu Walters and Marlon Gerbes from Six60 joined Canterbury Mornings ahead of "Once in a Lifetime" at One New Zealand Stadium - the first ever music gig at the new stadium. They discussed their journey as a band so far, the excitement to headline the first gig at the new stadium, and the look back at their first performances in Christchurch from years gone by. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National's Vanessa Weenink and Labour's Reuben Davidson joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week. They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from fast-track projects, Air New Zealand being deep in the red, and if Pharmac should fund weight loss drugs such as Wegovy. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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