Canterbury Mornings with Chris Lynch

Buckingham Palace has announced that King Charles will remove all of his brother, Prince Andrew's, titles. The statement from Buckingham Palace related the announcement to the allegations of sexual abuse by the late Virginia Giuffre. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor's title will not be immediately stripped as UK Correspondent Gavin Grey said the process of removing his titles "will take some time". LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ever since the 1930s, when American soldiers were based all around the world, people in many countries have been antsy about foreigners getting what appears to them to be special treatment or privileges. The phrase people used back in the day about the US soldiers was something along the lines of them being overdressed, overpaid, oversexed and over here. And the Government seems to be tapping into the same kind of sentiment with this crackdown on employers not following the rules when they want to hire workers from overseas. That some employers are going straight to taking-on migrant workers without even trying to find locals to do the work first. Which they're supposed to do or required to do. Immigration Minister Erica Stanford is saying today that, if employers don't follow the rules and don't prioritise hiring New Zealanders, then they can forget about being allowed to hire anyone from overseas ever again. She says, since we started giving out accredited work visas to migrant workers three years ago, there are 20,000 more unemployed New Zealanders. “We have New Zealanders who are desperate for jobs and they need to be given the first opportunity for those." Which I think will go down like a cup of the old proverbial with some employers, who will say they should be allowed to employ whoever they want from wherever they want. And that's a view I agree with. It's something they've been pushing back against for years. But where the Government's current concern stems from, is the number of employers who aren't telling Work & Income that they're on the lookout for staff. When they should be. That's because they're not even interested in hiring locals and just want migrant workers. Erica Stanford says more than one-in-six employers just want to employ migrants without considering local workers. From the perspective of someone who is unemployed and needing work, I can see how that would be frustrating. But does that mean that we should be forcing employers to give locals work over people from overseas? It's a bit rich of the Government to say that we need to turn the education system on its head so young New Zealanders can grow up and be ready to work anywhere in the world; but then, when it comes to people from other countries coming to work here, we go all protectionist on it. Employers themselves certainly think they should be free to hire whoever they want. They've been saying that since 2016, when the-then National government announced changes to “put kiwis first in line for jobs”. Anne Tolley was the social development minister at the time and she said: “The Government is committed to getting more New Zealanders into work by ensuring they are first in line for jobs.” Which is the exact same thing Erica Stanford is saying today. But I bet it won't sound any better to employers today than it did nearly 10 years ago. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Do we need more MPs? The NZ Initiative thinks we do - saying today that, instead of 120, we should have 170. It says the number of MPs in New Zealand is low compared to other countries with similar populations and we need 50 more to keep them accessible to voters. Another thing it's calling for is a four-year parliamentary term. That's a no-brainer, as far as I'm concerned. But 50 more MPs? No thanks. However, I do think some change is needed because of the size of some of our electorates. Which is essentially why the NZ Initiative is advocating for more MPs. But I think a much better option would be to have less list MPs and more electorate MPs. Because, you think about the size of some electorates - the West Coast is a prime example - I've always thought it's crazy that one electorate MP has to represent and cover such a huge area. The Te Tai Tonga Maori seat is another one. One MP has to cover the whole South Island - as well as Stewart Island, the Chatham Islands, Wellington City and the Hutt Valley. The reason the NZ Initiative is making this call today, is because it's reviewed the last 30 years under the MMP voting system. And its two key points are the parliamentary term and the number of MPs. Senior Fellow Nick Clark says the three-year term is too short for effective long-term policymaking. He says: "By the time a government finds its feet and starts implementing policy, it is already thinking about the next election. A four-year term would give governments time to develop coherent long-term policies." No argument from me there. He also says our parliament - with 120 MPs - is about 30 percent smaller than international benchmarks say it should be. So he says get 50 more. He also thinks we need less cabinet ministers and reckons 15 would be enough. But I reckon he's going to be pushing it uphill to sell his idea of more politicians. I'm not sold. Far from it. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour had their Capital Gains Tax policy leaked earlier this week. The tax would only apply to residential and commercial property sales, not any other taxable areas. A decision which has led some to question if this is really a Capital Gains Tax. Labour leader Chris Hipkins had previously said that there would be no Capital Gains Tax under his leadership. However, he told John MacDonald that, 'after the election when we lost, I said, well, everything goes back on the table.' LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

So another ham-fisted announcement from the Labour Party. In fact, it wasn't even an announcement. Because of a leak, it was forced this morning to confirm its plan to include a capital gains tax in its policies for next year's election. Which looks to me like a very watered-down, scaredy-cat version of a capital gains tax that won't impress many. Because, if they were serious, they'd apply it to everything. None of these exclusions. Which I'll get to. Another fly in the ointment - aside from all the exclusions and the leak - is what the money from the tax would be used on. Three free doctor's visits a year for all of us. Which I think would create more problems than it would be worth. So, if Labour forms the next government, it will introduce a capital gains tax that, if it's to be believed, would only apply to what seems like a very short list of things. There'd be no capital gains on the sale of the family home and there'd be no capital gains on the sale of farms. But there would be a capital gains tax on the sale of rental properties and commercial properties. So the farmers would be happy and the landlords - residential and commercial - would be brassed-off. There would also be no capital gains tax on KiwiSaver, shares, business assets, inheritances, and personal items. Which, Labour says, would mean 90 percent of us not paying any tax on any property we own and all of us getting three free doctor's visits a year. That's because the revenue from this new tax would be funnelled straight into the health system But has Labour really thought it through? Because, as soon as you start telling people they can go to the doctor for free three times a year, what chance do you think they'll actually be able to get an appointment with everyone doing the same? What's more, Labour says “one in six New Zealanders cannot afford to visit their doctor when they are sick.” So why aren't they targetting those people? Why would you give free doctor's visits to the five-out-of-six who can afford to go to the doctor? That's why this tax proposal is Labour's second-worst policy idea in the last few years, coming a very close second to the non-sensical, last-minute GST-off-fruit-and-vegetables idea it cooked up before the last election. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Politics Friday, National MP and former doctor Vanessa Weenink, and Labour's Tracey Lee McLellan join John MacDonald to delve into the biggest topics of the week. They discuss the Government response to yesterday's wind storm, the mega-strike, the end of home economics and outdoor education in schools, political involvement in the Netball NZ debacle, and Labour's future funding policy. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What happened to the emergency mobile alert system ahead of and during yesterday's wind storm? One explanation for the absence of text alerts from one government MP is that, with the power out in places, the cell towers weren't working. But the power wasn't out in Christchurch city and there were still no alerts on my phone. What's more, the power only went out once the wind hit - well after the Emergency Management Minister pre-emptively declared a state of emergency on Wednesday afternoon. So, there are questions to be answered. I also think that, from the outset, the state of emergency shouldn't have been limited to Canterbury. If you look around the South Island, there are areas that have been hit just as hard - if not worse - than some areas in Canterbury. The Emergency Management Minister declared an emergency in Southland this morning. But it should have happened sooner. Then there are the people who question the need for such a response. I'm not sure if it was just the state of emergency that made things so quiet in town yesterday or whether it was the state of the emergency plus the mega-strike. Odds on, it was the state of emergency. Which one Christchurch business owner isn't happy about. They think it was overkill including Christchurch because the city wasn't as badly-affected as other parts of the region and their takings were down 50 percent because of it. It was like a tale of two Canterburys yesterday. We had trees coming down and that fire at Hanmer Springs. Whereas, in Christchurch, I think a lot of us were wondering when it was going to hit. The wind picked up at times. But, overall, Christchurch got off pretty lightly. Nevertheless, I disagree that the city shouldn't have been included in the state of emergency. Because who knew the wind was going to behave the way it did? With that wall of wind that was heading towards the city yesterday morning splitting into two and skirting around the city. That's why I'll always support the “better safe than sorry” approach. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Canterbury Civil Defence Controller James Thompson joined John MacDonald on Canterbury Mornings with the latest information we need to know ahead of today's expected damaging wind storm. The region is under a red wind warning locally, along with parts of the Southern North Island. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Waimakariri Mayor Dan Gordon joined John MacDonald to get the latest from their district on storm preparation and damage. There are also reports that people set off fireworks in the area last night. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Minister for the South Island is ducking for cover. I probably would be too, if I was him. Because he knows it's going to be very difficult to defend the pitiful share the South Island is getting from the Government's latest $1.2billion funding round for new roads and roading upgrades. The south island has been virtually shut out, with just 6 percent of the money going to projects here. The Hope Bypass, near Nelson, is the only one south of Cook Strait. With no mention of making State Highway 1 north and south of Christchurch four lanes, which regional leaders say is needed. Leann Watson from Business Canterbury is saying that, considering the South Island's contribution to New Zealand's economy, it doesn't sound fair. And she's spot on. In fact, I think she's being generous. It's a rip-off. Tell that to Transport Minister Chris Bishop, though, who says the Government can't do everything at once and needs to prioritise roading projects. But there's at least one road in the South Island that needs to be given much higher priority - which everyone seems to have been banging-on about for ages. State Highway 1 between Christchurch and Ashburton is an absolute shocker. It's a stretch that South Island Minister James Meagher will know only too well. How many times do you reckon he's driven on that road since becoming an MP and since becoming the minister who's supposed to be in Wellington advocating for us? The guy who seems to have gone to ground and who hasn't been available to respond to media inquiries about this South Island road funding debacle. No wonder he hasn't been available. Because it is indefensible. At least the transport minister is fronting. Not only saying that the Government can't do everything at once but also saying that the roads that have got funding - 94 percent of them in the North Island - are getting the green light because they are what he calls “top priority corridors”. He says they're top priority because they will boost freight movement, increase safety and lead to economic growth. But let's just test that. Would a 4-lane highway between Christchurch and Ashburton already boost freight movement? Of course, it would. What about safety? Would a 4-lane highway be safer, compared to the 2-lane goat track we've got at the moment? That's a no-brainer. And what about economic growth? Would a 4-lane highway between Christchurch and Ashburton do good things for the economy? Do I even need to answer that one? The Government's argument for 94 percent of this new road funding going to the North Island doesn't stack up. LISTEN ABOVE Note: Minister Meager did issue a statement - however it was not initially reported. See below the Minister's full statement: “I'm very pleased with yesterday's confirmation of a near $1.2 billion for the next stage of our Roads of National Significance (RoNS) programme. “The Hope Bypass project is significant for the South Island. SH6 is a vital connection for our people and goods to get around, and this bypass will help boost economic growth in Nelson Tasman. It will also bring wider economic benefits for the region; through the jobs the project will create. “It's important to note yesterday's update is just one part of the Government's ongoing infrastructure work programme. “Developments continue on the Belfast to Pegasus and Woodend Bypass (a RoNS), with a FTAA application being worked through currently. “The South Island is also well-represented with six projects in the Roads of Regional Significance (RoRS) work programme, with the Queenstown upgrade package and five Canterbury RoRs: SH76 Brougham Street Upgrades S75 Halswell Road Improvements SH1 Rolleston Access Improvements The second Ashburton Bridge “We've also committed to important South Island roading infrastructure outside of the RoNs and RoRs programmes, like a replacement bridge for Christchurch's Pages Road, which I announced $38.5 million of Government funding for in August.” See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Some days you hear about something which absolutely beggars belief. Today is one of those days. You hear about something that makes you wonder what the hell has happened to society. Sometimes it can be overseas. Or it can be something here in New Zealand. Today is one of those days. Because I am blown away by this coroner's report which has just come out, into the death of a four-year-old girl in a public fountain in Tauranga in May 2023. Coroners are quite measured in the words they use and coroner Matthew Bates is no different, saying today that he's “troubled” by a particular aspect of this tragedy. I'm reading that as code for “appalled”. Because, even though four people could see four-year-old Nia Lohchab lying face down in the water, not one of them did anything to get her out. The coroner knows that because CCTV footage shows there were four people near the fountain, but not one of them did anything. One of them got on their phone - presumably calling emergency services - but then left her in the water. The coroner says it's unlikely that the outcome would have been any different if they had got her out. But what does it say about our society? What does it say about us? To put it bluntly, it tells me that we've become a bunch of lamos. What other conclusion can you come to? So Nia was at Memorial Park, in Tauranga, with her grandfather and her younger sister just over two years ago. It was three days before her fifth birthday. She ran towards the fountain and her little sister ran in a different direction. So the grandfather went after the younger child first, as most people would. That was just after 20-to-10 in the morning. At 9:49AM, a member of the public called emergency services saying there was a child face down in the water. But neither that person, nor three others in the area, did anything to get her out. Four minutes later, police arrived, found her motionless, got her out, started giving CPR, but they couldn't save her. In his report, coroner Matthew Bates says - of the four people near the fountain at the time - at least three of them were clearly aware that NIa was there and that she was lying face down in the water. And they left her there. What the hell have we come to? He says he is “troubled by the fact that none of the members of the public who observed nia face down and motionless in the water removed her from the fountain immediately”. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised. Because here's another example of how lame people have got when it comes to helping out. A chap was driving near The Palms shopping mall, in Christchurch, the other week and was T-boned by another driver. After the crash, not one person came to check he was ok. Some people in the gym came outside to have a look. Then went back inside. No one came to help or, at the very least, check if he needed any help. So maybe we shouldn't be surprised that people who saw this little girl lying face down in the fountain did nothing to get her out. But it is appalling and it shows how we have become a society that doesn't care as much as it used to. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government is really spooked by this week's mega strike. With about 100,000 people expected to walk off the job on Thursday. If it wasn't spooked, we wouldn't have Public Service Minister Judith Collins writing this open letter to patients, students and families affected by the doctors, nurses, teachers, prison staff and other healthcare workers going on strike. It's a letter which, I think, ups the ante on the serve Health Minister Simeon Brown gave doctors last week over their involvement. Because what Judith Collins says in the letter, aside from how much the Government regrets the impact the strike is going to have on people - which it is, she's encouraging parents to do, what I would describe as, harassment of teachers. She's saying to parents - especially those with younger kids who are going to have to make alternative arrangements for the day because they can't leave the young ones at home on their own - that they should quiz teachers about the timing of their action. Why they're striking in a week when many schools already have teacher-only days and on a day so close to the Labour Day holiday on Monday. And I think this is so wrong. Because, if you've ever had kids at school, you will know that quite a few parents don't need any encouragement to have a go at the teachers. You always hear stories about parents hounding teachers about this and that. And, every now and then, you hear stories about people quitting teaching altogether because of the relentless hassle they get from parents. And the Government, with this open letter, is just encouraging more of that. It's calling the mega strike “politically-motivated”. But the Government stands accused of the exact same thing with this open letter. As well as the outburst last week from the Health Minister. One of the reasons the Government thinks it's politically-motivated is the secondary teachers union wanting to discuss Palestine when it met with the Education Minister. That was just dumb and didn't do their cause any good. But the Government just needs to accept that the mega strike is happening and it needs to stop this attack on people who are doing nothing illegal. They're fully within their rights to strike and this harassment has to stop. If you heard me last week criticising the firefighters for striking, because I thought it put us at unnecessary risk, then you might think it's a bit rich of me to be having a go at the Government today. The difference is, I'm not a government minister. More importantly, though, I wasn't encouraging anyone to confront the firefighters. Far from it. But that's what the Public Service Minister is doing. The teachers shouldn't have to defend themselves to nagging parents and the Government shouldn't be egging them on. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Opposition Leader's again expressing concern about Te Pati Maori, but not yet ruling out working with them. Toxic culture claims by Eru Kapa-Kingi were followed by the party releasing documents accusing him of threatening Parliamentary staffers. They also show his mother, recently demoted Whip MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, was warned about risking budget overspend. Chris Hipkins says it's clear Te Pati Māori has some internal issues to work through before they'd be in a position to form a government. Chris Hipkins told John MacDonald any decisions about whether or not they'd form a coalition with Te Pati Māori will come closer to the election, as an awful lot can happen between now and then. However, he says, if there was an election today, he'd say they're not in a position at the moment to play a constructive role in future government. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Isn't it weird that, in the past 25 years, we have spent millions and millions and millions of dollars on road safety campaigns, but there have, generally, been no changes in that time to the penalties handed out for bad and dangerous driving? I tried to find out exactly how much has been spent, but I realised that was quite ambitious. Nevertheless, I can safely say that it's hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, ChatGPT reckons it's somewhere between $2.5 billion and $3.5 billion. It's probably way more than that. Either way, we've spent billions over the past 25 years trying to make people aware of the consequences of bad and dangerous driving, but many of the fines and penalties for drivers breaking the law haven't changed. And the AA wants that rectified. I'm not saying don't do it, but I'm not convinced that that would make much difference when it comes to what actually happens on the roads and how drivers behave. Aside from the money spent on road safety campaigns, let's also not forget the gazillions spent on cleaning up the mess after road crashes. ACC, hospital costs, ongoing care for people – it's estimated that that comes to about $10 billion a year. So, in the past 25 years, billions have been spent trying to educate drivers and dealing with the consequences of road crashes. But in that time, not much has changed when it comes to penalties. Which is why the AA's road safety spokesperson Dylan Thomsen is saying today that, at the very least, fines should be doubled across the board to make up for inflation, and fines automatically adjusted for inflation on an ongoing basis. He says: "We need to bring these penalties back up so they work to make drivers think twice about taking risks on the road or breaking the rules because right now they're not doing that." I agree that they're not working, but I don't agree that harsher penalties would make a difference. Because when people are muppets out on the road, they don't even think twice about the penalties, let alone the consequences. The AA thinks differently, and reckons the changes need to focus on the types of offences that cause the most carnage on the roads. Which are: people driving drunk or stoned, people not wearing seatbelts, people driving too fast, and people being distracted by things like mobile phones. Dylan Thomsen is saying that the AA, generally, wants fines to double but thinks the penalties for these particular offences might have to be increased more than that to really make a difference. The fine for using your phone while driving would certainly need to be more than doubled if we were to get anywhere close to the fines dished out in parts of Australia. In New South Wales, if you're caught using your phone while driving, you're fined $350 - or $470 if it's in a school zone. In Western Australia, it's a $1,000 fine. Here, it's $150 and 20 demerit points. Dylan Thomsen points to a recent survey of AA members which found that most of them don't think our fines are effective. Less than 50% said they thought the fines dished out for things like speeding and using a cellphone driving were tough enough to change behaviour. But do you really think harsher fines would change these behaviours? I don't. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I'm right behind the call being made today for helmets to be made mandatory at recreational ice skating and roller skating rinks. For it to be a legal requirement that if you want to go and have a skate with your mates, you have to wear a helmet. Because if it's good enough for helmets to be compulsory on bikes, then why isn't it good enough for helmets to be mandatory when someone's on a set of skates? When you think about it, you are far more likely to ride a bike than go to an ice skating rink or a roller skating rink. Which, surely, means that skating is way more risky. So helmets have to be non-negotiable. In fact, I'd go beyond just ice skating rinks and roller skating rinks, I think we should be doing the same at the likes of ski fields and skate parks. But back to the tragic death of 13-year-old Kymani Hiley-Hetaraka during a school visit to the Alpine Ice Skating Rink in Christchurch 15 months ago. Her sister was also on the trip and the two of them were skating together when Kymani —who wasn't wearing a helmet— fell and hit her head. She was, initially, able to speak and she asked her sister to get her some Panadol. But she then started having a seizure, was taken to hospital, and died two days later after being taken off life support. Since the tragedy the rink has voluntarily made helmets mandatory. But there is no law requiring it and Kymani's parents —Curtis Gwatkin and Maraea Hetaraka— think that needs to change. They're saying today that they want the Government to make helmets mandatory at all recreational ice skating and roller skating rinks. And I couldn't agree more. They're speaking out because, initially, they wanted to wait for WorkSafe to do its investigation, thinking that someone would be prosecuted. But that didn't happen. WorkSafe found that there were no health and safety breaches by the ice-skating rink. No breaches by Kymani's school. And no breaches by the external organisation contracted by the school to run the trip. But that's not good enough as far as Curtis and Maraea are concerned. They say it's left them feeling frustrated and angry, and who can blame them? They're determined to keep fighting on this one and plan to start a petition to try and force the Government to make helmets mandatory at all ice skating and roller skating rinks. It's a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you voted in this year's local body elections, congratulations. You can consider yourself a member of a very exclusive club. Because, this year, voter turnout around the country was the lowest it's been in 36 years. Which is pitiful. So pitiful that I don't even think my idea of having just one main voting day - like we have for central government elections - would make much of a difference. In fact, I think there's only one way to fix it. Something which has already been tried somewhere else with immediate results. Because something needs to be done. Because local councils matter. They have far more influence on our daily lives than central government ever will. Our councils are responsible for the roads we drive on everyday. They're responsible for getting the rubbish collected and getting water services to our houses and making sure the sewers work properly. They run our libraries. All sorts of things that we use and rely on every day. Our councils are the majority owners of key infrastructure services. Christchurch City Council, for example, has the airport, the Port at Lyttelton, the Orion electricity lines company and others. Not worth taking an interest in who is leading these outfits? Or having an influence in who is leading these outfits? Sixty-eight percent of us don't think so. Talk about apathy. Andrew Geddis - who is a political scientist at the University of Otago - reckons that one of the main reasons for the low turnout is that the voting period is just way too long. And people just forget about the voting papers sitting on the kitchen bench. He also points out the benefit of having one main voting day - like we do in the central government elections. I used to think the same. But I see only one solution. Which is something people talk about in relation to central government elections. But I think we need it for local government too. Compulsory voting. Because, after this pitiful turnout in this year's elections, we need a kick up the jacksy - and making it compulsory to vote is the only way to achieve that. In Australia, compulsory voting in federal elections was introduced in 1924 and, since then, voter turnout has never fallen below 90 percent. More relevant, though, is what they've done in Tasmania. Three years ago, Tasmania made voting in local government elections compulsory, as well. And just like compulsory voting in federal elections sorted out the low participation problem, the same thing happened in Tasmania with their local body elections. In just one election, voter turnout increased by 44.6 percent. Councils in Tasmania have four-year terms - so the 2022 turnout is the most recent example. But it shows you, doesn‘t it, how compulsory voting in local body elections works. And how it could work just as well here. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Shihad frontman Jon Toogood joined John MacDonald ahead of the Christchurch Full Metal Orchestra concert. He talked about performing with Phil Rudd of ACDC, his passion for heavy music and the joy it brings the crowds, and how his health has become a priority in his later years. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Phil Mauger has been re-elected as Mayor of Christchurch. He joined us on the show following his win, and discussed the key issues he wants to focus on. Where will cut debt? Who will be his deputy? And does he think Wayne Brown is correct that Auckland is our only international city? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christchurch's incumbent mayor believes debt is the Council's biggest challenge. Phil Mauger says if re-elected he's committed to tackling the Garden's City's growing debt by selling off assets like the Lichfield Street carpark. Mauger told John MacDonald the current debt level is $2.5 billion, and he wants it under control. He says 25 cents of every rate dollar goes into debt servicing, and he wants that money spent on more things to benefit the city. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I support the NZ Drug Foundation's push to decriminalise drug use and drug possession. The key point here is “use” and “possession”. It's not saying let the dealers and manufacturers away with it, it's saying we need to take a much more compassionate approach and treat drug users as people in need of help, instead of treating them as criminals. I'm picking your response will probably be determined by your exposure to drugs or experience with drugs. By that I mean whether your life has been affected in any way. I reckon that if someone close to me got hooked on meth, for example, then I'd definitely be wanting the law to take a more compassionate view. Because I know that I wouldn't see them as criminals, I'd see them as someone needing help. Whereas if my life was impacted negatively in any way by a meth head —for example, if someone high on meth had attacked me in the street or broken into my home— then I might not be quite so compassionate. But if I listen to what the Drug Foundation has to say, then maybe a more compassionate approach would mean less drug addicts attacking people in the street and less drug addicts committing crimes to get money for their drugs. Because here's what it says about that in its report: It says we should decriminalise personal possession and use of drugs —including drug utensils— because evidence from overseas shows that a system where people get help —and aren't treated as criminals— even when they continue using their drug of choice... it says there is evidence that it works. In Switzerland for example, where it has what's called “heroin-assisted treatments”, less people have died from overdoses and there is less drug-related crime. Another example the foundation gives in its report is Canada, where there are signs that its “safer supply programmes” are reducing the number of drug overdoses and helping drug users lead more stable lives. So why wouldn't you give it a go? But it wants it done in parallel with a whole lot of money being poured into health and harm reduction services. Which, no matter what your views on our drug laws are, is a no-brainer. You'll remember how, late last year, it was revealed that cocaine use in New Zealand is at an all-time high and methamphetamine consumption has doubled. And with people using more cocaine and meth, they're at much greater risk of things like psychosis and heart issues. So, either way, there's going to be some sort of financial burden on the health system at some point, isn't there? So why not turn things on their head? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Is it good enough that the victim of a nasty assault in Christchurch has had to hound the police for four weeks to find out what's going on with their investigation? This is someone who lost several teeth in the assault which happened in broad daylight inside The Palms shopping mall. Is it good enough? He and his family don't think so, saying today that it's left them feeling like they're the bad guys, when all they've wanted is to know what's going on. I'll come back to his story. And another one. But is it good enough? I don't think it is. But even though Canterbury Police have ditched their restructuring plans which would have had less cops based in areas like Amberley and Culverden and more cops based in growth areas like Rangiora and Rolleston, I don't see things changing anytime soon. The police obviously didn't bank on Federated Farmers getting fired up and organising public meetings, which led to 1,000 submissions against the proposals, which have now been ditched. But while Federated Farmers and people in places like Amberley and Culverden will be happy, it doesn't solve the problem for everyone else in Canterbury. The problem being: there's not enough cops. Which brings me back to the guy who was punched in the chops in broad daylight by a woman at The Palms four weeks ago. Matt Sherwood is his name. He's a baker —he runs his own business— and he was at the mall selling his products when a woman he didn't know put her groceries down on his table. He said “g'day” to her and she muttered something. But then went and opened a can of drink that started to fizz everywhere. All over Matt's stall. And, within seconds, she was yelling “f*** you man” and she hit him in the face. He lost six teeth and has been to the dentist multiple times, which has cost him thousands of dollars. But the bit that has left him really frustrated is the way he's had to hound the police for information. He's saying today: “Every single sort of point we get to, it's just like it's forced. I feel like I've done something wrong all the time. I would have liked some sort of timeline, and just to keep up with stuff and (have them) contact me and tell me the time frame.” The exact same story for someone else we've heard about. This person was assaulted in a public place, called the police the next day, and had to chase them for two weeks to get an initial phone conversation. After that, they had no further contact and after following up repeatedly, was eventually told by a police officer that they were “needy and desperate”. They felt that, as the victim, the onus was on them to chase the police, instead of the police coming to them. Which has left them feeling that their experience was minimised and that they weren't a priority. This is nowhere near good enough, in my book. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has had a gutsful. And I don't blame him. I'd be the same if I had protesters outside my place and especially if I had a window smashed, which is what happened at his Auckland home last night. And I reckon the time has well and truly come for us to decide where it is appropriate for people to protest, and where it isn't. Outside people's homes is a no-no for me, because families don't deserve to be targeted by protesters. But what about other locations? Remember during Covid how livid we were with all the anti-vaxxers protesting outside schools? So does that mean schools should be no-go zones for protest action? I would say yes. Because protest action outside schools impacts the kids and they don't deserve that. The same way protesting outside people's homes impacts their families, and they don't deserve that. These protesters at Winston's place have been turning up after he announced that the Government isn't ready to recognise a Palestinian state. The window was smashed just after 5:30 last night, with a guy handing himself in to police a few hours later. There's no formal confirmation that he was connected to the pro-Palestine crew, but as Winston said to a reporter last night: “Either 1 and 1 make 4 or 1 and 1 make 2. It's up to you.” But we know it's connected. Which is why I support the Government's plan to ban protesting outside people's houses, but I also want it to go further than that. Tell that to law expert Graeme Edgeler though, who thinks the draft law —in its current form— would be difficult for the police to enforce in places like Queen Street, in Auckland, where people do live, but it's also, for all intents and purposes, a public space. And Graeme Edgeler says if this ban on protesting outside people's homes happens, there are going to be times when the police won't actually know what to do. But here's the bottom line for me: however strong you might feel about something, it's not on targeting people in a way that also affects their families. And what often happens when you get a groundswell of protest action is you get the people who are genuine and not out to cause any real trouble, but they can very easily lose control and get all sorts of muppets joining in. Just for fun. Which is why I think people's homes and schools should be out of bounds for protest action. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christchurch mayoralty hopeful Sara Templeton says her Green values wouldn't define her leadership of the city. The three-term city councillor and former Green Party member has been challenged on her alignment and the fact Green mayors like Tory Whanau and Aaron Hawkins have been in office just one term. Templeton told John MacDonald the focus should be on Christchurch, which needs someone with strong environmental credentials, governance skills, and passion for community. She says they tend to be framed as “Green values”, but she has a strong track record in those areas, and people will be voting based on that track record and her vision for the future. Templeton is putting everything on the line in her bid. The third-term councillor is running against incumbent Phil Mauger and isn't seeking re-election in Heathcote as back-up. Templeton told MacDonald it's been a privilege to serve in Heathcote but she believes she can serve the city better as Mayor. She says standing for both roles would signal a lack of confidence in winning the mayoralty, so it's all or nothing. The former Green Party member says she has no interest in national politics and will find another way to serve the city if she misses out. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Much has happened this week, so National's Hamish Campbell and Labour's Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald to delve into the biggest issues. They discussed whether the Government should underwrite power prices to reduce bills, the viability of Treasury's solutions to the financial crunch, and the results of the Herald's annual Mood of the Boardroom survey. Plus, the ever-hot topic that is the state of Christchurch Hospital's overwhelmed emergency department. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I got an email from the power company this week, telling me about my weekly electricity use and how much of that is used during my eight hours of free power on Saturdays and Sundays. Despite doing all the washing and drying during the 16 free hours of power each week, it was only 20%. No wonder the bills are so expensive. And that's without teenagers chewing through the power like it used to be not that long ago. So we probably shouldn't be surprised by a new survey which says over 60% of people would be in favour of the Government underwriting the cost of new electricity generation, if it meant cheaper power bills. This is a survey that was done by Curia for Octopus Energy and the Auckland Business Chamber. The results have been released as we are, apparently, just days away from some sort of significant government announcement about the energy sector. But here's the question: Is it the Government's job to make energy prices cheaper? I think we lost any right to expect the Government to deliver cheaper power prices when the market was reformed by Max Bradford all those years ago. When we got the set-up we've got now, which we were promised would mean cheaper power prices. Because unless the Government buys back all the shares in all the power companies, then I don't think it is the Government's job to make energy prices cheaper. What's more, the idea of the Government underwriting new generation projects is a bit of a slippery slope. Because why should these companies get the Government being a backstop for them if things go pear-shaped? What about other sectors that have to go it alone without the taxpayer to fall back on? Energy Minister Simon Watts isn't saying much, but he's describing it as something that will be “significant but surgical”. My view is that the only way the Government could deliver cheaper electricity prices is by buying back all the shares in the big power companies. Resurrecting the old NZ Electricity Department (NZED). But that's never going to happen. Shane Jones has talked about it, but I think it's very unlikely. And that's why I think we need to forget about this idea of the Government coming to our rescue. We don't expect the Government to make air fares cheaper. We've abandoned the idea of the Government making groceries cheaper. So why should we expect it to make power prices cheaper? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What's your message to the new Reserve Bank Governor? Dr Anna Breman is moving from Sweden to take up the job and will begin her five-year term at the start of December. I thought it was interesting to hear her say yesterday that one of the first things she plans to do is to travel around the country to meet and listen to people. She says she wants to meet people in regular households and students, to hear what they've got to say. What would you tell her? What do you think she needs to know? Back in March, when Adrian Orr quit, my advice to whoever eventually took over was to be the complete opposite of him. To make sure they stayed in their lane and kept themselves in check. Because when you're the Reserve Bank governor, your job is to be part of creating a rock star economy – you're not the rock star yourself. What I heard yesterday gives me confidence that Dr Breman is going to do exactly that. Keep the ego under control, but more importantly, actually listen to what's going on. The fact that one of the first things she plans to do is go around the country and talk to people like you and me, I think that's brilliant. But it can't just be a one-off. She needs to be in Christchurch and Auckland pretty much all the time, as well as Wellington and other parts of the country. Because Auckland and Christchurch are the two powerhouses of New Zealand's economy. If I had half an hour with Dr Breman, I'd tell her that she needs to get out of Wellington and talk to real people on a regular basis. To see what people are paying at the supermarket check-outs, to see what people are paying for power, and not just read about it in reports written by officials who can still afford to buy their coffees and lunches and nights out at the weekend. I suppose what I'm saying is that Dr Breman needs to be a Reserve Bank Governor of the people. That might be a tall order but that's what I'd say. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You know how the Prime Minister does a very good job of batting away poll results and saying that his focus is fixing up the joint after the last lot and that he'll wait until election day to be judged? I don't think he will find it quite as easy to do that with these results out today from the NZ Herald's annual Mood of the Boardroom survey. The annual survey of about 150 business leaders – 125 of them being CEOs of major New Zealand companies. People like Port of Auckland boss Roger Gray, the head of Tower Insurance Paul Johnston and Forsyth Barr boss Neil Paviour-Smith. One of the things that comes out in the survey results is a ranking of the performances of our Cabinet ministers. How these business leaders think of each minister is doing. Top of the list is Erica Stanford – she's the highest ranking. Winston Peters is in second place and Chris Bishop is third. The Prime Minister is ranked 15th. In last year's survey, he was sixth. Even Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk, who sits outside cabinet, ranks higher than the PM in 10th place. The other big name outside the top 10 is Finance and Economic Growth Minister Nicola Willis – the bosses at our biggest companies have ranked her in 13th place. Which is not good news for the Government. Because what's coming through loud and clear is that the business community has no faith that there is a plan to get the country “back on track”. We're way more than halfway through the Government's current term and our most senior business leaders are asking: “What is your plan Prime Minister?" I think this result out today is way worse for the Government than any political poll result so far. When you've got business leaders ranking the Finance Minister 13th and the Prime Minister 15th, this is a government in strife, isn't it? The reason I think this will hurt Christopher Luxon more than any of the other poll results he's managed to bat away or put a brave face on for, is that these are his people. Before he entered politics, he was one of them. He probably even took part in these surveys when he was chief executive at Air New Zealand. He's the people he's talking to when he goes on about signs of green shoots in the economy. These are the people he's talking to when he talks about getting runs on the board. The people who have said he's the 15th-best performing cabinet minister. The people he's talking to with his quarterly action plans, deliverables, KPIs, decision gates, and value chains. But his people still don't know what he's trying to do. They still don't know what his plan is. Which is why I think he will really be feeling this today. Because even his people don't get him.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Is it good enough? When you hear a doctor at Christchurch Hospital say that patients are dying in the waiting room and car park because the place is so overloaded, is it good enough? I've been talking to someone who was there at the weekend and saw first-hand how overloaded it actually is, which I'll tell you about shortly. But is it good enough that we have Dr Dominic Fleischer saying that patients are dying in the waiting room and car park because the place is so overloaded? It's not good enough in my book. But what's the solution? I honestly think the only genuine solution would be a second general hospital in the greater Christchurch area. What chance of that happening, do you reckon? I was talking this morning with someone who wasn't shocked to hear what Dr Fleischer is saying. Because this person was at Christchurch Hospital at the weekend and saw first-hand what it's like. They went to the emergency department with a family member on Sunday afternoon. So it wasn't Friday night or Saturday night, when the ED is, typically, its busiest. The person they were supporting was “fast tracked”, but still had to wait six hours to be seen. There were other patients being told that the wait for them was going to be eight-to-nine hours. It was standing room only in the waiting area. Support people had to stand and there were people squeezed-in together. Some vomiting. There were people bleeding, with blood running to the floor. A guy arrived with his wife after he'd been lying on the floor at Bunnings for five hours waiting for an ambulance that never came. He had some sort of back injury. Then, when the person I spoke to and the family member they were supporting eventually got through to the ED ward, every cubicle was occupied and the corridors were lined with people in seats, wheelchairs, stretchers and beds The family member they were with had to have a consultation in a resuscitation room, where they were told not to put their bags down - in case they had to leave in a hurry. Another so-called “private” consultation had to be done in the nurses tea room - because there was no other space available. There was even a doctor wearing a backpack the whole time because he was being moved from ward-to-ward and didn't know where he was going to be working next. So he kept his backpack on and his personal belongings with him the whole time People having invasive tests - like blood cultures taken - in the corridor. They struggled to even find a wheelchair with a hook to carry IV medication. This person who spoke to me about their experience said they couldn't fault the doctors, nurses and security. Everyone was doing their best. But it did occur to them, what if there was some sort of mass casualty event? Would the hospital be able to cope? And this person said, based on what they went through, they couldn't see how it could cope. Which brings me back to the question I asked right at the start: Is this good enough? Is it good enough that some patients are waiting 24 hours to be seen? Is it good enough that patients have died in the waiting room and carpark? Is it good enough? And what would you do to fix it? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Would you be happy to pay $110-a-year for a residential parking permit, so you could get a park outside your place whenever you wanted? Some Christchurch City Council candidates think you would. Especially, if you live in the central city or in a suburb close to town where on-street parking can be a real problem. The council is already looking into it. That's how we have an idea how much it would cost. Around $110-a-year. These candidates are saying today that it's time to give residents priority parking in their own streets. But I'm with developer Matthew Horncastle, from Williams Corporation, who is dead against the idea. He says anyone who pays rates has the right to use an on-street car park, whether they live in the area or not. And he's right. He says a lot of people can't afford to buy an apartment or a townhouse with off-street parking - so they have to park on the street. I know how infuriating it can be for people who can't get a park outside their place because every other Tom, Dick and Harry is parking there. And I know that it's a particular problem in the centre of town. Although, it's a problem too in the suburbs a bit further out from the city. Earlier this year, two-hour parking limits were introduced on Bishop Street in St Albans because people were struggling to get a park. Which I'm fine with. I've got no problem with that. Because that keeps the parks available for everyone. Resident parking permits are a different story, though. I think they're one of those things that sound good or look good on paper but, in reality, aren't. For example, policing them would be more work and cost for the council. Plus - just because you have a permit, it doesn't guarantee you a park. You could pay your $110 and end up parking around the corner. Or further away. I hear the argument that people living on a street should have priority over others when it comes to parking. But I think we just have to accept that we have more and more properties in Christchurch without off-street parking and residential parking permits aren't going to solve the problem. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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