Canterbury Mornings with Chris Lynch

Leeann Watson, CEO of Business Canterbury, joined John MacDonald to give a quarterly update. Are we seeing signs of recovery in Canterbury? What would a commuter train mean for the city business scene? And will the Government's new approach to WorkSafe make a difference for local businesses and how they operate? LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If there's anyone who shouldn't be told they can wind things back on the health and safety front, it's a New Zealander. Because generally, we are absolute shockers when it comes to this sort of thing and our health and safety laws are the only thing standing between our “she'll be right” attitude and misery and tragedy. Especially when you consider that —even with the health and safety laws we have at the moment— our workplace fatality rate is 60% higher than Australia's and more than 500% higher than the UK's. So a perfect time, isn't it, for us to be getting rid of what the Government says is WorkSafe's “safety-at-all costs mentality”? Just in case you think I'm a health and safety freak, I'm not. But I'm also enough of a realist to know that, without these laws, more people would be going home at the end of the day injured or not going home at all. Another reason why us New Zealanders are the last people to be told we can go a bit easy on the old health and safety is that we have very short memories. I haven't forgotten the 19th of November 2010, when the first Pike River explosion happened. I remember distinctly getting home from work that afternoon and all of us watching the live coverage. That was what set-in-train a huge overhaul of health and safety laws because, as we eventually discovered, the guy who ran the mine wasn't the hero we all initially thought he was. Pike River was where it all started. And the government is setting out today to walk all over the progress that we've made since then – apparently because we've gone too far with it. But even though I'm just as capable as the next person of shaking my head at some of the things businesses and employers are required to do in the name of keeping people safe, I'm not happy about the screws being loosened. But what the Government has in its favour is that most people haven't experienced the consequences of things going pear-shaped at work. That's why it's so easy to dismiss health and safety as an overreaction. But I bet if you have known someone who has lost their life at work or if you know someone who has been seriously injured at work, then you'll have a much more realistic view of things. The irony is we've got the Government on one hand saying today that its crackdown on badly-behaved state housing tenants has worked But, on the other hand, it's saying that it wants to be less heavy-handed on employers who don't do everything they can to keep their people safe. Which is why the Minister of Workplace Relations and Safety, Brooke van Velden, wants WorkSafe to ditch what she's calling its “adversarial nature” and to move from managing risk generally to critical risk. But what on earth does that mean? Do you know the difference between “general” risk and “critical” risk? Example: is an extension cord running across the floor somewhere at work a “general risk” or a “critical risk”? The answer to that depends on the consequence. If the consequence of a power cable running across the floor in the office is just a bit of a nuisance and nothing else, then you could probably categorise it as a “general risk”. But if that cable lying across the floor means someone trips on it and they bang their head pretty hard on a wall and get some sort of brain bleed, then that becomes a “critical risk”, doesn't it? See what I mean? The idea of taking the pedal off the metal and only taking “critical risks” seriously probably sounds great to many of us. But dig a bit deeper or even think about it for a few minutes and you'll realise that it's a huge mistake. It's a bit like Trump coming in and saying that all this Paris climate change stuff is nonsense and suddenly you've got people around the world saying, “yeah yeah, enough of this climate change nonsense”. And the reason that's happening is because people like Trump are giving people permission to go all climate change-sceptic on it. Which is exactly what the Government is doing with its loosening of the health and safety laws. It's giving people permission to go easy on health and safety, which is the last thing us New Zealanders need when our default position is “she'll be right”. It is a disaster waiting to happen, all over again. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Politics Friday John MacDonald was joined by National's Hamish Campbell and Labour's Duncan Webb to discuss some of the biggest stories of the week. The Government will soon be issuing fines to parents of repeatedly absent students – will this work? Is it a new idea? Campbell almost manages to explain the RMA changes in one sentence, but what do they mean for New Zealanders? And is there a place for more dairy cows in Canterbury, along with a passenger rail? LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I can't find an exact figure but from what I have seen online, I'm pretty confident in saying that there are hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid fines in New Zealand, and that figure is about to rise even further. Because the Government is dreaming if it thinks people fined for not sending their kids to school are going to suddenly start sending their kids to school, and that they're even going to bother paying the fines. They won't. They'll just ignore them. They won't pay up. Because if they don't feel bad about not sending their kids to school, they won't feel bad about getting a fine. And they won't feel bad about not paying it either. A fortnight ago, Associate Education Minister David Seymour announced that the Government is going to spend $140 million over the next four years with one aim: getting more kids to turn up at school regularly. And I said at the time that we'll wait and see, but it seemed that he had stopped banging the drum about fining parents whose kids don't go to school. And I said, we'll see, because leopard and their spots, and all that. And it turns out I was right to be doubtful, because the leopard hasn't changed its spots and today, he's telling these parents that the Government is out to get them. But it won't make one bit of difference. And I've said before that I think starting school later is an idea worth considering because I want us to get creative when it comes to truancy. There's no evidence to show that fining parents works. In fact, there's evidence to show that it doesn't work. In the United States, for example, Texas, Pennsylvania, and California went through periods where parents could be heavily fined if their kids were repeatedly absent. Parents were fined $500 for every absence. Some states even used ankle bracelets for kids who were repeat truants. It didn't work because it created mistrust in the system and in authorities and the truancy rates got even worse. So what might work, if fining parents isn't going to work? Well this is where Sweden comes into the conversation. I'm not a fan of any sort of financial penalty because, as far as I'm concerned, anything that takes money away from families isn't good because that affects the kids themselves. But if you want a financial penalty approach, in Sweden if a parent is on a benefit of any sort, their payments get cut if they don't send their kids to school. Apparently it's had a positive impact. And I think the reason it works way better than fining parents is that it takes money away without these parents having any choice. Whereas if they get a fine, it's still their choice whether they pay it or not. Plus, here in New Zealand, I think there's a culture where some people just don't give a damn about fines – that's why so many just don't get paid. Which is why I think that the Government's plan to fine parents who don't send their kids to school won't make one bit of difference.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I hope Environment Canterbury isn't bothering listening to Waimakariri MP Matt Doocey. He's not impressed that the regional council is going to spend money doing a business case for a rail passenger service between Rangiora, Christchurch, and Rolleston. Matt Doocey says it's nothing more than a pie-in-the-sky idea and, given we're in a cost-of-living crisis, he says ECAN should stick to its knitting and focus on getting costs down and reducing rates. But what Matt Doocey should be doing —instead of criticising ECAN— is praising it for showing some initiative. He should be praising it for showing that it's prepared to do the kind of big sky, big picture thinking that local government hasn't been doing, and which we've been saying it should be doing. I think Doocey isn't reading the room, and I suspect that there will be a lot of excitement about ECAN pushing this rail idea. What's more, ECAN has put some money aside for a possible rail project. Plus, it's talking about not just limiting this rail passenger idea to Rangiora, Christchurch, and Rolleston. It's saying that, once up and running, the service could be extended to places like Amberley, Ashburton, Timaru, and even further south into Otago and Southland. I'm loving the idea. I'm also loving the fact that ECAN is prepared to put some skin in the game. To spend some money and find out once-and-for-all how much of a goer this could be. ECAN is onto something because if there's a common complaint about how the earthquake rebuild played out, it would be the fact that, despite all the talk that Christchurch was going to be the most modern city in the country, it's not. Because we've just stuck to the same old, same old when it comes to things like transport. And local government has to carry some of the blame for that. But now, ECAN wants to make good on that. What this comes down to for me is this: what do expect of local government? Do we just expect it to stick to its knitting and do the basic boring stuff? Or do we expect our councils to be the big picture thinkers? If you're like me and you want to see councils doing the big picture stuff, then you'll agree that we've lost the ability to think big. Mark my words, there'll be no shortage of people running in the local body elections later this year banging-on about sticking to the basics. Whereas ECAN is showing that it's thinking about the future, which is exactly the kind of thing I want to see not just from ECAN, but all our councils. Tell that to Waimakariri MP Matt Doocey, though. He's saying today: ‘Rather than coming up with pie in the sky motions, ECAN should focus on reducing rates which have rapidly increased - putting more pressure on ratepayers in a cost-of-living crisis.'' Compare that to the likes of ECAN councillor Joe Davies who is saying we can't wait 20 or 30 years, and we need a solution in the next five to ten years. He says: ‘There's a corridor already in place so there would be significantly lower set-up costs and this is an opportunity to link Rangiora and Rolleston to the city.'' So he sees opportunity. Matt Doocey sees obstacles. ECAN sees opportunity and is doing something about it, which is the approach I want to see a lot more of from our local councils. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It would be very easy for me to say that the organisers of those ridiculous Run it Straight combat sport events have blood on their hands after the tragic death of 19-year-old Ryan Satterthwaite. And I would be saying that if Ryan had been involved in an official event. The thing is, he wasn't. That's not stopping other people from piling in though. There are experts saying today that we need to ban the whole thing. But I don't think that's realistic. Because for starters, banning officially organised events wouldn't stop the likes of what happened in Palmerston North on Sunday when Ryan was hanging out with mates and when they decided to give it a go. So this thing's gone nuts on social media. It involves two people running directly at each other and slamming into one another. The people behind it are touting it as the world's fiercest combat sport, which is all about mirroring the extreme collisions you sometimes see happen during the likes of rugby and rugby league matches. You're bound to have seen the pictures from a couple of official events held up north in the last couple of weeks. I've seen it reported that there might have been a couple of concussions and anyone who's had a concussion will know that they're not a walk in the park. I saw one of the organisers banging-on about having medical people on-hand and how all the competitors are checked before and afterwards. Nevertheless, there's no way you'd get me involved. But what it all comes down to for me is those two words you hear trotted out quite often about all sorts of things: personal responsibility. Or personal choice. There was Ryan with his mates on a Sunday afternoon, and they thought they'd give Run it Straight a go – just for a laugh. Just like any other bunch of young guys, they'd seen the stuff on social media and would've seen the news coverage of the recent events held up north and decided to give it a go. A ban of any type wouldn't stop that kind of thing happening. Tragically. But even though I think we're dreaming if we think a ban is needed, there are a couple of things we could do. I agree with Stacey Mowbray from Headway —which is a concussion support organisation— who is saying that education could be key to trying to do something about this situation. She says parents need to sit down with their kids and talk to them about the dangers of all this. The other thing that I think we should be doing is to do what we can to take away some of the glamour around this so-called sport. For example, I think the likes of the Christchurch City Council should decline any requests to hold Run it Straight events at any of its facilities. That wouldn't stop people like Ryan Satterthwaite and his mates giving it a go, but it would send a very clear message that Run it Straight doesn't have the support of the local community. But I think that's about as far as we can go. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

James Meager is responding to Chris Hipkins' comments about the Minister for the South Island role. The Labour Leader called the position a “PR job”, saying there would be no need for Meager's role if the Government was actually prioritising the South Island. Hipkins says Meager's not doing anything because he has no budget or decision-making ability, and this is just a way of telling the South Island it hasn't been forgotten. Meager has hit back, saying it speaks volumes that Hipkins thinks the only way to achieve something is having a big bureaucracy and budget. He says it's disappointing to hear that kind of comment, and he'd rather hear something more positive about the aspirations of the South Island, which is why he's there. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour's yet to rule potential coalition partners in or out. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters is refusing to work with Chris Hipkins next election, but has not entirely ruled Labour out. On social media, Peters posted a Government of Labour, the Greens, and Te Pati Māori would be a "circus" and a "radical woke show". Hipkins told John MacDonald that they actually ruled out working with Peters before the last election, and he's said since that that's unlikely to change. However, he says potential coalition decisions will be made closer to the election, based on principles and the party's compatibility, rather than the petty personality vendettas that seem to be occupying Peters' time. The Labour Leader is also calling the role of the Minister for the South Island a "PR job." Rangitata MP James Meager picked up the new portfolio in January, alongside Hunting and Fishing, Youth, and Associate Transport. The Prime Minister says he will be a critical voice for the South Island. But Hipkins told MacDonald there would be no need for Meager's role if the Government was actually prioritising the South Island. He says Meager's not doing anything because he has no budget or decision-making ability, and this is just a way of telling the South Island it hasn't been forgotten. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

“Don't sweat the small stuff.” That's the message cops have been given about shoplifting. And the powers-that-be can say as much as they like about their memo to staff about only bothering with shoplifting worth more than $500 not being worded as well as it could have been, but the message is very clear. You steal stuff worth less than $500 and you're going to get off scot-free. If I was a retailer, I'd be really brassed off. I'd be brassed off with the cops and I'd be brassed off with the Police Minister, who is no longer doing interviews about retail crime, apparently. This is the guy who made a career out of sending off media releases every time there was a ram raid. This is the guy who promised the crims would be scared of him and his coalition government, because the free ride for crims was about to end. This is the Mark Mitchell who said this two years ago, when he was in Opposition: “While retail crime incidents have more than doubled since 2018, fewer offenders are being held accountable for their actions. Despite an enormous spike in retail offending under Labour, the number of convictions for this type of offending have decreased. “Staggeringly, this drop in convictions coincides with skyrocketing incidents of retail crime. Offenders are simply not being held to account by a Labour government which has been nothing except soft on crime.” So if I was a retailer, I'd be angry. I'd also be very worried. In fact, even if I worked in retail —not necessarily owned a shop, but worked in a shop on the daily— I'd be worried. Because I'd know that even if I saw someone nicking stuff and I called them out on it, they'd just tell me to go to hell. “What're you gonna do? Call the cops?” Sunny Kaushal, who used to run the Dairy & Business Owners Group and now chairs the Government's advisory group on retail crime, says other countries have taken this approach and it's gone very badly. Quite rightly, he says that it “emboldens” criminals. Makes them even more brazen, because they know nothing's going to happen. Which is why —if I was someone who likes to go into shops and help myself to stuff— I'd be very happy. Because the police writing this stuff down and it getting out means retail criminals have a licence to do what they want. They can go into your local supermarket and walk out the door with $490 worth of groceries. You picture $490 worth of groceries in a trolley at Pak n Save and someone walking out the door without paying, knowing the police won't be coming anytime soon. Pretty much flipping the bird at anyone who tries to stop them. Now I'm realistic and I know, just like you do, that the chance of the police turning up is less likely than it used to be. And yes, they've probably always had a cut-off point where they decide something's too small fry to investigate. Which is fine, but, making it an explicit instruction or suggestion not to investigate unless the stuff nicked is worth more than $500, is a major cock-up by the police. And I don't know if there's any coming back from it. Because, even if the Police Minister showed some fortitude and told the police to ditch this approach to retail crime, we know that even then the likelihood of the police getting involved in this lower-level retail crime would be pretty low. Because they just don't have the resources. Which tells me that, despite tough talking from politicians, the battle against retail crime is a losing battle. And if it's not a losing battle, it's a battle we've already lost. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government is describing the 20 hours unpaid community work that people on the Jobseeker benefit will be made to do from today if they don't follow the rules, as a penalty. And there'll be no shortage of people cheering on from the sidelines, who will also be seeing it as a penalty. I think it's great too. But not for the obvious reasons. The Opposition doesn't like it, saying it will mean people getting stuck on the benefit for longer; that it could push people into homelessness, and they're describing the community work as “forced labour”. The Green Party's social development spokesperson Ricardo Menéndez March is saying: “This community work sanction will leave people without homes, without food, and with worse employment outcomes. Louise Upston is making it harder for beneficiaries to find employment.” But he needs to open his eyes a bit. Because I think the complete opposite. I'm seeing it as an opportunity for people - not a punishment. Because we all know how easy it is for someone to go down a rabbit hole and how difficult it can be for them to come out of it. For all sorts of reasons - including unemployment. It can happen to people in all sorts of situations and I reckon it must be very easy for someone who is unemployed to fall into the trap of putting stuff off and isolating themselves. Thinking they'll get around to writing up that CV tomorrow. Thinking they've got heaps of time to get that job application and, generally, letting time drift away on them. And, in the process of all that delay, delay, delay, they start to feel worse about themselves and they cut themselves off from people and society. To the point where they look up one day and wonder where the past year has gone. And they know themselves that if they just got out a bit and mixed with people then they might start to feel a bit better about themselves and might be more motivated to sort their life out. But straight away the prospect of trying to organise something is all too much and nothing changes. These are the types of people who don't do what the Government says is expected of people on the Jobseeker benefit. They don't apply for jobs; they don't show-up for interviews; and they don't attend employment expos. Because they're broken. But if they get a call from MSD one day telling them to turn up at such-and-such a place, on this day at this time, to do community service work - then I think it could flick a switch inside some people. They'll see it as the kick up the pants they know they need and they will turn up and they will do their five hours of unpaid community service work each week for four weeks and, while they're doing it, they'll be meeting people; they'll feel like they're contributing something and they won't be as stuck as they had been. For some of them - not all of them, of course - but some of them, won't want to let go of that feeling of belonging somewhere and being part of something and they will do all the things the Government wants them to do and they'll much have a much greater chance of finding work and turning their life around. You might think I'm being over-optimistic. That I'm giving people on the dole too much credit. You might think that if someone wants a job, they'll find one. But there is more to it than that. Yes, I've made my way in the world. Whenever I've found myself out of work, I've always managed to find something or been able to make something happen. But I don't take that for granted and I know very well that, just like the next person, I'm only a few steps away from going down that rabbit hole I'm talking about. We could be that person I describe before who loses their job, loses their confidence, loses their self-respect and who looks up and finds that they've pretty much sat on the couch for a year. Hiding from the noise and letting their world get smaller and smaller and smaller. And that is why I think the Government is actually doing unemployed people who don't follow the benefit rules a favour. It might think 20 hours of unpaid community work is a punishment. But I think it could be the best thing any government has done for the unemployed in New Zealand.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today Megan Woods and Matt Doocey joined John MacDonald following the release of the budget. They discussed the key aspects of it including changes to KiwiSaver, will there be an announcement on the retirement as it sound like Matt is hinting towards? Should parents really support 18 and 19 year olds if they aren't working? And what is in the budget for Canterbury? LISTEN ABOVE. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Quite a well-known chief executive and finance guy told me once that, in business, you should always make use of other people's money first. Which is exactly what the Government is doing with the KiwiSaver changes announced in yesterday's budget. It wants more of our money going in from our wages and salaries and less of its money going in through government contributions. Although, that's our money too when it comes down to it. But the gist is, the minimum contributions are going to increase from 3 percent to 4 percent and the bit the Government chips in each year is halving - from a maximum of $520 to a maximum of $260. The change in what we pay-in to our KiwiSaver is going to be somewhat gradual. From April 1 next year, the rate will shift to 3.5 percent, before increasing again in April 2028 to 4 per cent. But if you're earning more than $180,000 a year, there'll be some changes coming sooner. You'll have no government money at all going into your KiwiSaver from July this year. Which I think is great. Because why should someone earning that amount of money get a government hand-out? They shouldn't. Especially, when you consider that the finance minister made no noises yesterday about any longer term changes - such as the ones I always have and always will push for: means testing the state pension and increasing the age you can get it. But with no talk about either of those, I think the Government should have gone harder and faster with the contribution changes. I'm not the only one who thinks this. Rupert Carlyon runs a KiwiSaver provider and he says 4 percent plus 4 percent is better than the 3 percent plus 3 percent that we have now - but nothing like the 6 percent plus 6 percent they have in Australia. And he says it's nowhere near the 15 percent average contribution rates in other OECD countries. He says: “We have a long way to go, but it's better than nowhere." Another provider, Dean Anderson, says the finance minister should have stood up yesterday and delivered an outline of how New Zealand is going to follow Australia's lead and increase contributions more than it did yesterday. And he will get no argument from me. Because we need to be way closer to the way they do things in Australia with their retirement savings scheme if there's any hope of keeping state pension entitlement anything close to 65. Which I think is way too low. The retirement age should be, at least, 67. We also need to be way closer to the way they do things in Australia if we're going to hold on to this pipedream of keeping the pension a universal benefit that everyone - whether they need it or not. Yes, I know the consequences of contributing more to KiwiSaver. It means less money in the pocket in the here and now. Which is why some people are warning us today that the changes aren't great news for everyone. Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson says low-income earners, Maori, women and self-employed will be hit the hardest by the lower government contributions. She says: "It's a shame there are so few government incentives for a scheme that underpins private saving for retirement.” The Retirement Commissioner would have liked to have seen the Government use the money it's going to save from reduced contributions to help these people out. But, irrespective of how we are affected by having to pay more into our KiwiSaver and getting less contributions from the government, we need to remind ourselves what saving is all about. It's about denying ourselves in the here and now, to benefit in the future. And yes, we will all be affected by these changes announced yesterday to varying degrees. But, what it comes down to for me, is that these changes are about denying ourselves a little bit more than we do at the moment, so that we can have a little bit more in the future. And what's so bad about that?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's a danger that when the new stadium opens in Christchurch next year, we'll have no idea exactly what speed we should be going when we drive around the area. At the moment, the council wants it to be 30kph on Madras Street, Tuam Street, Lichfield Street, Duke Street, Hereford Street and St Asaph Street. But now it's being told by the Government that it can't do that, and I think they should just make it 50kph. I'll explain why shortly. There are also parts where the council wants the limit to be 10kph on Lichfield Street between Madras and Manchester. Apparently, the council believes that that can stay based on the design of the street and expected traffic volumes. If we wind back the clock, 2023 was when the council consulted us on the 30kph limit and, apparently, it got the tick from people and so that's been the plan ever since. But between then and now, the Government's got involved because it's not into all these reduced speed limits that popped up under the last government. Which means the council has been told that it needs to drop the 30kph speed limit idea and the speed limit around the stadium needs to be at least 40kph. And the council being the council, has to go and do a whole new round of consultation. Which has central city councillor Jake McLellan saying that it's nothing but a waste of time and money. He says the council should be left to decide for itself what speed limit it wants around the stadium. Or anywhere for that matter. And I'm with him on that bit. Of course it should. Except I want the council to set a 50kph, for the simple reason that if the traffic is crawling, we will all crawl. When everyone is trying to get to or around the stadium when there's a big event on, the speed limit could be 100kph, but we'd all still be going about 20 or 30 or even 10kph. Which is why I think most people, if they were asked, would say there should be no special speed limit and it should just be 50. Because I think it's simple really. If there's an event on where there are truckloads of people making their way to the stadium, traffic will be at a standstill anyway. Or there'll be roads completely closed off. There are no speed limits around the Apollo Projects Stadium – or the “temporary” stadium, as it's also known. I know that it's not right on the street, like the new one in town will be, but when there's a match on there or a concert or whatever, the traffic is what it is. Just like it will be when the new one is up and running. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's consultation on speed limits around Christchurch's Te Kaha stadium - once again. New Government rules are forcing the City Council to ask for public feedback for a second time. A 30 kilometre-an-hour limit was approved for multiple surrounding streets but can no longer be implemented because of the changes. Mayor Phil Mauger told Canterbury mornings although this feels like over-consulting, this needs to be right to ensure public safety. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Let's call it and say that workers going to and from Christchurch Hospital at night-time deserve better. This is after what's being described as a “very violent” assault on a staff member heading home after work last weekend. It's understood the woman had been on a shift at the birthing centre, on Antigua Street. What we know at this point is that security around the hospital's birthing unit has been bolstered and, as a temporary measure, security escorts are being provided for staff, student nurses, and midwives during the hours of darkness. The thing is though, should this extra security be a permanent arrangement for hospital staff? And if it's needed at the hospital, what about other workers going to and from work at night and first thing in the morning? And this is where I'm feeling a bit torn. Because, yes, of course nurses and everyone at the hospital need to be safe. And yes, I think these extra measures do need to be permanent. So I'm on the side of the hospital staff here. And if there's anything people like midwives and nurses get, it's a lot of support from the public. Especially when things like this happens – and rightly so. Also, because safety has been a real concern with staff having to park far away from the hospital campus. I always remember the call we had from a nurse a couple of years ago, and how she told us she always carried a pair of scissors in her pocket when she walked to her car at night, because she was so worried about her safety. So Health NZ has told staff in an email that an incident happened last weekend and explained what it's doing to keep people safe, saying that safety is its top priority. The email says: “Additional security measures have been put in place after a serious assault last weekend. Our security team has, as a temporary response, bolstered security in the area around this part of the hospital. This will be a priority over the coming days to provide an extra layer of security.” And the bolstering of security that they talk about are the security escorts being provided for staff, student nurses, and midwives during the hours of darkness, and mobile patrols being focussed on shift changes when people are coming and going. But there are plenty of other people doings jobs where they have to turn up and leave at odd hours – late at night, the middle of the night and first thing in the morning. And they have to run the gauntlet in the dark. But here's where I land. I think that, when it comes down to it, not every worker can expect to have extra security put on. But when it comes to nurses and midwives here in Christchurch, they should. Don't ask me for a thorough explanation of why I feel that way because I know that, in some ways, it doesn't make sense. But that's where I'm at. Reading between the lines, I think the email that went around health staff indicates that these extra security escorts are going to be nothing more than temporary. Because it included all the usual stuff about the incident being a timely reminder for hospital staff to look after themselves and others. The emails says: “Ensuring your personal safety when leaving or arriving at the hospital involves a mix of situational awareness, planning and taking precautions. “Whether within one of our campuses or travelling to and from work, please be always conscious of your security and take appropriate actions to protect yourself and your property. Taking these precautions can help minimise risks and ensure your personal safety.” So a bit of health and safety backside covering, but medical staff deserve better than that. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In an ideal world, I would love us to have more trains. In an ideal world, I think it would be great if all our big cities had rail passenger services. Not just Auckland and Wellington that Transport Minister Chris Bishop was talking about when he announced this morning that there's $600 million in this week's Budget going into rail. I won't go all scratched record on it and start asking where the money is for the Greater Christchurch area, but I would love to see money going into commuter rail here. Because if we do think rail has a future in New Zealand —and I'm talking about passenger rail as well as sending freight by rail— I think it's more realistic to expect commuters to take the train than people going out of town on holiday. So that's one area where I'd put the money – into passenger trains. And that's probably my ideal world scenario, which I'll come back to. What I think is certainly more achievable though, is getting more freight shipped around the place on trains. Because we've shown how bad we are as a country at maintaining our roading network. And, if you believe the rail advocates, they'll tell you that the main problem is trucks. That they're responsible for chewing up the roads. And, when you travel down the east coast of the South Island, it does strike you how much of a donkey track State Highway 1 is in parts. Yet we seem to be quite happy for these trucks —designed in countries where they do have massive motorways— to go up and down that donkey track night and day, 365 days a year. So get more freight on trains first. And then, if we're going to do anything more with passenger trains, focus on getting people to work and school on a train instead of expecting them to go to Nelson for their holidays on a train. Because I've long thought how brilliant it would be if we had a rail service from Rangiora to the city and from Rolleston to the city. Imagine what the motorways would look like. Imagine getting into town on a train —not a bus, where you can get all the same disruptions as other vehicles— but you scream into town on the train, you don't have to worry about finding a park, and then get the train back home again in the evening. The Canterbury Regional Transport Committee obviously likes the sound of that too. This is the entity that involves all councils in the canterbury region —including ECAN— and NZTA. And the number one job of the regional transport committee is to implement the Canterbury Regional Transport Plan. In recent years, there's been talk of passenger rail services running from the city to Rolleston and as far north as Amberley. Reading the most recent regional transport plan, the enthusiasm that we were hearing a couple of years seems from the transport committee seems to have been tempered a bit. There is still political interest in a passenger rail service south of Christchurch but there are no timeframes and, of course, where the money comes from is the stumbling block. But there are positive signs if you're into the idea of rail, like I am. The regional transport plan sets a goal of increasing the amount of freight moved by train in Canterbury by 100% over the next eight or nine years. So that's good. But it also talks about the population of Selwyn growing by around 58,000 people over the next 20-and-a-bit years. And, in Waimakariri, the population is expected to go up by 25,000 people in the same period. Christchurch is expected to have another 66,000 people. So there's an extra 149,000 people living in the Greater Christchurch area, and we think the Northern Motorway and the Southern Motorway are going to be just fine? Dream on. And that's the argument right there for passenger rail services in the Greater Christchurch area. Which is why when I ask, should we be investing more in rail here in Canterbury, my answer is yes. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Here's a story someone told me this morning about what happened within the last six-or-so weeks, when a Christchurch woman took her teenage daughter to the after-hours surgery. I'm telling you this because the Government has announced that there's going to be increased funding in Thursday's budget for after-hours medical care. Which is great. I'm not going to bag the Government for that. And the fact that people in rural areas are going to get better access to urgent healthcare is great. But there's an aspect of yesterday's announcement that makes no sense to me. It's the fact that none of that extra funding is coming Christchurch's way. New Zealand's second-largest city, and there's not going to be anything extra pumped into after hours healthcare here. This is the place where, in the last year or so, we've had the 24 hour surgery unable to operate 24/7. Where we've had the emergency department turning people away. Shutting its doors because people can't get into the after hours or can't afford the after hours and the ED gets overwhelmed. And this is the city where what I'm about to tell you won't be a one-off. It won't be unusual. But it illustrates why it makes no sense whatsoever not to increase the level or capacity of after hours services available here. So this woman took her teenage daughter to the after-hours in Christchurch. I won't go into any medical details other than to say that her daughter was very unwell and, eventually, it was discovered that she was so unwell that she needed surgery. Which happened. Eventually. So her mother took her to the after-hours, where they waited six-and-a-half hours to be seen by someone. They eventually saw a doctor who told them that nothing could be done for them at the after-hours and that they needed to go to the emergency department at Christchurch Hospital. They went to the hospital and waited through the night until about 4:30 the following morning, when someone came out and told them they were too busy at the emergency department, and they were given a voucher for a free video call consultation. All up, they had waited about 12 hours to go to the after-hours, be sent to the emergency department, and be told by the emergency department that they were too busy. And then sent home with a voucher for a video consultation. So they did the video consultation and, at the end of that, they were told they needed to go back to the emergency department. They went back to the emergency department and saw a doctor, who said that the young woman needed surgery. This all happened on a Sunday into Monday. So there wasn't even the Friday and Saturday factor, when after-hours clinics and emergency departments are typically at their busiest. But, under the Government's plan, nothing's going to change here in the Christchurch area. No extra funding. And stories like that one will happen over-and-over again. So, after waiting all day and night, they had the video consultation about mid-morning and the surgery was done pretty much within 24 hours. That's how unwell she was. The Prime Minister says the Government's plan is all about restoring faith in the country's healthcare system. He says: When a child's fever spikes in the middle of the night, parents have somewhere to go without delay. When an elderly person suffers from a fall they won't be left waiting in pain.” I don't know how he can say that to us here in the Christchurch area. I don't know how he can say that to people living in Waimakariri, who are still waiting for an after-hours. There's one on the way, apparently. But it will be another 14 months or so. And, to be honest, I'll believe it when I see it because the private outfit behind it has been dragging the chain for quite a while now. But, even then, that won't solve the problem of cost. It will still be too expensive for some people to go to the after-hours and they'll still try to rely on the hospital emergency department. Which is how things are going to remain here. Which is so wrong. When it comes to after-hours healthcare, we are being shortchanged big time. And we deserve better.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"I've seen some bad times in this house, but this is one of the lowest I've ever seen. When you go to that sort of standard of language, nothing's beneath you after that, is it?" That was Winston Peters yesterday after his coalition colleague, Brooke van Velden, used the c-word in parliament. And I'm with him 100%. He said he was disgusted that the word was said in Parliament, and he was disgusted that the word was used in a newspaper article at the weekend – which is why it came up for discussion yesterday. And the timing of it was interesting, because just hours after the c-bomb went off, it was announced that the co-leaders of Te Pati Māori have been suspended for three weeks, and one of their MPs suspended for a week. This is in relation to them getting out of their seats in Parliament and doing the haka as a protest against David Seymour's Treaty Principles Bill. The part of it that actually got them in strife wasn't the haka, it was the two-finger gun salute given to David Seymour while they were out of their seats. If you were to ask me: “What's worse? The two-finger gun salute in Parliament or an MP using the c-word in Parliament?” I would say that the bad language is way worse. Hands down. And if you were to ask me: “What's worse? MPs doing a haka in Parliament or an MP using the c-word in Parliament?” Same. The bad language is way worse than that too. I'm not defending the Māori Party MPs, because what they did is not the kind of thing I expect in Parliament. At the time, I thought it was a great piece of theatrics, but it's not appropriate. Just like I'm not going to defend Green MP Julie Anne Genter crossing the floor that time to go nuts at Matt Doocey. That didn't meet my expectations of parliamentary behaviour either. Which is why I think that ACT party deputy leader Brooke van Velden has to be hauled over the coals. Even though she, reportedly, had permission from the Clerk of the House. And why I agree with Winston Peters and with Judith Collins who have both been saying since yesterday afternoon that we have reached a new low. That behaviour in Parliament has reached a new low. It's believed that van Velden is the first MP to intentionally use the c-word in the House. This was when she was replying to a question from Labour about the Government's pay equity changes. Or, more to the point, a question referring to the opinion article at the weekend about the pay equity row, where the writer used the c-word. I don't know why Labour even brought it up, when it seems to have been silent about the derogatory nature of the article. I thought the article itself was appalling, but the writer seems to have gotten away with it because her employer is backing her to the hilt. But that doesn't mean that Parliament should turn a blind eye. I wasn't impressed with Speaker Gerry Brownlee's handling of things yesterday. Not once did he interrupt van Velden, only saying afterwards that it might have been better to refrain from using the word. Saying “more discretion” could have been used. The wet bus ticket treatment from the Speaker doesn't give me much hope that standards in Parliament are going to improve. I know people have been saying forever that parliamentarians behave badly but I think Parliament needs to up its game big time. That is where laws are made. Parliament is where we look-to for leadership. And this is probably a bit old school, but Parliament sets the standard for society. Some people say it should reflect society, but I say it should set the benchmark, and our politicians should show us what a civil society looks like. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

“It's like making a silk purse out of a pig's ear.” That's a quote from the boss at Transporting New Zealand, which represents the transport sector, talking about Brougham Street in Christchurch. Because it's been revealed by NZTA that the $150 million revamp of Brougham Street, one of Christchurch's busiest streets, will include T2 transit lanes – which the truckies are brassed-off about because they won't be able to use them. And I'm with the truckies. I think it's nuts that on a street like Brougham Street —which is a pig's ear of a road if ever there was one— we're going to go all “rules are rules” on it and not do something that I think would make a genuine difference. As the truckies do as well. So these transit lanes, or T2 lanes, can only be used by vehicles carrying more than one person. They've been on the Northern Motorway since 2021. There is a stretch of T2 that trucks can use there, on the Tram Road on-ramp near the Waimakariri Bridge. It's probably just to make it easier for them to turn onto the motorway, but don't go telling us NZTA that you can't do the same on Brougham Street because it “might set a precedent”. So Dom Kalasih from Transporting New Zealand says Brougham Street is a pig of a road and Scott McAlister from logistics company Mackleys says traffic congestion there is “bad and getting worse”. He says: “All the improvements are focused on pedestrians and cyclists. That's fine. But it needs to conjointly be done with freight.” Tell that to some people living in the area though, who are happy that the T2 lanes will mean the trucks being closer to the middle of the road and not travelling so close to the footpath. I understand where they're coming from but the bigger picture, surely, has to be getting that stretch of road moving – especially the trucks. And I know rules are rules, but I reckon Brougham Street is a special case. And truckies should, of course, be allowed to use these transit lanes. It's a key link for freight and it makes no sense to keep them stuck in the slow lanes. Forty-five thousand vehicles use Brougham Street each day —trucks make up 10% percent of them— and the truckies are saying it adds 30 minutes to their trip. Which I think is a very compelling argument for bending the rules. If not bending the rules, then re-writing them. You only need to travel on a bus in one of those bus lanes to get an idea of how much quicker trucks could get through in a T2 lane. I know they would be sharing the lanes with other vehicles —unlike the buses which have the bus lanes to themselves— but it's worth a go, isn't it? The other part of this is that NZTA is going to have to make sure that these new transit lanes on Brougham Street are policed. You might have seen it reported earlier this week that the T2 lanes on the Northern Motorway haven't been policed since they opened four years ago. Which means people are sailing through when they shouldn't be. So there will need to be monitoring and enforcement on Brougham Street, otherwise the T2 lanes will be a complete waste of time. They'll also be a complete waste of time if trucks aren't allowed to use them. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Construction is booming in Canterbury – but what is the market doing? Construction Analyst Mike Blackburn joined John MacDonald to delve into the current situation in the region, the areas that are seeing major work, and if they're seeing an over-supply of multi-unit dwellings. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Well done to the Government for making all the right noises about dealing with truancy. It's going to spend $140 million over the next four years with one aim: getting more kids to turn up at school regularly. It's looking good. But I'm wanting to see some more creative approaches than what's been talked about up until now, and I've got some ideas. Most of the $140 million ($123 million) is going to go into setting-up what the Government is calling an “attendance service”. So sounds a bit like the old truancy service. But what I'm hoping is that it's going to be prepared for this new service to be a bit creative on it, and not go down the old route of stick and no carrot. In fact, I'm hoping there'll be no stick, because I don't think punishing parents, for example, is the solution. So I've got two things I would do if I was running this new service. Which might sound like a weird way of going about it, and, if I'm honest, these ideas generally go against how I've thought about school for the whole time I've been a parent. But here goes. If I was in charge of the new school attendance service, I would start by looking around the world to see what has worked already. And I would try to get schools here on board with something they trialled at a school in the UK that actually got some results. Starting the school day later. This was at a high school, and what they did is they gave 800 students a late start. They didn't start classes until 10am, and absenteeism went down by 27%. So that's one thing I'd do. But I would go a bit further than that and I'd try to get schools on board with starting at around 11:30am. You'd probably have to limit it to high schools for all sorts of practical reasons, like parents and caregivers needing to get to work and all that. And I'd make it an 11:30 start because we saw after the earthquakes how much better teenagers whose high schools had to share campuses and were only physically at school for half the day did in their NCEA results. I know it's very easy to say or think that kids who wag school are all the same. That they're no hopers, or that their parents are no hopers. But we need to think about some of the practical reasons why kids aren't turning up as often as we think they should, or not at all. And if teenagers, especially, need to sleep in —as we know they do— then let them, knowing that they have to be at school later in the morning. The other thing I would do if I was running this new truancy agency is I would encourage schools not to be so hellbent on insisting kids having to be in the actual classroom. Which probably sounds like a weird approach for someone given the job of getting more kids turning up at school, but I think we need to decide whether we're going to focus on attendance or participation. They're two different things and, if we're honest with ourselves, we'll probably agree that participating in the education system in some way, shape or form is far more important —far better— than just turning up and attending. So it's attendance versus participation. As a parent, I always wanted my kids physically at school because I think they learn a lot about dealing with people actually being there. But if you've got a child who just can't cope with that —for whatever reason— then why shouldn't they be able to participate in the education system by working from home? Why should they be labelled a truant? Shouldn't we do what we can to make sure they get an education? That they participate? Of course we should. And if the best way or the most appropriate way for them to get that education seems a bit weird to some of us —those of us who think you can only be educated at a school with everyone else— then we just have to get over ourselves and accept that people learn in different ways.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Opposition Leader's welcoming Government investment into school attendance. $140 million from this year's Budget will go towards a new system and better data monitoring. Labour leader Chris Hipkins wanted truancy officers reintroduced two years ago when he was PM. Hipkins told John MacDonald it's clear disbanding the previous truancy service in 2012 was the wrong decision. He says it's a good step in the right direction, and gives credit where credit is due. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This poll out today saying nearly half of us are more concerned about power prices than we were a year ago, is nonsense. Because I reckon we're all concerned about it, not just nearly half of us. If you're not concerned about your power bill, then I'll have what you're having thanks. Only 8% of people who took part in this survey by Curia said they were less concerned. I'll have some of what they're having, as well. More to the point, as well as being worried about the prices, we should be just as —if not more— concerned about the lack of action when it comes to doing something about it. And maybe that's because there is actually one way of doing something about it. It's probably a bit old school, but I reckon we are never going to get on top of rising power prices unless the government takes over ownership of the whole thing. Just like it used to. Nationalise it. Because I've had a gutsful of politicians saying the same stuff, year after year, and nothing changing – and I'm talking about politicians from all sides here. And the people who took part in this survey feel the same. 69% said the Government isn't doing enough to bring prices down. 13% thought it was, and 18% didn't know. The results also show 67% believe the profits being made by electricity companies are unreasonably high. The only thing I would say to that is, how do they know? I'm sure you can find that information somewhere, but I think there is an assumption that the power companies are creaming it. Nevertheless, for me, the only solution to the power price issue is nationalisation – then we'd get more than just words and no action. Example: Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones going all “shock horror” on it. Saying he can't believe how bad things have got. He's saying today: “I can't believe, even in my lifetime, I'd see it this bad.” Which is all very well, but what are you going to do about it Shane? My message is the same to Energy Minister Simon Watts, who is saying: “Energy prices have added real pressure to household budgets at a time when the cost of living is already biting hard”. Yes Minister. But tell us something we don't know already. The current government. The last lot. The government before them. And the one before them. They're all the same. They tut-tut about power prices and promise this and promise that, but nothing changes. And it's probably because they know that they can't actually do anything, because the model is broken. They probably know that the only way they could do something would be to buy back the shares in the big power generation and retail companies that were flogged off years ago go back to some sort of electricity corporation model. I'm not the only one thinking that this is old-school approach is the answer. Power prices going through the roof are a problem all around the world. Which is why over in the UK, one of these think tank outfits thinks the British government should take over ownership of all the gas power stations so that consumers aren't "held to ransom" by the power companies. So if they think that, and I think that, what do you think? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There are two things certain in this world. There will always be cars and there will always be idiots. That's why this move by the Government to make it easier to seize and destroy cars won't get rid of the boy racer problem. But it's better than nothing and good on the Government for doing it. At the moment, the police can only seize or destroy a boy or girl racer's car if they offend three times. We're talking about three offences, in particular: taking part in illegal street racing; fleeing from the police. and getting involved in an intimidating convoy. So do either of those things three times, and the car can be taken off them. But, once this new legislation is passed, there'll be no second or third chances. Which I think will help the police no end because, as the law stands at the moment, they have to have evidence that someone has offended three times before there's any chance of taking the car off them. Which is probably why only three cars have ever been seized and crushed under the original legislation that the former-National government brought-in back in 2009. So it's a problem that politicians have been trying to solve for a fair while now. And not just at central government level. We've tried over the years in Christchurch. The council brought-in the “no cruising” zones. which are still here. In fact, there are more now than there used to be. A concrete pad was built at Ruapuna Speedway too. The idea being that they could all go out there and fill their boots doing skids and burn-outs. But no one was interested. Because meeting-up somewhere like Ruapuna to let rip in a car - something organised and legal - that's not what boy racing is all about. It's about stuff happening on the spur of the moment. It's about not following the rules. It's about taking over a piece of road and making it your own. So that was never going to work. Just like the “no cruising” zones were never really going to work, either. Sure, it might have sorted things out a bit in the central city, but all it did was push the problem somewhere else. Particularly into the semi-rural areas the cars head-out to every weekend. But back to the Government's latest crackdown. I think it's great that it's, at least, doing something - but we shouldn't think for a minute that it's going to mean goodbye to the scourge of boy racers. Think back to just over a year ago, when an 18-year-old woman died tragically after the car she was in crashed into the side of a house in Rangiora. They'd been at an illegal street racing event and, when the police turned-up, the driver took off and ended up crashing. Under this new legislation, he would have had his car confiscated there and then. Maybe it would even have been crushed. But do you think for a minute that that guy thought about the consequences of his actions before deciding to hoof it from the police? Do you think he would've thought about it any more if he knew he ran the risk of losing his car? I don't think he would have. Which is why I don't see this law change having any major impact. I would love it to and good on the Government for doing something. But I don't think this will mean an end to the problems boy racers cause.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I don't often quote Albert Einstein, but I'm going to today. “Those who believe that politics and religion do not mix, understand neither.” And if the new pope didn't understand that before today, he will now. Because Cardinal Robert Prevost —who will be known as Leo XIV— has only just been elected and already he's being lobbied by politicians around the world. He's the first pope to come from the United States, and the pressure on him to start making noises on global issues has been pretty much immediate. As I was following the live coverage this morning, Volodymyr Zelensky was already on social media saying that he hopes the new pope will condemn Russia's invasion of his country. Saying that he wants the Pope to push for international law to be upheld, to condemn Russia's military aggression and to do whatever he can to protect the rights of innocent civilians. Colombia's president was at it too. Saying that he hopes the new pope will back Latino migrants living in the United States who he says have been “humiliated” by the current administration. Which raises two questions: 1. How much political sway does the Pope actually carry? And 2. Is it the job of a religious leader to try and influence global politics? I'm not convinced that the Pope does actually carry much sway. He does in terms of leading the Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean that the Pope and other religious leaders can or should hide away and just focus on running the shop. Because if they do that, they become irrelevant. Take the British royal family. They've been criticised over the years for being out of touch —for being too removed from the real world— and look at what's happened to their power and influence. The same goes for the Catholic Church. The same goes for all religions. If they ignore what's going on in the real world —and if they don't have a view on what's happening in the real world— then they will become irrelevant in people's eyes. I was reading some comments by Margaret Susan Thompson, who is a professor of history and political science in the United States, and she was saying that the Pope doesn't necessarily change the world, but he can influence the way Catholics think about global issues. She says: "Ultimately, the Pope has very limited political power in terms of shifting peoples' opinions on an issue. But his moral guidance is still helpful to many Catholics.” Not that the new pope's predecessor, Pope Francis, shied away from saying a thing or two. I don't think his comments carried any particular weight —in terms of influencing outcomes— but he did exactly what I think the new pope needs to do. What all religious leaders need to do. Even if their actual influence is limited, they need to show their relevance in the modern world. Pope Francis did condemn the war in Ukraine. He said Russia had carried out an unjustified act of aggression. He called Ukraine a "martyred nation" and appealed for peace pretty much every time he appeared in public. But he didn't stop the war. He also didn't stop what's going on in Gaza, even though he did video calls to a Catholic church in Gaza every day. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't have done it, and it doesn't mean that the new pope shouldn't do it, either. Because, especially in times like these, it is critical that the Pope and all religious leaders of all types show that they are part of the real world that we all live in. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John MacDonald was joined this morning by Megan Woods and Vanessa Weenink, to delve into some of the biggest issues of the week. It's been a big week for Weenink, who holds the electorate seat for Banks Peninsula – she gave an update on the State of Emergency in the area, and her thoughts on the response. Pay equity was the big topic of the week – it's been revealed National Party members were told about the plan last week – how did Weenink feel at the time? And David Parker believes it's time for MMP to go – does his stance hold merit? LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I've always been a fan of MMP. And I still am, but there's one thing about it that I do struggle with – the list MPs. I know it took some of us a while to totally understand why we have list MPs. I understand – but I don't necessarily like it. Which is why I thought retiring Labour MP David Parker raised some good points about MMP in his valedictory speech in Parliament. He reckons we should replace it with something else. His preference is the single transferable vote system, and he thinks we should have another referendum to see if people want to stick with the MMP voting system. I don't think we need a referendum because I think most people are happy with it. I am, anyway. Where I am with David Parker is list MPs. He didn't say straight out that he thinks they're a waste of time. That's probably because he's a list MP himself – or he was, anyway. But he thinks that, even if you're a list MP, you should be connected to an electorate. I know you see some list MPs driving around the place with signage on their vehicle saying “so-and-so, so-and-so, your such-and-such MP in wherever you might be”. Example: Tracey McLellan bills herself as a Labour list MP based in Banks Peninsula. But that's just optics. It's just done to make us think that a list MP is just as approachable and interested in their local community as someone specifically elected to represent an area. And I think list MPs have got a big sell job on their hands to convince us of the value they bring. I know they say they work frantically. But how does that stack up when we've got the likes of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon dealing with everything that comes with being PM – plus he's also the MP for Botany. So David Parker is right to be saying that list MPs need to do more than just meat in the room at Parliament when it comes to voting in a pack. I disagree with him though when he says MMP is to blame for polarising people. He says MMP has based politics in New Zealand on identity, but I thought that's what MMP is all about. Because identity politics is when you get a political view based on things like ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, denomination, gender, sexual orientation, social background, political affiliation, caste, age, education, disability, intelligence and social class. My response is: what's so bad about that? It's not as if we didn't have special interest political parties before MMP. We had Christian Heritage and the Christian Democrats. And the Values Party was pretty much an environmental political outfit. Even Social Credit had a particular identity –it wasn't just another mainstream political party. Another thing I disagree with is David Parker's view that MMP is bad because it polarises people. He says under the first-past-the-post system, New Zealand was one of the best countries in the world and that, with MMP, the place was meant to get even better. But he says it hasn't. He says politicians are more divided than ever and New Zealand society is more divided than ever. But I don't think MMP is to blame. People are polarised all over the world – more so after Covid. And there are many different voting systems all over the world. Nevertheless, David Parker thinks MMP has run its course and he reckons it's time to put it to the people and have another referendum to see if we're still happy with MMP, or whether we'd like to change to something else. Even though I've got issues with list MPs, I'm good with the way things are. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Banks Peninsula's State of Emergency remains in effect, with warning of more severe weather on its way for much of the country. The emergency was declared a week ago during record rain and flooding. Orange warnings have now been issued for more heavy rain for several parts of both islands, heading from south to north over the next two days. Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger told Canterbury Mornings the State of Emergency will be reviewed again at 4pm. He says they worry rain tomorrow may impact existing slips and could make things a bit messy. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Next time I hear one of our government politicians banging on about New Zealand being the first country in the world to give women the vote, it will sound very hollow. Because while that might be something to crow about, what the Government's doing in relation to equal pay for women, isn't. You've got to, at the very least, give Brooke van Velden credit for taking one for the team yesterday and announcing that the Government is pulling the plug on any current pay equity claims and making it harder for any future claims to get through. And that's exactly what it's going to do. We know that because not only is the Workplace Relations Minister saying that the pay equity rules are “muddied and unclear”, the Prime Minister is also saying that these changes could save the Government “billions of dollars”. That's because the majority of the women affected by this are government workers. But they won't be the only ones. There may be some people who like the sound of saving billions of dollars. Probably most of them blokes. But I'm picking the majority of people will find that kind of sales job appalling. I do. Especially when these changes aren't going through the usual processes. There's no select committee process. Within hours of Brooke van Velden making the announcement, it was all underway under urgency. And it's going to mean that current pay equity claims in the system will be dropped and must be started again under the new rules, which are going to make the whole thing tougher and save us billions. The government's reasoning —or the reasoning it's talking about publicly, anyway— is that pay equity claims have been going through without what it describes as “strong evidence”. Apparently, after the announcement, ACT MPs were crowing that Brooke van Velden had single-handedly rescued this month's budget with these changes. National MPs pushed-backed on that. With Finance Minister Nicola Willis fronting media —flanked by fellow female National MPs Judith Collins, Erica Stanford, Louise Upston and Nicola Grigg— denying that this is being done to balance the Government's books. She said that the Government believes in the principle of pay equity when women can prove that they have been disadvantaged. She said: "What this is about is ensuring we are clear, transparent, and fair to ensure that where those claims are made they relate to gender-based discrimination and that other issues to do with pay and working conditions are raised during the normal employment relations process." Which is a fair and reasonable thing to say. But what isn't fair and reasonable is the way the Government is going about this – leaving out the select committee process and rushing it through. Until the Government can convince me otherwise, I'm believing the ACT MPs who obviously think that this is all about saving money and nothing more. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It was very clever of the Government announcing that it was going to pump $12 billion into defence before saying anything about where the money's coming from. A lot of us got all excited about the defence money because, even if you're a pacifist, you would have to agree that our defence force has been running on the smell of an oily rag for a very long time. That's just a fact. And we kind of accepted that there would have to be trade-offs. We just didn't know, and we still don't know, what those trade-offs are going to be. Today though it's being proposed that NZ Super should be the Peter that pays Paul, and that we need to sort out the elephant in the room and make people wait longer before they get the pension. And I agree. It's come from economist Cameron Bagrie who has been trying to find out where the defence spend money is coming from. Without any detail forthcoming from the Government, he's suggesting the Super scheme. He's saying: “We cannot continue to shy away from that rising expense if other priorities, such as defence, are going to be met.” He's not the only one talking about the pension scheme needing a reworking. The NZ Herald's head of business Fran O'Sullivan says it was a National Government that increased the entitlement age for NZ Super from 60 to 65. But that the current National Party leadership is sticking with the idea of not doing anything about the eligibility age until 2044. The party's current commitment is to keep the age at 65 for another 19 years. Fran O'Sullivan describes that as “nonsense”. And I agree with her too. There is no way we can afford to keep paying the pension to anyone and everyone once they turn 65 for another 19 years. National's policy at the moment commits it to increasing the age of entitlement to 67 after 2044, which means no one born before 1979 will be affected. So someone who is 47 now, for example, would still get the pension when they turn 65. Crazy. There's also nothing in National's policy about doing something about the other nonsensical part of all this – where people still get the pension if they keep working beyond 65. Because the pension —when it comes down to it— is to help stop people falling into poverty after they retire. That's what it's designed for. It's not there to pay for some joker's beer on a Friday and Saturday night, who doesn't need it for anything else because he's still working and earning a salary or wages. Or he might be someone who's made a truckload of money running a business and still earns a dividend or maybe even still draws a salary. Back to Cameron Bagrie. He's saying today that health and NZ Super make up 37% of government operational expenses and that things are only going to get tighter with more defence spending. He says: “We now have a new pressure in the mix: national security - which is being prioritised. No credible political party can ignore that.” Referring to the pension, he says: “We cannot continue to shy away from that rising expense if other priorities, such as defence, are going to be met.” It's not something former National Prime Minister Jim Bolger shied away from. Somehow, he managed to convince New Zealanders that increasing the qualifying age for was “plain common sense”, because people were living longer and receiving the pension for a lot longer. Age eligibility went up to 61 within a year of that and it's been 65 since 2001. And just like it was looking less affordable then, it's looking even less affordable now. That's why we need to have the same fortitude - or our politicians do - and they need to bite the bullet, instead of ignoring it. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Here's a stat for you: 25 percent of cigarettes sold in New Zealand are from the black market. They're being smuggled into the country and criminals are making millions selling them on Facebook Marketplace and construction sites. All over the place. And you probably don't have to go far to find a dairy selling them, either. That figure has been put out by the tobacco industry in New Zealand. Although, there was an expert saying this morning that he reckons it's not quite as bad as the tobacco companies are saying. Either way - whatever the figure actually is - there are smokers balking at the cost of a packet of cigarettes and pouches of tobacco and they're quite happy to buy the illegal stuff. And I reckon the time has come to have a re-think about how we're dealing with cigarette smoking. Because the approach that's been taken so far - aside from treatment programmes and all that - has largely been about punishing people in the pocket if they want to smoke. More and more taxes, to the point where people are paying a small fortune. And, if we want to try and reduce the amount of illegal tobacco trading going on, then I think we need to think whether piling more tax on tobacco is worth it. I don't think it is. I'm not saying that we should make cigarettes cheaper - but I don't think we should make them more expensive than they are now. Because, if we do, then the illegal trade is going to grow even more and that will mean less tax revenue for the Government through the legitimate tobacco market. The thing too about not adding more taxes to ciggies and tobacco, is that it would still keep the price out of the reach of people like teenagers. People who could become the next generation of smokers. I was talking to someone who said their partner used to make a special trip into town to buy tobacco from a dairy in Christchurch that was selling pouches that were about $20 cheaper than what the legitimate stuff was going for. And they were saying that their partner would go into the dairy, ask if they had any of the cheap stuff and, sure enough, reach into the drawer and out it would come. It was worth the drive into the city to get it, apparently. Customs is saying today that these groups are bringing truckloads of the stuff into the country - mainly by sea - using what customs describes as “sophisticated smuggling tactics similar to the tactics used by drug smugglers". It says they are serious criminals. Not just opportunists having a go because they're worried about the price of tobacco”. The expert from Auckland University who was on Newstalk ZB this morning says the solution is getting more people off smoking. I agree. But I also think that's your ideal scenario kind of thing. Which is why I think the time has come to stop piling more taxes on cigarettes and tobacco. It's done its job. Making cigarettes more and more expensive is just going to feed demand for the illegal stuff. Which is ripping us off. Because with every packet of illegal cigarettes sold, there's no tax revenue. Money that we could all benefit from. And why would we continue to let that happen?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I love the way David Seymour is describing the size of cabinet and the number of government departments. He says the whole lot are "a big, complicated bureaucratic beast". And he is spot on. Here are the numbers that say it all: we have 82 portfolios, 28 ministers, and 41 separate government departments and agencies. If that doesn't sound like a complicated beast, I don't what does. So no argument from me. No argument also from Oliver Hartwich, who is Executive Director at the NZ Initiative think tank. He says part of the problem is that we have created all of these different outfits that, pretty much, look after similar things. Now Oliver Hartwich thinks we could get away with having as few as 15 cabinet ministers instead of the 28 we have at the moment. But he reckons maybe 20 is more realistic. Although, he also told Mike Hosking that he heard Ruth Richardson say recently that she thinks we should have no more than 12 cabinet ministers. Now, granted, I've never been a cabinet minister so I don't have any inside expert knowledge, but I'm going to give it a go anyway. And I reckon we could go really hardcore and have a prime minister with two deputy prime ministers reporting to them. Those two deputies would have all the other ministers reporting to them. And I would streamline the total number of ministers, generally within the areas of law and order, finance, defence and security, health and social services, education, and the arts. That's just a rough example of my streamlined cabinet. But Seymour's not just having a go at the number of cabinet ministers, he's also got the number of government departments and agencies in his line of sight, and I know a thing or two about them. Because in previous lives I've worked at a few, and they are monsters. David Seymour is describing them as "bureaucratic beasts". I'd describe government departments and agencies as “beastly spaghetti junctions”. And that's just what it's like inside these departments, let alone what happens between them. Because, despite politicians talking about these departments being “all of government”, they're not. That's this theoretical idea that all government departments get on swimmingly, and talk to each other about everything, and they're all best mates, and because of that us taxpayers get the best bang for our buck. But it's not like that at all. They work in silos. They compete with each other for funding. They don't talk to each other. One great thing the government has done to try and sort out this shambles is in the area of weather forecasting. NIWA and MetService aren't government departments exactly, but they are state-owned enterprises, and Simeon Brown announced a few weeks back that they're going to be merged. Which makes perfect sense. And that's what we need to see more of. Examples: do we need a Ministry of Education and an Education Review Office? I don't think so. Do we need a Ministry of Justice and a Department of Corrections? Possibly not. Do we need a Department of Conservation and a Ministry for the Environment? See what I mean? So I'm right with David Seymour, and I think we would all be winners with less cabinet ministers and less government departments and agencies. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you think it's expensive to travel around the country now, it's about to get more expensive with KiwiRail ditching one of its ferries. But even though flying isn't cheap, KiwiRail can forget about me making any interisland ferry bookings. Because why would ya? Two dungers —either of which can be out of service on any given day— no thanks. This all goes back to the decision by the Government not long after it came to power to pull the plug on the mega ferry project that Labour seemed to have an open cheque book for. Originally, the cost of getting the new mega ferries and bringing the portside infrastructure up-to-scratch was going to be around $1.5 billion. But that blew out to $3 billion and Finance Minister Nicola Willis said “no” when KiwiRail came knocking asking for more money. She said at the time that Cabinet wasn't confident that there wouldn't be further cost blow-outs. A bit further down the track, she washed her hands of the whole thing and handed-it over to Winston Peters who became the Minister for Rail with his number one job being to find cheaper ferries and fast. And, as we now know, they're expected to be here in 2029. In fact, pretty much all we know. We don't know how much they're going to cost. We also don't know how much it has cost or is going to cost the Government to get out of the original ship building contract. But this isn't about the politics today. The conversation today is about KiwiRail running just two ferries on Cook Strait for the next four years, and what that's going to mean. What it's going to mean for passengers, and what it's going to mean for people shifting freight up and down the country. Let's start with passengers: there's no doubt it's going to get more expensive to cross the Strait. That's just how business works. The Aratere does two crossings a day and can carry up to 400 passengers. So there's 800 passengers a day that won't be crossing. To be fair to KiwiRail, they are saying that they think the most impact on passengers will happen during the peak season. But, either way, it's only going to lead to increased prices and decreased reliability. Then there's the freight issue. There's already no shortage of people saying how unreliable the Interislander has become for them getting their products to and from the North and South Islands. I see that road freight lobby group Transporting New Zealand is saying that the Aratere going out of service will create more risk for freight. Chief Executive Dom Kalasih is saying today that it will be "fascinating” to see what happens with freight with no rail-enabled ferries. But it's not the lack of rail that's going to be an issue, because guess how much freight in New Zealand is carried on trucks? Ninety percent. And a lot of them will be trucking operators that cross Cook Strait on the Interislander, competing for space paying higher prices. And businesses paying more will mean everybody paying more. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Get ready for what we now know will be a winter of discontent after the announcement by Nicola Willis that she is slashing government spending. Which shows us once and for all, that the income tax cuts were a dreadful mistake. Because it's not just ideology driving these budget cuts - it's need. The Government has much less money coming in the door through taxation - which means it's got much less to spend. And, maybe conveniently, the Finance Minister's announcement yesterday came 48 hours before 5,000+ senior doctors go on strike wanting more pay. But if the Minister was watching the news last night, she would have seen people asked in the street what they thought she should focus her spending on in next month's budget. And it was clear, hands down, that most people thought it was health. And I'm the same. If there's one thing that affects us all in some way, shape or form - it's the state of the health system. I think the Government needs to take holistic view of the world when it comes to health and not just pour money into hospitals. But I think health spending or increased health spending needs to go into things from treating people who are really crook, people who need treatment to live productive and happy lives, but also things that help prevent people from getting unwell in the first place. The bigger issue for the Government though, aside from the state of the books, is maintaining public confidence. Winter is always the hardest time for us to keep our chin up and the Government will be aware of that. And no amount of cheerleading or writing-off its political opponents as moaners with no ambition is going to cut it anymore. Nor is some of the patronising talk we're hearing from the Finance Minister, who is at-risk of becoming as patronising as Jacinda Ardern was by the end of her tenure. We don't need to be told about household budgets and credit cards being declined to understand that the country is in the shtook. Just like we don't need patronising talk about Toyota Corolla ferries instead of Ferrari ferries. Even if you think Nicola Willis is the best thing since Ruth Richardson, you must be getting tired of some of the talk. The other thing that gets me is that a lot of people bang on about us needing governments with business experience. You know, successful people who know how to run a budget. But it always seems to me that when these so-called successful people do get into government, they do the complete opposite of what people expect them to do. For example: when you run a successful business, yes, you do keep an eye on costs. But there's another thing you do as well when you run a business: you try to get as much revenue in the door, as possible. But this government has done the complete opposite of that with its tax cuts. No one's better off. And the Government has way less money to spend. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Labour Leader is pushing back against criticism of emergency housing motels amid an increase in reports of concern to Oranga Tamariki. It estimates its seen a 45% increase in reports in the year to April, and data shows that as of March 31st, there were 1,391 children overdue to be given a social worker. Chris Hipkins is rebuking the idea the situation is a legacy of the previous Labour Government, telling John MacDonald that economic circumstances often result in a rise in negative statistics, as families are under a lot of financial pressure. He accepts this kind of thing builds over time, but an increase of this magnitude cannot solely be blamed on the previous government, and the current government has played a role. "If we've got more kids living on the streets and living in cars because they've booted everyone out of emergency accommodation and they're being referred to Oranga Tamariki as a result of that, which the government was told would happen, with their emergency accommodation policy, then yes, that is the government's responsibility." Motels were one of the Labour Party's emergency housing solutions, and Hipkins admits that it's not optimal, but it's better than having people living in cars or under bridges. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I reckon a lot of us in Canterbury won't be as excited as people elsewhere in the country about the Government's plan to let builders, plumbers and drainlayers sign-off their own work. I say that because of the bare-faced lies a lot of us were told by builders after the quakes. So this is going to apply to the construction of simple, standardised houses to try and reduce the need for so many council inspections and to speed-up building times. The Government reckons there's about 3,000 homes that will pop-up sooner through these changes. But the only way I'd be happy to even consider going along with this, would be if the Government listens to what the NZ Certified Builders organisation is saying. Malcolm Fleming heads it and while he thinks, overall, the Government is doing the right thing, he reckons the Government should go further and introduce a quality mark for builders. To give homeowners confidence that their builder is qualified to sign-off their own work. I think it's a brilliant idea. Before the earthquakes, we did quite a major renovation and I reckon, back then, I would have been quite happy for the builder to sign things off himself. He was an ex-detective. A great guy. And we didn't have any problems with him at all. But that was back in the day when I was a bit more trusting. Not now, though. Because from what we saw here in Canterbury, when there's the lure of money and cashflow and a need to keep your people busy, it can be pretty tempting for tradespeople to cut corners. And that's what I see this new scheme being. A licence to cut corners. There are very good and reliable and trustworthy builders, plumbers and drainlayers who probably think I need to get over it. And maybe I do. But, when you get to the point of dreading seeing anyone in a high vis top coming down your driveway because you've been stung one too many times, then I can't help feeling the way I do about this move by the Government. I won't be the only person in Canterbury feeling this way. I won't be the only person in the whole country feeling this way. Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk, though, thinks he's onto a winner. He's saying: “Making it easier and more affordable to build would open the door to home ownership for more kiwis and support growth and job creation in the construction sector.” He says: “We can't achieve this vision while the building consent system remains slow and overloaded. Even simple, single-storey homes must go through around 12 inspections before they're finished, with costly delays when demand is high. “At a time when many kiwis are locked out of the housing market, that's simply not good enough.” But what I would say to that, is that failing to learn from past mistakes isn't good enough, either. And, surely, if we have learned anything from Canterbury's earthquake recovery experience it's this. That, when it comes to building, more safeguards are needed - not less.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I reckon a lot of us in Canterbury won't be as excited as people elsewhere in the country about the Government's plan to let builders, plumbers and drainlayers sign-off their own work. I say that because of the bare faced lies a lot of us were told by builders after the quakes. So this is going to apply to the construction of simple, standardised houses to try and reduce the need for so many council inspections and to speed-up building times. The Government reckons there's about 3,000 homes that will pop-up sooner through these changes. But the only way I'd be happy to even consider going along with this, would be if the Government listens to what the NZ Certified Builders organisation is saying. Malcolm Fleming heads it and while he thinks, overall, the Government is doing the right thing, he reckons the Government should go further and introduce a quality mark for builders. To give homeowners confidence that their builder is qualified to sign-off their own work. I think it's a brilliant idea. Before the earthquakes we did quite a major renovation and I reckon, back then, I would have been quite happy for the builder to sign things off himself. He was an ex-detective. A great guy. And we didn't have any problems with him at all. But that was back in the day when I was a bit more trusting. Not now, though. Because from what we saw here in Canterbury, when there's the lure of money and cashflow and a need to keep your people busy, it can be pretty tempting for tradespeople to cut corners. And that's what I see this new scheme being. A licence to cut corners. There are very good and reliable and trustworthy builders, plumbers and drainlayers who probably think I need to get over it. And maybe I do. But, when you get to the point of dreading seeing anyone in a high vis top coming down your driveway because you've been stung one too many times, then I can't help feeling the way I do about this move by the Government. I won't be the only person in Canterbury feeling this way. I won't be the only person in the whole country feeling this way. Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk, though, thinks he's onto a winner. He's saying: “Making it easier and more affordable to build would open the door to home ownership for more Kiwis and support growth and job creation in the construction sector.” He says: “We can't achieve this vision while the building consent system remains slow and overloaded. Even simple, single-storey homes must go through around 12 inspections before they're finished, with costly delays when demand is high. “At a time when many Kiwis are locked out of the housing market, that's simply not good enough.” But what I would say to that is that failing to learn from past mistakes isn't good enough, either. And, surely, if we have learned anything from Canterbury's earthquake recovery experience it's this. That, when it comes to building, more safeguards are needed - not less.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I've surprised myself with my reaction to this plan to open a bottle store right across the road from the bus interchange, in central Christchurch. But I think it's a terrible idea. And it's a gut thing. Seeing all the stuff that goes on in the central city, my gut tells me that that's probably the last place you'd want a bottle store. I'm surprised by the way that I feel about it because, normally, I'd probably look at this proposal and think that if people are going to buy booze, they'll buy booze. And, normally, I'd probably say that there's already booze available in town, so why have a problem with a bottle store? But I'm different on this one. And I'm not alone. The police. Health bosses. They're all against it. So is Liz Gordon, who is with the Communities Against Alcohol Harm group. She says the bus interchange is one of the most crime-ridden areas in the country and it's not an appropriate location for a bottle store. I don't know about that claim about the interchange being one of the worst places in the country for crime. But I agree with her with that it's not the area to have a bottle store. She's also opposing another proposed bottle store just down the road on the ground floor of an apartment block on the corner of Manchester and Cashel streets. And I'm with her on that one too. Where this has come from, is the owners of the Fresh Choice supermarket in The Crossing want to open-up a bottle store next door to their existing business. I know the people who are pro the bottle store will say that there's an alcohol ban in the centre of town so it's not as if people would be able to buy alcohol and start guzzling it outside. My response to that would be, yes, there is an alcohol ban. But there's also a ban on people having their dog in town with no lead - but people still do it. All sorts of things are banned - but people still do them. And it's not as if there's a dire shortage of places to buy alcohol in the centre of town. Another person opposed to the new bottle shop is Medical Officer of Health Dr Cheryl Brunton. She says there are already 10 other off-licence locations within one kilometre of the proposed site and 19 locations in close proximity where drinks can be bought over-the-bar. The argument in favour of the bottle store is that there are way more people living in the central city these days and it makes sense to be able to buy the type of alcohol that you can't get at the supermarkets. So your spirits and your RTDs. And I get that argument. But there's enough going on - particularly in that part of the central city - without needing to add a bottle shop into the mix. It's being reported today that, in their licence application, the supermarket owners say they don't anticipate any alcohol-related problems from the bottle store, if they get approval to open it. But they would say that, wouldn't they? As if they'd say anything different.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Is it ever-so-slightly ironic that, on the same day that the first highway in the South Island had its speed limit increased to 110 kph, we had the Government announce that it wants to make it easier for people to get their driver's licence? The highway is the main drag that runs between Christchurch and Rolleston. And the proposed driver licence changes are a range of things to make it easier and quicker for someone to get their full licence. There's some good stuff in there. But I'm not liking this idea of doing away with the second practical test. We've got a few weeks to tell the Government what we think of its ideas through a consultation phase that starts today. There are some good things in the plan. I like the idea of new drivers having to behave themselves if they want to graduate to their full licence. The Government wants to halve the number of demerit points new drivers can get before having their licence suspended. At the moment, it's 100. The Government wants to reduce that down to 50 demerit points. I like the idea of zero alcohol for all new drivers. At the moment, this only applies to new drivers under 20. The Government wants to apply that rule to new drivers - whatever their age. So they're some of the good ideas. But this idea of only having one practical test, instead of two - it doesn't get my tick. And I know Transport Minister Chris Bishop is saying New Zealand is a bit isolated in that regard. But doing something just because it's the way everyone else does it has never been a great justification for anything. Just like it's not a great justification in this case. Because when someone is starting out as a driver, surely that's the time when you want every opportunity to iron out any bad habits. Because, like any bad habit, the sooner you nip it in the bud - the better. But under this proposal, a person would have one practical test to get their restricted licence and never be tested again until they're well past retirement age. Here's Transport Minister Chris Bishop's explanation as to why the Government is doing this. He's saying today: "We've heard for a while now that the system just hasn't been working as efficiently as people would like, and that there are particularly young people out there who are really reluctant to go and get their full licence because it is stressful, it is anxiety-inducing, and it is costly as well.” Stressful and anxiety-inducing? Don't you think that, when it comes to something as important as a driver's licence, feeling a bit stressed about it is a good thing? That might just be me. But there's probably a truckload of things we could do away with on the basis that they cause stress and anxiety for people. And, surely, if someone does one practical driving test - they're going to be just as stressed about that one. So I don't see how reducing it from two is going to address that issue. Remember too that, apparently, having a driver's licence is a privilege - not an entitlement. But, for me, the overarching reason why the two practical tests need to stay, comes down to bad habits. Anyone who drives has bad habits. There is no perfect driver out there. And, whether we've been driving for 12 months or 12 years, we all have bad habits. I surprised a few people when I told them that I sat-in on the practical driving tests two of our kids did. You can do that - you sit in the back if you promise not to say anything. And when I did that, I was amazed to find from the examiner some of the things that you can be failed for. And there were some of those things that I do all the time. And that's why the second practical test is so necessary. Because it's an opportunity for someone to have any bad habits they might have developed while on their restricted licence pointed out to them. Especially if it's a bad habit that leads to them failing their practical test. If they fail, they'll remember. And I think we'd be making a serious mistake if we took away this backstop, if you like, from the driver licence system. Just because it causes a bit of stress and anxiety. And just because it makes it a bit more expensive. Unless, of course, you think a driver's licence is nothing more than a rite of passage. Unless you think that a licence is an entitlement, not a privilege. Making it easier for someone to get their full licence and doing away with the second practical test doesn't sound like a privilege to me. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's a lack of enthusiasm for a ferry service between Wellington and Lyttelton. According to Local Democracy Reporting, Waimakariri Mayor Dan Gordon believes the Government should consider reinstating the service, which ran from 1895 to 1976. National Party's Vanessa Weenink told John MacDonald the idea is harking back to the old days. She says she's unsure what the business case would be, and is unsure if it would work out. Labour's Tracey McLellan says it's a romanticised idea. She told MacDonald she can't see this one working, and it's still taking three years to get the Cook Strait Ferries sorted. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Treaty Principles Bill is history. Done and dusted. But ACT leader David Seymour, who came up with the bill in the first place, has no regrets. And it's not done and dusted, as far as he's concerned. He could bring it back again. But I think what he's most likely to do is make it a campaign issue in next year's general election, or try to get a more explicit equality provision in the Bill of Rights Act. All he's saying is: “I accepted that they've decided on this particular bill at this point in time.” Going on to say: “watch this space”. But whatever happens in the future, the questions at this point are: was the whole thing worth it? And did we learn anything? I tell you what I've learned – although, it's probably something that I knew anyway. But what I've taken away from all this is that, wherever we are on the political spectrum, we are not as open to new ideas as much as we might like to think so. The Treaty Principles Bill got those on the left extremely agitated and excited. Just like 3 Waters got those on the right extremely agitated and excited. I was against it because I think any agreement shouldn't be tinkered with – especially when you get Parliament poking its nose in and tinkering with it. And that's what the Treaty is. It's an agreement. The real problem is how the Treaty has been interpreted and used. For example: I'm against the Treaty being used to influence criminal sentences. I'm against the Treaty being used as a reason not to hire the best person for the job. But that's not the Treaty's fault. That's the fault of the institutions and the organisations and the individuals who have enabled that to happen. Because let's say the Treaty Principles Bill hadn't been binned yesterday and it went through all the stages and ended up being law, do you really think it would have made things any better or any different? Because the idea behind it —as David Seymour is still saying today— was to ensure everyone is treated equally. But what does “treated equally” mean? I bet we've all got different ideas of what that is. For example, if the Treaty principles were changed in the way David Seymour wants them to be, what's to stop a judge (for example) seeing this so-called “equal treatment” being a licence to give a lighter sentence to someone from a disadvantaged background? So for me, the focus needs to be much more on how the treaty principles are applied, not the principles themselves. As to whether it's been worth the effort and whether it's been a waste of time – at this point, I think it has been a huge waste of time, energy, and money. But it won't have been a waste if we do learn from this and realise that it's not the Treaty itself but the way that it's applied that's the real issue. If we're big enough —even those of us who opposed David Seymour's bill— to see that we have learned something out of the process, then it won't have been a waste. But as I say, this whole thing has shown me again how incapable we are —as a country— of having the so-called “grown up conversations” David Seymour thinks we should be having. And if we can't get beyond that, then there's no doubt this whole thing has been a complete waste of time. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's a lack of enthusiasm for a ferry service between Wellington and Lyttelton. According to Local Democracy Reporting, Waimakariri Mayor Dan Gordon believes the Government should consider reinstating the service, which ran from 1895 to 1976. National Party's Vanessa Weenink told John MacDonald the idea is harking back to the old days. She says she's unsure what the business case would be, and is unsure if it would work out. Labour's Tracey McLellan says it's a romanticised idea. She told MacDonald she can't see this one working, and it's still taking three years to get the Cook Strait Ferries sorted. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.