Podcast appearances and mentions of John Macdonald

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

The Hutt Zone with John MacDonald focuses on the people, issues, events, and music that shape the Hutt Valley community.

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.

If you've ever done a pre-school drop-off, what's been the main thing going through your mind? Aside from ‘am I going to get to work on time?'. Have you been more concerned about the safety and wellbeing of your child, grandchild, niece or nephew? Or have you been more concerned about the qualifications of the people working there? For me, qualifications don't even enter the equation. I've had three kids go through pre-school or early childhood education and I can honestly say that I was never concerned about the pieces of paper that the teachers might have had sitting in a drawer or up on the wall at home. I was never bothered about that. Which is why I am liking what the Government's doing to loosen the qualification requirements and get rid of some of the complexities that the people who run these centres have to deal with. At the moment, there 98 different criteria for early childhood centres – which include things like keeping the temperature inside at 18 degrees. But I think one of the best changes the Government plans to make is to give the people who run these places more flexibility when it comes to hiring staff in terms of what qualifications they need to have. Generally, I think we have become over-obsessed with qualifications. I think qualifications are used to weed people out as a starting point. And the real downside of our over-obsession with qualifications is that, sometimes, the best person for the job —or the best people for the jobs— don't get a look-in. Example from the early childhood sector: someone who might have a truckload of practical experience or might have been out of the workforce for a few years having a family, do you think they could be the perfect person to have at an early childhood centre? Of course. That kind of person would be a great catch. Someone who genuinely loves kids, who knows about all the practicalities of looking after little kids day-in, day-out. Give me someone like that any day over someone who has done all the assignments and passed all the exams but doesn't necessarily have the temperament to deal with pre-schoolers. And let's not forget the anecdotal reports we keep hearing about kids turning up at pre-schools who need a lot more attention than kids might have needed a few years ago. Especially in relation to their behaviour. Qualifications don't prepare you for that. And if these qualified early childhood teachers are so necessary, why is it that kids are turning 5 unprepared for school? About three weeks ago, Dr Stuart Deerness —who's a senior education lecturer at AUT— wrote a piece in the NZ Herald where he said that the blame for kids not being ready for school can't all be put on parents. He's right. And I'm going to draw a link, you might say it's more like a long bow, but I'm going to draw a link between this obsession that early childhood teachers be formally qualified and the fact that some of the kids they're responsible for not being school-ready. Because for me, you don't need a qualification to have empathy. You don't need a qualification to solve problems. You don't need a qualification to deal with over-anxious parents. And you don't need a qualification to keep a little person safe and happy, and to get them ready to take on the world.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's a chance you'll think I sound like I'm contradicting myself with my views on NZ First jumping on the gender identity bandwagon. Politicians love a good bandwagon and that's what NZ First is riding with its members' bill to legally clarify the definitions of man and woman. I say they're riding a bandwagon because it comes on the heels of the Supreme Court in Britain doing pretty much the exact same thing last week. It ruled that it all comes down to a person's biology, and that's NZ First's thinking as well. I'm not so black and white. But first, let me say that, of all the things New Zealand is dealing with at the moment, this plan by NZ First is not a priority. We don't need this. Yes, some people think the transgender community is leading us to hell in a handbasket. That's why NZ First is saying things like its members' bill being all about fighting “cancerous social engineering and woke ideology”. But I think only a minority of people feel as strongly about it as that language suggests. And will it do anything to get the economy sorted? No it won't. Will it get kids out of poverty? No it won't. Will it reduce power prices? Not it won't. Will it get more life-saving drugs for people? Nope. See what I mean? But, aside from thinking that NZ First is barking up the wrong tree or barking at a passing car, and that we don't desperately need this clarification, my overall view is that inclusion is way better than exclusion. What I mean by that is however we might feel about someone being transgender —however comfortable or uncomfortable we are about it— does how we feel really matter? I don't think it does. What does matter is that someone who, for whatever reason, feels so uncomfortable in their own skin —or who feels alien in their own skin, in terms of gender— then why shouldn't they be free to do something about that? Well, they should be free. And, by being free, they should also enjoy the same privileges and freedoms as everybody. That's the inclusion versus exclusion part of it. But, at the same time, there are parts of this freedoms and privileges bit that I really struggle with, and this is where I'm going to start to contradict myself. I'm not saying here that I advocate any sort of antagonism or discrimination or worse towards anyone who lives their life as a transgender person. But I understand why some people aren't as open to the possibility that not everyone wants to be the person they were when they born. And I understand that because I'm not black and white on it myself. Yes, I'll preach inclusion instead of exclusion and I'll tell people who get wound up about drag queens reading stories to kids that they're indulging in unnecessary moral panic. But often, the question people ask me if they disagree with me is how I feel about a transgender person using public facilities provided for people of particular genders. And —I'll be totally honest with you— that is my stumbling block. But, despite that, I don't support what NZ First is doing because it doesn't seek to include, it seeks to exclude. I also don't support it because I don't think people are crying out for it. But what do you think? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's only been one pope's death that has really shocked me – and I don't think it was because I was only 10 years old at the time. It was September 1978 and I remember the shock vividly. John Paul I died just 33 days after becoming the Pope. We were a Catholic family so it was all everyone seemed to be talking about. Not just because he had died, but because he died so soon after his inauguration. So last night when the news that Pope Francis had died came through, I wasn't shocked or surprised. And I think most people will be like that. Especially when he's been so unwell. Pretty much for most of this year. Nevertheless, his passing is significant. And, of course, first thing I did was get on the phone to mum. Because even though I haven't been what they call a practising Catholic for quite some time, it stays with you. It's a sense of belonging that never really leaves you. It won't be the same for everyone who grows up a Catholic, but that's me. So he was the first Pope from South America. He was 76 when he was elected. As all Popes do, he chose a name. And he chose Francis in honour of St Francis of Assisi, the 13th-century Italian friar who got rid of all his wealth to become a man of peace and poverty. Which brings me to what I've been surprised by the most. It's not the fact that the Pope has passed away, it's what's being said about his achievements during his time as Pope. I've seen headlines quoting all manner of people and they've been saying things about how he was a pope for the poor. That he'd had a lifelong commitment to the poor. He was anti-capitalism. He was big on the environment. He promoted tolerance. In fact, one of the last things he did was wash the feet of young people locked up in prison. This was just before Easter. But I didn't know that. Which is why, when I consider whether the pope (whoever it is), is a leader for all of us —Catholics, non-Catholics, everyone— I would have to say that the role of the pope doesn't have the same global leadership or impact that it once did. That's how I see it. Which, in a way is surprising. Because it is so much easier to get the message out to the world these days. And I think that the church is going to have to do more to promote the values and work of the next pope. Because if it doesn't, there will be no shortage of people making noise about what they're up to and the pope's global influence will diminish. Maybe my ignorance of the work and achievements of Pope Francis reflects the fact that I'm not engaged with the church. Maybe practising Catholics will be right up with the play. And maybe practising Catholics are quite happy not to see the pope popping up on Instagram and TikTok all the time. Two years after becoming pope, Pope Francis issued what's called an encyclical letter —this was in 2015— and he said then that poverty and ecological destruction were two things the world needed to confront. Linking the two together, of course, because coming from South America, he was acutely aware of the link between ecological destruction and poverty. And, according to a German Catholic relief organisation, one the Pope's major achievements was the attention he helped to focus on the environment. Which is news to me, and it raises the question: is the Pope's global influence what it used to be? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I'm starting to wonder who isn't running for mayor in Wellington. Former Labour leader Andrew Little is the latest one joining the race to oust current mayor Tory Whanau. And, just in case you think so, I'm not endorsing Andrew Little in any way, shape, or form. But I do think having former MPs on local councils is a very good thing. Because whether we like it or not, local councils cannot operate in isolation and knowing how things in Wellington work is invaluable. Andrew Little isn't the first ex-MP wanting to get into local government. Former National MP Nick Smith is the mayor of Nelson. Phil Goff was mayor of Auckland. In Christchurch, former Labour politician Lianne Dalziel was elected mayor three times. Maurice Williamson —who was a National MP and minister— is on Auckland Council these days. John Banks. The list goes on. And they don't admit it at the time, but when these ex-MPs stand for their local councils, it's not just their political experience they're banking on. They also know full well that they're making the most of apathetic voters who look for a name they know and end up voting for them. When it comes to name recognition, I reckon an ex-MP has way more chance of being successful in the job than some of the other people you see milking their name recognition to get elected to their local council. People in my game do it. In fact, it seems to me that if media people don't go on to be marriage and funeral celebrants, they go on to be a local councillor. Not that you will ever catch me doing that. Last thing I'd want to do. Sportspeople milk their name recognition too. I'm not in Tauranga and don't know all the ins-and-outs, but I think it's pretty safe to say that the reason Mahe Drysdale is the mayor of Tauranga is because of his brilliant rowing career. He's got none of this so-called “business experience” that some people think is essential for someone to be good at running a town or a city. He's got no prior political experience. He's just a name. Voters obviously thought he was a good Kiwi bloke, he's done well in his sport, so they voted for him. Not that, from what I've seen, it's been all plain sailing for him so far. I've seen a few stories with him getting heat for stuff – and that is where people's lack of political experience shows. And why I think it's a very good thing to have people former MPs on our local councils. They're not perfect —Lianne Dalziel was far from perfect— but they know what they're getting themselves into. They generally don't set the world on fire, but I don't care about that. Because, whether we like it or not, local and central government are intertwined. Local government is way more dependent on central government than it would like to admit. Especially, when they're in the schtuck. When they need to get Wellington on their side. Which is why having people as mayors and councillors who know exactly how to get the government on side —because they've been there and done that— that's why it is so beneficial. And that's why I'll take an ex-politician over an ex-media personality or an ex-sporting hero any day, when it comes to who I want to see on my local council. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Inflation is officially on the rise again. The latest Stats NZ figures show the Consumers Price Index rose 2.5% in the year to March – up from a 2.2% rise in the year to December. The numbers cover the 12 months to March 31, and don't reflect the impact of Donald Trump's new tariffs and other new trade barriers. NZ Herald Business Editor Liam Dann told John MacDonald that despite the increase, economists are reasonably confident the Reserve Bank will be able to continue cutting interest rates. He says the economy is very slow, so they're expecting non-tradable inflation to continue going down. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How are you feeling about the world, now that we know the Government's goal of having 20,000 less violent crimes by 2029 has already been achieved? Four years early. Anyone who tries to pick holes in this result would be a bit of a misery guts, because who could find anything possibly wrong with there being 20,000 less victims? Try Ginny Andersen. Labour's police spokesperson is saying today that the numbers raise more questions than they provide answers. Which is a bit like a school kid getting excellence in their NCEA and their parents asking how they managed it when they seemed to be on their phone all the time. That doesn't matter, does it? The kid's got NCEA with flying colours. Just like it doesn't matter why there's been this decrease in violent crime, there just has. Although, I kind of hear what Ginny Andersen is saying. In Canterbury, there's been a 43% decrease – 15,000 fewer victims of violent crimes. And no one seems to know why that is. But I'll take it, thanks. And Ginny Andersen doesn't seem to be excited by the fact that the Government has released these numbers in a different way. Normally, they're released once a year, but the Government is now releasing them every three months. But however this decrease has happened, why it's happened, and whoever can take the credit for it happening, is irrelevant. Because the data tells us that something is working. We could go down a rabbit hole of trying to work out what particular bit of government policy might have actually done the trick, but I don't even think the Government can put its finger on that one. Which is pretty much what Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith was saying on Newstalk ZB today. But, for now, the target has been reached, which I'm going to the vibe that's been coming from the Government regarding crime, because I think that's as important as any specific policies themselves. I've always been very doubtful about the gang patch ban, for example. I'm not convinced yet on that one, and I don't actually think that will have much of an impact on violent crime stats. Just like the boot camps for bad kids – I'm not a fan. But, despite my misgivings on those things, I won't be giving the Government a hard time today about these crime numbers. I reckon a big part of it is the increased visibility of the police. I don't know how they've done it —because the numbers haven't shot up or anything— but certainly in Christchurch, the police are way more visible. I spend a lot of time in the central city, and I would say that I haven't seen as many police on patrol in that part of town for years. It wasn't all that long ago when I'd have business owners in the central city telling me about assaults and things and the cops being nowhere and not even turning up when they called them. Even though the central police station was a hundred metres away. Fast-forward to today, and it's a very different story. So that's one thing I reckon has definitely made a difference and is part of the reason why violent crime is down. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government's cracking down on dog owners tying up pets for too long. MPI and SPCA Animal Welfare Inspectors will now be able to issue fines topping $1,000. The regulation targets dogs tethered in poor conditions with signs of mistreatment like excessive barking. SPCA Scientific Officer Dr Alison Vaughan told John MacDonald that the regulations won't be targeting people who tether their togs temporarily, such as when they pop out to the shops. She says the issue is prolonged tethering, sometimes known as life chaining, in which dogs are living out their whole lives on a chain. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Justice and Police Minister says the Government's surpassed its own violent crime reduction target. It set a goal in March last year of having 20 thousand fewer victims of serious violent crime, with an initial 2029 deadline. It claims it's already beat the deadline, but admits the data is volatile and subject to change. Chief Victims Advisor Ruth Money told John MacDonald that although she's delighted by the figures, she's cautious in her celebrations since it's only quarterly data. But she says we do also need to acknowledge that there are a lot of crimes that aren't disclosed willingly, so these numbers, although encouraging, are volatile. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I'm liking the sound of Education Minister Erica Stanford's approach to sex education. But it won't be plain sailing, and she knows that. But there's a glaring gap in this new framework she's put out for consultation, with ideas of what kids might be taught and when from year 1 to year 13. I'll come back to the glaring gap. But Erica Stanford is going into this with her eyes wide open, knowing how fraught this can be – with some parents thinking that it's not a school's job to teacher their kids about sex and relationships. I'm the complete opposite. I think there is a role for parents in sex education, but it's in the area of values. Because a curriculum can't teach values – that's the sort of stuff kids learn from parents and caregivers. So let the kids get a consistent sex education at school and let the parents discuss how what they're being taught fits with their personal and family values. I've had a read-through of the draft guidelines which are all about making sure kids up and down the country —from the time they start school at age 5 to whenever they finish school— are taught the same stuff at the same time about sex and relationships. The Education Minister has been at pains to say that NZ First hasn't had its hands on the drafting of the framework, but it may as well have. Because I've read through the document and, from what I can see, the word “gender” is mentioned only once. And it's not used in a way that means kids being confused about their gender identity. There's pretty much nothing in there about gender identity, but there should be. Because, whether we like it or not, there are kids crying out for this. But that is something NZ First has been big on. With its demand —as part of its coalition deal with National— that the Government remove and replace the previous gender, sexuality, and relationship-based education guidelines. And as a result of that, we have these new guidelines which are out for consultation. But nothing in there about gender identity, which I think is a major shortcoming. Because, surely, our sex and relationship education needs to reflect the real-world, not one particular view of the world. And, surely, kids who are struggling with this can only benefit from what they're experiencing being acknowledged in the education they and their mates get. I'm not expecting you to get that if you haven't necessarily been through the experience of having a child with gender issues. I haven't, but I know people who have. And I reckon that, unless we've been through that experience, we have no real idea about the need for this to be included in the curriculum. I'm talking about the need for our sex education programme to be honest and realistic and to include some of the things that some of us would rather ignore. 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.

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.

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.

I saw a brilliant cartoon the other day which had America's founding fathers sitting around a table writing up the country's constitution - and they had agreed that the US wouldn't have a king, but they were thinking about having a drama queen instead. And after what we saw overnight, I think it would be pretty hard to argue that the current US president is anything but a drama queen. He's also an economic vandal. Donald Trump has announced that he's pausing his global trade tariffs for 90 days for most countries, but upping the ante with China. Increasing the tariff on Chinese goods going into the United States to 125%. And as Chinese political scientist Shi Yihong is saying today, this is going to mean that trade between China and the US will be “mostly destroyed”. American economist Arthur Kroeber agrees, saying that what's happening right now shows that Trump is committed to ending US trade with China. Which equates in my mind to one thing: economic vandalism. And if you want proof, consider what America's Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is saying. He says this flip-flop was Trump's plan all along He says: “This was his strategy all along, and that you might even say that he goaded China into a bad position and they responded. They have shown themselves to the world to be the bad actors, and we are willing to cooperate with our allies and with our trading partners who did not retaliate. It wasn't a hard message: don't retaliate, things will turn out well.” How chilling is that? If Trump planned this all along, it shows how comfortable he is causing economic chaos around the world. Maybe that shouldn't surprise me. Which is why I mentioned that cartoon earlier. All this tariff stuff has been the work of a drama queen, but I reckon that this development overnight takes things next level. When we've got the head of the Treasury in the States saying that this was Trump's plan all along —to slap countries with tariffs, see which ones retaliate, and then give the countries which don't retaliate some sort of 90-day “get out of jail card”— it's economic vandalism. It's clear now too that Donald Trump wants the world to cower in fear of him. And it's working. Not that I expect or want our government to go ape at him and his administration, because I don't think that would achieve anything, but the careful language we're hearing from the likes of Nicola Willis shows that even our government is walking on eggshells. Back in November, when Trump won the presidential election, political commentator Matthew Hooton said the US was entering “its most dangerous period since 1861, the start of the civil war” and that the world was entering its most dangerous phase since World War II. He said back in November: “The world enters its most dangerous period since World War II, with Trump threatening to launch a global trade war and collapse the World Trade Organisation.” Matthew Hooton said that during his last term, Trump had at least some people in his circle who could be relied on to keep his most extreme tendencies in check. He said: “There are no such people around him this time. Nor is he constrained by the need to worry about re-election.” Hence, his conclusion that we were entering very dangerous times. And I think maybe he's turned out be right. And I'm starting to think that maybe I was wrong. Because when I read his article in the NZ Herald I said that, on the basis of the world not falling apart last time he was president, I wasn't going to buy into the hysteria. I did say I could be proven wrong. And going by the way the world looks today, I may have just been proven wrong. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John MacDonald was joined today by Mayor Phil Mauger. They discussed the potential for Christchurch to be home to the delayed Erebus Disaster memorial – is Christchurch an appropriate home? The central city has been overrun by birds and their droppings, does the Council have a plan to deal with the mess? And what measures will the council take regarding the new build's in the city's east, given the recent findings that houses may sink in some areas? LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If the MP for Ilam, Hamish Campbell, thinks he's going to get away with not saying anything more about his involvement with this underground religious group, then he's dreaming. It doesn't have an official name, but it's known as the “Two By Twos” and it's being investigated by the FBI and the police for child abuse. One of its former ministers here in New Zealand has admitted 55 child sex abuse charges over three decades against young boys and, from what I've seen, there are about 2,500 members in New Zealand. It's being reported that Hamish Campbell has hosted study meetings at his home in Christchurch – but he's neither confirming nor denying that. The thing about the home meetings is that the group doesn't have official buildings, and so they meet in people's houses. An interesting thing is this Christian organisation doesn't celebrate Christmas and Easter. And it separates itself from other Christian denominations. It's been around for a while too – it was founded in Ireland in 1897 and has been in New Zealand for about 120 years. Hamish Campbell has put out a statement, but he's going to need to do more than that. And then, once he's at least confirmed that he's involved and answers a few other basic questions, he should be left alone. Because if we're going to condemn Hamish Campbell for being involved with a religious group accused of abusing kids, then you may as well write off any politician connected to the Catholic Church, for example. Because I don't think it matters what religious beliefs MPs hold. I've never been bothered about Christopher Luxon being an Evangelical Protestant. I don't care about Simeon Brown being Baptist. And I think my lack of concern about that has been shown to be pretty well-founded. I haven't seen any evidence that Luxon and Brown's religious beliefs are determining their political decision-making. So here's what Hamish Campbell has said so far. You might have seen him on the news on TV being approached outside Parliament. He closed the door on the reporter, though, when she asked him about hosting study meetings at his home in Christchurch. After that report on the news, he sent our newsroom a statement, pretty much reiterating what he said on TV, but still saying nothing about hosting gatherings at his place. But he says he fully supports the guy who's calling the group out for abusing kids and that the police are the best people to investigate it. But here's the bit that shows that Hamish Campbell thinks he doesn't need to say anything more about it. In his statement, he says: “My wife and I are non-denominational Christians but my faith is separate from my role as a politician.” Campbell is a regular guest on Newstalk ZB's Politics Friday. He's a very smart guy, worked for about 20 years as a scientist, and he's a nice guy. He's not going to set the political world on fire, but nothing about him comes across as particularly creepy or weird. Getting a straight answer out of him can be a challenge. Which is why, when I saw him on the news last night, I thought he was true to form. But that's not serving him well on this occasion. He needs to front up, confirm he's involved, confirm whether he has meetings at his place or not, and confirm how much he knows about the abuse allegations. Then the people of Ilam can decide how much of an issue this is. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It would be great if we didn't have to spend $12 billion on our defence force. But we do, and I'm good with it. To be honest though, while we'd known the Government had some sort of plan to increase defence spending, I was still blown away a bit by the scale of it when the announcement came through. So, $12 billion over the next four years. There'll be new helicopters, more missiles, autonomous vessels, the air force's clapped-out 757s will be replaced. And that's just the start, because it's all part of a bigger 15-year plan to up the ante on the defence front. The Government says it will boost defence spending to more than 2% of GDP within the next eight years, which we haven't seen since the early 1990s. Defence Minister Judith Collins says defence personnel are excited, because under-investment over the last 35 years has left the force gutted. Former NZ First defence minister Ron Mark is over the moon too. But he says the Government should sign contracts for the new gear ASAP, so any future government can't ditch the plans. But he says it's not just about missiles and helicopters, there's an issue with people power, as well. And recruiting the people needed to deliver the Government's 15-year plan will be a big challenge. Which Judith Collins acknowledges – you might have heard that the defence force has lowered some its academic requirements for people wanting to join the forces. Which I think makes sense. Judith Collins does too. And she says what we pay our defence personnel —as opposed to this $12 billion that's going to be spent on kit— will be covered in the Budget next month. What this all brings us to is the question of what sort of operation you think our defence force should be. Should it use this new capability that it will have to focus on peacekeeping? Should there be more of a focus on surveillance? Or do you think we need a defence force that is capable of attacking? Professor Al Gillespie is an international law expert from Waikato University. He says this big investment in defence shows New Zealand has joined the arms race. He's saying today: "We've avoided doing it for quite some time but there's been a lot of pressure on us to increase the amount of money that we spend.” So the Government is responding to that pressure. And I think it's great. Yes, the money could be spent on health and education, but our defence force is in such bad shape that the Government has no choice. And, in terms of what sort of capability I want our military to have, I think we need to cover all of the bases. We have to be equipped to keep the peace. Surveillance is another critical role. But if we think we can do either of those things without some sort firepower to back it up, then we're dreaming. And the government knows that, which is why it wants our ships to be combat-capable. I'm not saying that I want our defence force going in all guns blazing, but it needs to be capable. Way more capable than it is now. Which is why I think this $12 billion —and everything else that comes on top of that— is going to be money well spent. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I'm liking what Sir Ron Young is saying about prison sentences today. He's really challenging us, saying that we need to re-think what we do with people given sentences of two-to-three years. He's talking about not sending them to conventional prisons and giving them conjugal rights. This is how they deal with things in Scandinavian countries. He thinks we should do the same here. And I reckon we should too. He's the outgoing head of the Parole Board and he's saying that short prison sentences aren't working and we need to have a re-think. He's saying that offenders who are sent to prison for this amount of time are more likely to re-offend, compared to people who go inside for longer. For say, eight years. And there are stats to back it up. Sir Ron says the re-offending rate for people locked up on shorter prison sentences is 40 percent. And for those who do longer sentences, the reoffending rate is about 10 percent. So you can't argue with that. What we can argue about, though, is whether Sir Ron's ideas have any merit. And I think they do. He reckons a much better thing to do with people who commit crimes that get them a two or three year sentence, would be not to send them to the jails we have now - and, instead, house them within communities in facilities that are less like prisons, where they'd be allowed to vote, and also entitled to conjugal visits from their partners. Which is the approach they take in Scandinavian countries. Sir Ron's coming at this from the aspect of re-offending. But, in particular, rehabilitating someone who commits a crime. And he says that with the offenders who only have two or three years inside, they have way less opportunities to get rehabilitated and end-up spending a lot of their time hanging out with serious crims. He describes IT as “a university of crime”. And he thinks it would be way better if these offenders went somewhere else, where it felt less like a prison and more like normal life. He admits, though, that it could be hard thing for some people to swallow. Especially, given the political and public interest in tougher prison sentences. But, as a society, what's more important? Punishing offenders or trying to make sure they don't offend again? As Sir Ron says, once a crime has been committed - you can't change that. But the thing you can try to do, is to try and stop them offending again. And, if this alternative way being suggested by Sir Ron today could do a better job of preventing crimes from happening, then why not give it a go? If most of the offenders doing these short sentences spend most of their time inside learning how to become a better criminal, then why would we stick with the way we're doing things? Sir Ron is saying today that these people on two-or-three year sentences are being “educated in the way of crime”. So, of course, they should be in different environments. And, of course, they should be prepared as much as possible for life beyond prison. I was reading about the “open prisons” in some Scandinavian countries - where Sir Ron is drawing his inspiration for doing things differently here in New Zealand. One of them, in Sweden, lets inmates hold down jobs. They head out for the day to work and come back at night. There's even a car park for them and, if they work late, a meal is left out for them. Essentially, what it comes down to, is these Scandinavian countries don't shut prisoners out of society completely. Which is what Sir Ron thinks we should do here in New Zealand offenders sentenced for two-to-three years. If it would mean less re-offending, it's worth trying, isn't it?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reckons people in Australia are going to feel dumped-on by the United States after yesterday's trade tariffs announcement. And he thinks that Australians will feel differently about Australia's relationship with America. Like us, imports into the United States from Australia are going to be hit with a 10% tariff. And Albanese —who is on the campaign trail— is talking tough, saying that the tariffs are “not the act of a friend” and Aussies won't be taking kindly to it. I'm not going to speak on behalf of Australians, but I don't feel that way at all. We knew these tariffs were likely. We knew they were coming. I don't like them, but it's not going to change how I feel about our relationship with America. One political commentator across the Tasman is describing the tariffs this way, saying they are “unprecedented hostility from an ally”. Brad Setser —a former Department of Treasury economist in the States— described them on Newstalk ZB as "shockingly radical". They also show that, when it comes to Donald Trump, you can do as much sucking-up as you want but it won't make any difference. Trump doesn't do special relationships. Look at British Prime Minister Keir Starmer's recent visit to the White House and all the cosying up and handing-over of the letter from the King. That came to nothing. Britain's been hit with a 10% tariff. It's even worse for Europe, which has been hit with a blanket 20% tariff – despite France's president and Poland's president having fireside chats with Trump at the White House in recent weeks. Israel dropped its tariffs on US goods the day before yesterday's announcement, but still got hit with a 17% tariff. Although, our Trade Minister Todd McClay reckons there might be some wriggle room for countries facing tariffs higher than the 10% minimum. As for Australia's PM, he's condemned the tariffs, saying they are totally unwarranted. Going on to say that he thinks they will have an impact on the way Australians view Australia's relationship with America. He didn't go into any great detail on that - but I don't feel any differently. And I suspect most Kiwis won't feel any differently. I don't think we are suddenly going to go all anti-America on it just because the products we export to the United States are going to be more expensive over there because of the tariffs. I think if anyone is anti-America, they'll be anti-America already. Like the guy who won't let Americans stay at his Airbnb. Mario Schmidt hasn't been letting Americans make bookings with him since the scene with Ukraine's President in the White House. So he's anti-Trump and anti-America already. Anyone who is going to be anti-Trump and anti-America will be already, and everyone else will see the tariffs for what they are: a fact of life that we can't do anything about. We have to like it or lump it, and they will make no difference to the way Kiwis feel about America. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We were all standing up and cheering the Christchurch City Council three years ago, when it flipped the bird at the Government over housing intensification. Because there was no way we were going to agree to three, three-story houses being built on one section. But I've changed my thinking. Eventually, the city council kind-of pulled its head in. But it's still dragging the chain a bit and wants more time before agreeing to what the Government wants. But one city councillor, at least, thinks we should stop dragging the chain, that we should get with the programme and allow this intensification to happen. And I agree with him. I think he's making a very good point. Maybe it's because my stance on intensification has eased since 2022, when the council told the Government in no uncertain terms that it wasn't interested in having three, three-story houses on one section. And I think Christchurch city councillor Andrei Moore is making a very good argument in favour of greater housing density. Saying that, if we don't let it happen, more and more houses will be built in places like Rolleston and Prebbleton. Which are not in Christchurch, they're in the Selwyn District, and that will mean more and more people travelling into the city every day, using Christchurch's roading infrastructure and not paying a bean towards it. Because they don't live in Christchurch city - they live in Selwyn. And he's saying we should stop kicking the can down the road and just get on with it. Instead of spending another year resisting it, we need to accept that greater housing density is here whether we like it or not. He says: “It's high time we wake up and deal with the reality of city growth.” And I couldn't agree more. And yes, that does mean that my stance on intensification has changed, and there's nothing wrong with that. The plan originally was to let developments with three, three-storey properties to be built on one section pretty much anywhere. But it was modified a bit. Modified to restrict this level of intensification to the central city, around shopping centres and what's described as "walkable distances" from core public transport routes. Which is still pretty carte blanche when you think about shopping malls and areas on core public transport routes. As far as shopping malls go, we've got the likes of the Hub Hornby, Riccarton Mall, Bush Inn, the Tannery, Barrington Mall, Tower Junction, Eastgate Mall, Merivale Mall, Northlands Mall, Fendalton Mall, the Palms, Homebase, and the Colombo. Which means intensification getting the green light in Hornby, Riccarton, Opawa, Barrington, Linwood, Merivale all the way up to Northlands, Fendalton, Shirley, Sydenham and Beckenham. And, if that's how it has to be, then I'm with Andrei Moore and I agree with him that we need to bite the bullet and get on with it. Because A: we've got a housing affordability problem in this country, and the quarter-acre section is a thing of the past. So, if you want your kids to be able to afford to buy their own place, it's not going to be somewhere with a big backyard. So we need more apartments and townhouses - the places you get with greater housing density. And B: population growth is real. The numbers aren't massive, but they're real and expected to continue in the upwards direction. The city's population is around 396,000. Last year it was 1.2% up on the year before. Over the last five years, population growth in Christchurch has averaged 1.3% annually. Before the quakes, it was declining. There was an especially large jump in 2023, when the population in Christchurch city increased by 2.7%. And city councillors pushing back on greater housing density in Christchurch are ignoring the obvious. That, yes, backyards are great. Yes, Christchurch is supposed to be the garden city. And yes, the people against intensification are most likely to be the people who can be bothered to vote. But, if they put all that aside, they'd see that their colleague Andrei Moore is being realistic. And I agree with him that it's time for Christchurch to stop pushing back on greater housing intensification. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John MacDonald was joined in studio by Vanessa Weenink and Reuben Davidson to delve into some of the biggest political stories of the week. The US President has rolled out tariffs of at least 10% on almost all imported goods – what will this mean for our export market? Is the need for housing in Canterbury so great that intensification is inevitable? And will the supermarket announcement make a tangible difference for Kiwis at the till any time soon? LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Prime Minister has lived up to his talk of being a great negotiator, saying “thanks but no thanks” to Team New Zealand. Because a great negotiator is always prepared to walk away if the negotiations aren't going their way, and that's what the Government has done. Telling Grant Dalton and Team NZ that putting $75 million of taxpayer money into hosting the next America's Cup would be a nice-to-have, not a must-have. I think the Government has done the right thing and the wrong thing. It's done the wrong thing because no one can argue that the economic spinoff from hosting something like the America's Cup is huge. Everyone's talking about Barcelona getting truckloads out of hosting the event. Although, they did have the option of hosting it again but decided not to. So maybe the benefits are being talked up a bit. But either way, there are economic benefits that come from hosting something like the America's Cup and, because of that, the Government's done the wrong thing turning its back on it But my overriding feeling is that it's done the right thing because we just can't afford it. Whether we will ever be able to afford it, who knows? But it highlights how we really need to get our act together when it comes to attracting big events here. And we won't do that, unless we all stop competing with each other. When I say “we”, I'm talking about Christchurch and Wellington and Auckland and Dunedin. Everywhere. At the moment, all cities and towns compete with each other to get big events. In Christchurch, when the stadium is open, we'll be trying to get concerts away from Dunedin and get them happening here instead. At the moment, we have ChristchurchNZ in Christchurch, DunedinNZ in Dunedin, WellingtonNZ in Wellington, and Auckland Unlimited in Auckland, all doing the same thing —not to mention all the other agencies around the country— all fighting it out to get events to their areas. And I think this is crazy. Because what's happening is we have all these different agencies taking a very parochial view of the world. ChristchurchNZ, for example, only goes into bat for Christchurch - or Canterbury. When what all of these agencies should doing is working together on a joint approach. Not only because it would mean they weren't all chasing the same thing, it would also mean more money to spend on getting these events here. And it's not just money to get events here, it's money for facilities too. And the parochial ideas blinding our thinking on that. Perfect example being the stadium saga in Auckland and the council deciding last week to redevelop Eden Park instead of building something new on the waterfront. They're still wanting more than $100 million from the Government for Eden Park, when we already have stadiums coming out of our ears in New Zealand. There's Dunedin stadium - with a roof. The new Christchurch stadium - with a roof. The Cake Tin, in Wellington. And Eden Park. And the only reason money is being poured into Eden Park is parochialism. Just like Christchurch wanted a 30,000 seat stadium because of parochialism. And if the country keeps going like this, we'll never have the money to get big events here. We'll have the stadiums - but there'll be nothing happening inside them. Which is why we need to take the job of chasing these big events away from all these regional agencies and have one central agency deciding what events we're going to go for and where they're going to be held. Because what's good for Christchurch is good for Auckland. And what's good for Dunedin is good for Wellington. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Four more years. That's how long we're going to have to wait for KiwiRail's new interisland ferries. But I reckon it will turn out being longer than that. The Government says it will be December 2029. By then, we will have had two elections. But I don't think it will happen in that timeframe, because I listened this morning to someone who knows a bit about this. Mark Thompson's his name. He was in charge of the Government's ferry ministerial advisory group. He reckons the Government is a bit on the optimistic side, thinking the ferries can be here in four years' time. He was talking this morning about decarbonisation within the maritime sector creating huge, worldwide demand for new ships. As he puts it, he thinks the Government will need its spinnaker up and calm seas to meet the deadline, because of what's happening internationally. Spinnaker up and a calm sea. A wing and a prayer. Fingers crossed. Sounds exactly like the way we do infrastructure here in New Zealand, doesn't it? I thought Mark Thompson sounded pretty unimpressed with the announcement. That will be because the Government has ignored his committee's advice to not go with ferries capable of carrying rail wagons. His advice was that ferries that could only carry trucks would be cheaper. But Winston, of course, was all-for ferries that can carry rail wagons from the get-go. So maybe Mark Thompson's nose is out of joint a bit. But I'm listening to what he has to say. Because he's the guy who looked into this whole ferry thing after Finance Minister Nicola Willis pulled the plug on the former Labour government's iReX project. Winston Peters isn't buying any talk about delays though and says the new ferries will be here by the end of 2029. But when you dig further into his announcement yesterday, you see that he's talking about the ferries being no frills, on one hand, but also saying that many of the costs he's cutting will need to be paid for somehow in the future. And these are the costs for the on-land facilities at Picton and Wellington – which he's suggesting will have to be covered by the ports themselves. He's saying that investment is needed at Picton, but he reckons the facilities in Wellington have got another 30 years in them. Again, doesn't that sound so familiar when it comes to infrastructure in this country? “We can get away with what we've got for a bit longer” – the same for the ferries themselves. The ones that keep clapping out. As for the new ships - if we do end up competing with the rest of the world for new vessels because of a global influx of orders, we could end up waiting more than four years. That's why I'll believe it when I see it. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What if the key to transforming your workplace isn't just new strategies but a shift in culture? In this episode, John MacDonald, President of T Bar M Camps, shares how he and his team built trust, transparency, and alignment with their Christ-centered mission—creating a workplace where employees feel valued, engaged, and empowered. Find full show notes here: https://bit.ly/436johnmacdonald Share the love. If you enjoyed this episode, please rate it on Apple Podcasts and write a brief review. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-flourishing-culture-podcast/id1060724960?mt=2   By doing so, you will help spread our podcast to more listeners, and thereby help more Christian workplaces learn to build flourishing cultures. | Follow our Host, Al Lopus, on X https://twitter.com/allopus  | Follow our Host, Al Lopus, on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/allopus/ | Email our host at al@workplaces.org

Where's the grocery commissioner? Wasn't he going to get cheaper groceries for all of us? That was the idea. But he hasn't. So is Nicola Willis going to do it? My prediction, is she won't. Because, no matter how much we would all like to pay less at the supermarket, the two ideas she announced yesterday are duds. And I'm picking that, if you did a grocery shop yesterday afternoon, the Government's announcement-of-an-announcement yesterday morning did nothing to soften the blow when you went through the checkout. So the Government wants to see a foreign operator coming here. Which is never going to happen. For the simple reason that foreign operators have bigger fish to fry elsewhere. German supermarket company Aldi is often touted as a potential foreign outfit that could come here and create more competition. It's kind-of here already, because it's been registered with the New Zealand Companies Office since 2000. But it hasn't bothered doing anything more - focusing on Australia, instead. But, despite Aldi operating across the Tasman, Australians are still paying through the nose. Just over a week ago, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission put-out a report saying that Coles, Woolworths and Aldi are among the most profitable supermarket chains in the world. Prices there have risen sharply over the past five years. With the supermarkets increasing profit margins during that time, as well. Sound familiar? And just like here, politicians in Australia are all promising to do something about it. But, like here, it will be all talk and won't amount to anything. And, in five years time, shoppers on both sides of the Tasman will still be paying through the nose and politicians will be floating go-nowhere ideas. But if you forced me to pick one of the ideas Nicola Willis announced yesterday that I think could actually work, it would be this threat she made yesterday to force the two big companies to sell some of their supermarket brands, to create more competition and reduce their dominance. If you forced me to choose one, I'd chose that one. But it's a terrible idea. David Seymour doesn't like it, either. Saying that, if the Government poked its nose in this way into Foodstuffs and Woolworths operations, it would put businesses off investing in New Zealand. Which I agree with. I think it could. And it's a weird thing for the Government to be proposing just two weeks after it had all the money people over here from around the world trying to get them to invest in New Zealand. Looking at the rules the Commerce Commission uses to decide whether to allow things like mergers to go ahead, they're all about preventing situations like we have with supermarkets in New Zealand. Not enough competition - all that stuff. Which is fine when you're deciding whether-or-not to allow a merger. But for the Government to try and do that retrospectively, which is what it would effectively be doing, would be a terrible thing. It would be a terrible thing for the supermarket companies. It would also be a terrible thing for the Government's sale pitch to the world. That New Zealand is open for business; that we want businesses to come here; and that we're getting rid of some of the red tape to make it easier come here. It would say 'we're doing all that but, if you do come here, we might tell you what to do with your business if we think there are a few votes in it for us'. But the ideas Nicola Willis announced yesterday won't win votes. Because they won't go anywhere.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Some people think a 90-day trial for new workers is tough, but what about a two-day trial? Which is what's happened with Liam Lawson. And like his Red Bull teammate, world champion Max Verstappen, I think it stinks. Verstappen thinks Lawson should have been given more than two races to prove himself, and I couldn't agree more. Red Bull are dressing it up, saying that they're dumping Lawson as part of their “duty of care” obligations. Red Bull boss Christian Horner said overnight: “We have a duty of care to protect and develop Liam and together we see that, after such a difficult start, it makes sense to act quickly so Liam can gain experience, as he continues his Formula 1 career with Racing Bulls.” But BBC Formula 1 correspondent Andrew Benson isn't buying it. He pretty much said on Newstalk ZB that Red Bull are trying to put lipstick on a pig. They're dressing it up, trying to make it sound better than it is. Which is nothing short of an unceremonious dumping. Andrew Benson says: "This is not a duty of care by any stretch of the imagination, getting rid of someone after two races. "Duty of care is to give him a chance to try and perform a bit better. Put your arm around his shoulder and talk to him about what's going wrong.” So the “duty of care” line is hogwash. But even Andrew Benson, who's a Formula 1 correspondent and follows the sport all the time, is scratching his head trying to work out what's happened. He did say though, that he thought Lawson looked like a bit like a rabbit caught in the headlights at his two races this year. He said looking at Liam off the track, while he was waiting to do interviews and things, he looked completely shellshocked. But, like Max Verstappen, he thinks Lawson deserved to be given more of a chance to prove himself. Verstappen isn't the only Formula I driver to think that way. He's one of several current drivers who have “liked” a post on Instagram criticising Red Bull's treatment of Liam Lawson. It's a post by former F1 driver Giedo van der Garde which says: "Yes, you gotta perform. Yes, the pressure is insane. But, in my opinion, this comes closer to bullying or a panic move than actual high athlete achievements." He says: "They made a decision - fully aware - gave Liam two races only to crush his spirit. Don't forget the dedication, hard work and success Liam has put in his career so far to achieve the level where he is now. Yes, he underperformed the first two races - but, if anyone's aware of that, it's himself." Liam Lawson deserved more support, encouragement and time. And what's happened stinks. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I'm sure you'll tell me if you think I'm stuck in the past, but I reckon that with the police now being expected to do roadside drug tests —as well as everything else— I think we should bring back the old MOT. The old traffic cops. Officially, it was known as the traffic safety service, but we all knew it as the MOT. And, yes, I know the police are struggling as it is to get the 500 new cops by the end of the year that the government has promised. But if they are now going to be expected to do thousands of roadside drug tests —as well as the alcohol tests and writing out tickets for speeding drivers— then I think they should create a separate, dedicated traffic division. The way the roadside drug testing is going to work is that drivers will do a saliva test. If it's positive, it'll be sent to the lab for further testing. As well as that, an extra test will be done on the spot and, if that's positive as well, the police will order them to stay off the road for 12 hours. As someone who thinks we should have a zero alcohol limit for drivers, anything to try and catch the clowns who drive stoned is a good thing in my book. Especially when you consider the carnage that has been caused by drivers high on drugs. Here's a stat that proves it: in 2022 alone, 112 people died in crashes where drugs were involved. That was about 30% of all road deaths that year. So the MOT was merged with the police in 1992 and, considering the fact that police are going to be expected to do 50,000 roadside drug tests each year as well as more roadside alcohol tests, change is needed. The Government's told them that instead of doing 3 million alcohol tests a year, they're going to be expected to do 3.3 million – so an extra 300,000. So 300,000 more alcohol tests, plus the 50,000 roadside drug tests. I imagine Police Minister Mark Mitchell would say that the police already have a highway patrol, but I don't think that's going to be sufficient long-term. And it's why I think we should have a genuine, dedicated traffic policing service. The other aspect of this too is that the Government has told the police that if they don't meet these roadside testing targets —for the alcohol and for the drugs— they won't get all their funding. So, full marks to the political parties that voted this drug-testing legislation through, but I think we're setting the police up to fail if we don't have a re-think about how all this testing is going to be done. And, for me, the best way to ensure this new law lives up to its promise is to have a dedicated traffic policing service. Like we used to. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Megan Woods joined John MacDonald in studio to discuss some of the biggest political stories of the week. Green MP Tamatha Paul has been under fire for her comments about beat police – does their presence really make people feel less safe? And how do her comments bode for Labour, given they're potentially coalition partners? Is it fair the new Christchurch stadium could have a levy for ‘out-of-towners', since ratepayers funded the build? And will the proposed changes to the RMA really deliver what's promised? LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christchurch's Mayor says he was shocked by the $400 thousand bill to restore Cathedral Square's Chalice. The City Council's investigating ways to reduce the cost for work, including a complete re-paint and corrosion repairs. It's the first maintenance work to the Chalice since installation in 2001. Phil Mauger told John MacDonald options include touching up the Chalice leaves but leaving the actual structure as-is. “The person that we're dealing with, we're working with them to see if we can lower it down.” “It is far too much.” LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

British comedian Ben Elton is returning to Christchurch this May, in what will be his final show in his Authentic Stupidity tour. He joined John MacDonald for a chat about his outlook on life after years of writing comedy and how he feels about performing in Christchurch – plus, an exclusive reveal about his upcoming autobiography. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Even though I live in Christchurch and pay rates in Christchurch, you're not going to hear me saying that I should pay less to get into the new One NZ Stadium when it opens next year. But I bet there'll be no shortage of Christchurch people thinking that's a brilliant idea, but I don't. It's something that the council-owned company that will run the stadium says could happen. People who live in Christchurch city could pay less than people from anywhere else. The reason being —or the theory being— that those of us who live in the Christchurch city area have put money into the stadium through our rates and maybe that could or should be recognised by charging us Christchurch lot less for tickets. On average, every Christchurch city ratepayer pays $144 a year to go towards the cost of building the stadium. All up —at this stage— the cost to build it is $683 million, and it's expected to be open by April next year. There's already a precedent for locals paying less with the hot pools at New Brighton. Locals get cheapie deals there. And locals in Hurunui pay less to get into the hot pools in Hanmer Springs. But I don't think we should go down that track with the stadium. One reason being that we will all benefit once the thing is up-and-running. The money coming into town will be brilliant, which is enough of a pay-off for me. The forecasts say it'll put $21 million into the local economy every year. That's enough of a return for my investment. I don't want cheaper tickets, as well. What's more, it would be extremely hypocritical of people who are anti-stadium and have been banging-on for years that it's just a nice-to-have and their rates money shouldn't be going into it, to put their hand out for cheaper tickets. The reason the levy for out-of-towners is being talked about is because it's the promoters and the people behind the concerts and the sporting matches who set the ticket prices. So the stadium operator couldn't give Christchurch people a discount because they don't set the prices, but they could put an out-of-towner levy on tickets bought by people outside Christchurch city. Which would, effectively, mean Christchurch locals paying less and people elsewhere paying more. But I don't think that would be fair. Because what about people living right on the doorstep of Christchurch city? How fair would it be to make people in Selwyn and Waimakariri, for example, pay more? It wouldn't be fair at all. Because what we would be doing is punishing them because Christchurch City Council couldn't get its act together on the stadium funding in the first place. It didn't even bother —right at the outset— to try and negotiate a deal where those areas did have some skin in the game, where they did make some sort of financial contribution towards the stadium. It would also be punishing people in Selwyn and Waimakariri for their councils not being proactive. For not picking up the phone and calling Christchurch and saying they wanted to do some of the heavy lifting. Fifty percent of people in Selwyn travel into Christchurch every day for work and school. And I've said all along that people in Selwyn and people in Waimakariri should be contributing to the stadium through their rates. But that horse has bolted. The people who could have made that happen —the councils— didn't. And so I'm not going to turn around now and say that us Christchurch locals should get preferential treatment.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I've never used meth. And I hope I never do. I say “hope” because I think that's as certain as you can be about a drug like that. Because none of us know what's going to happen in the future and whether we might just find ourselves in a position where we might just feel a bit differently about using it. I don't know how many times I've read stories about people saying they had no idea they'd end up using meth. And there's no shortage of them, with use of the drug in New Zealand increasing by 96% in the past two years – nearly doubled. Which proves to me that we are losing the battle against this drug and, if we don't do things differently, we'll lose the war against it as well. Which is why I agree with the Labour Party, which is saying today that it's all well and good for the Prime Minister to be calling on his Police and Justice Ministers to look into the situation. Quite rightly, Chris Hipkins is saying that the PM needs to bring the Health Minister into the conversation, as well. Because, whether we like it or not —however we feel about drugs of any sort— if we only keep on treating meth users as criminals, then what are we going to achieve? Absolutely nothing. And we'll have more and more people on the path to meth misery. So these latest stats about how much meth is being used are quite something. A 96% increase over two years – which is being described as unprecedented. They're saying the social harm caused by meth has a $1.5 billion cost attached to it. And the Prime Minister says he is “quite concerned”. In fact, he's so concerned that he's getting his Police Minister and his Justice Minister to “look into it”. Isn't it brilliant? When you're in opposition you'd talk about these numbers and describe it as it a crisis and go on about not enough being done. When you're in government though, you're quite concerned, and you get a couple of people to look into it. But here's where I struggle. You see, I'm someone who voted “no” in the cannabis referendum a few years back. And I did that because of the information void there seems to be about the mental health consequences of smoking weed. So I said no to weed, but I seem to be a bit more liberal when it comes to meth. I can't explain why, because if there was another cannabis referendum today, I'd probably vote the same way. But, when it comes to meth, I'm convinced that you can't just treat it as a crime thing. Yes, the dealers who trade the stuff are scumbags. Which is where the Prime Minister and the Government seem to be focused – with Christopher Luxon saying it's why they're cracking down on gangs. And why he's asked Ministers Goldsmith and Mitchell to see what else can be done. But don't stop at those two, Prime Minister. You should also be getting Health Minister Simeon Brown and Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey involved too. Because Mitchell and Goldsmith can thump the table as much as they like. They can do all the tough guy talk, but that won't change a thing. Because, Prime Minister, this huge increase in meth use has happened under your watch —as well as the last government's— and the strongest thing you can say about it is you're “quite concerned”? And the strongest thing you can do is to get your two guys in charge of catching people and locking them up to look into it? Don't get me wrong. The low-lifes who peddle this stuff need targeting. But, most people, when they start using meth —from what I've read and heard— there's a reason. Sure, some will give it a go for the thrill, but I reckon most people are using it to block stuff out. And, unless we do something truly meaningful which gets to the nub of what's going with these people, treating them as criminals won't solve it. And by not treating meth use as a health issue, it just leaves the problem in the laps of parents, and brothers and sisters, and friends who not only have to watch someone they love get lost in addiction – they also have to try and save them, on their own. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Art of the Cut we speak with three guests: the co-director and show editor and montage editor of the documentary Ladies and Gentlemen: 50 Years of SNL Music.Oz Rodriguez co-directed the documentary with Ahmir “Questlove” Thompson. Oz directed many of your favorite SNL Shorts, and has also directed episodes of Goosebumps and Nobody Wants This. John MacDonald was an associate producer on SNL. He's an editor, composer and segment producer on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon. You've probably had some of his YouTube videos running on repeat. Jimmy Lester has been nominated for a Documentary Emmy for  Stockton on My Mind. He's edited episodes of Wu-Tang Clan: Of Mics and Men, History Channel's FDR series, and the doc, Getting Naked: A Burlesque Story.This discussion includes - among other things - why so many editors are also musicians, the value of a great assistant editor - and how to be one - and the art of using a talking head.This is a really good show to check out the blog, which has many exclusive images that help show how the montage, in particular, was edited. Visit:borisfx.com/blog/aotc

Guest – The Reverand Canon Dr. John Macdonald preaches Isa 61:1-4 Ps 96 Rom 10:9-17 John 20:19-31