Podcast appearances and mentions of John Macdonald

Isn't it amazing that, after all the time spent wringing our hands over the price of electricity, we still haven't bitten the bullet and gone full boar with solar energy? You might have heard Chris Hipkins hinting yesterday that, if Labour forms the next government, solar will be on the agenda. He isn't giving too much away but says, yes, ramping up the use of solar power will be one of Labour's election policies. There'll be no details, though, until after the Budget in May. That's because he wants to get a better idea of how much money he's got to play with. But, if last election is anything to go by, it looks like Labour might be resurrecting the policy it had back then of providing $4,000 grants to help people install solar panels. In my mind, it is ridiculous that we don't require new houses to be fitted out with solar panels. It would add to the cost of the build but, long-term, I think it would be a game changer. I'm not the only one who thinks this. Sir Ian Taylor is saying today that electrification is the future and solar is how we get there. Solar on homes. Solar on farms. Solar on commercial buildings. And I couldn't agree more. He says the cheapest electricity is the electricity you don't have to move. So his version of full-boar solar includes storage capacity - not just solar panels - at our houses, on our farms and on our commercial buildings. He says: “Every kilowatt generated where it is used is one that does not need to be transmitted across the country. that reduces losses. it reduces strain on the grid. and it reduces the need for expensive new transmission infrastructure that ultimately pushes power prices higher.” No argument from me. LISTEN ABOVESee 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.

Bic Runga is back with her first new album in fifteen years. She spoke with John MacDonald about her new album, Red Sunset, and touched on what genres inspired the album. "I'm always inspired by anything from the 60's and 70's especially." She also spoke about her biggest hit Sway, and its everlasting popularity thirty years on. "It found a life of its own, I never thought that would happen." Runga embarks on an Australasian tour with the new album and will return home to Christchurch to play the Isaac Theatre Royal on Sunday, March 29th. The new album, Red Sunset is out now all streaming platforms. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How do you feel about being told you need to spend more money? That's what the Reserve Bank's chief economist wants you to do. As expected, the bank's governor announced yesterday that there would be no change in the official cash rate because the bank doesn't want to do anything that could put the brakes on the economic recovery. Which some people are feeling the benefits of, while others aren't. Which the Reserve Bank describes as an uneven recovery. Meaning we're still in for a bit of a haul before we all feel some sort of benefit. Tell that, though, to the bank's chief economist Paul Conway who is giving us all a bit of a hurry along, saying people need to stop being so cautious with their money and get out and spend more. How realistic is that, do you think? If you're not having a “tell him he's dreaming moment”, then you must be one of the people who are already feeling the benefit of an economic recovery. But, generally, what planet is Paul Conway on, telling us to spend more? Because we're doing that already. Not out of choice. Not because we're feeling particularly flush. But we're spending more just to get by. Two days ago, new numbers came out showing that grocery prices are still going up. White bread prices up 57.9 percent in the past year. Chocolate up 20 percent. Not to mention mince. That's pink gold these days. Which is why I think this statement by the Reserve Bank's chief economist that we need to stop being so tight and start spending more is just ridiculous. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Megan Woods joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week. They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from the Infrastructure Commissions report, NZ First pushing for English to become an official language, and they reflect on the February 2011 earthquake sixteen years on. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor tells me several things, one of which is how much the late Queen really dropped the ball on this one. And that's putting it politely. She was the one who protected him when all the stories started to emerge. She was the one who, apparently, helped him out with some of the hush money paid out to one of his accusers. Which only fueled the impression - rightly or wrongly - that the Royal Family thought it was above everything and everyone else. Which is why I think this development is a brilliant opportunity for the monarchy. Because this takes the monarchy down a peg or two, which can only be a good thing in the public's eyes. King Charles obviously sees an opportunity. He hasn't been slow in coming forward, saying “the law must take its course”. We've also got the likes of Major General Alastair Bruce, who is a historian and a royal watcher for Sky News, saying that this is “the most shocking day for the British Crown, to have a former prince of the blood arrested”. Other commentators are describing the arrest as “extraordinary”, “unprecedented”, “spectacular” and a “body blow”. Whether it is a body blow remains to be seen. Because these developments overnight show that the monarchy is just as answerable as the rest of us. Which is no bad thing, is it? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Send a textThis week's journey in piping takes you to Scotland, Brittany, Cape Breton, USA and Australia.PlaylistEddie and Luc with How Old are You my Bonnie Lass, Jimmy MacGregor and John MacDonald's Exercise from TiradeShotts and Dykehead Caledonia Pipe Band with The First One Hundred, Showboat, The Curlew, Cabar Feidh, The Bells of Dunblane, Smith's a Gallant Fireman, Puirt a Beul, The Judge with a Grudge, Legless in Lisburn from World Pipe Band Championships 2000Slainte Mhath with O'Rourkes, Joan Beaton's Reel and Red Herring from Va Patrick Molard with Dusgadh na Bainnse from The Waking of the Bridegroom Taliska with Song for the Smallpipe, Malts on the Optics and Miss Girdle from Celtic Café Menu Victoria Police Pipe Band (trio) with the Hellbound Train from Uphold The Right Margaret Stewart and Ewen Henderson with Bruadar Dheirdre from The Piper and the Maker 2: Celebrating C CAF Winter School Folkies (Finlay MacDonald, Ailis Sutherland, Gary West, Alasdair White, Megan Henderson, Katie McNally, Ross Martin and Murdo Yogi Cameron) with Braes of Melinish and the Lark's Ascension Live EYP Recording, Seabeck WA, February 2026     Support the show

Chris Hipkins says we need to take the politics out of the Infrastructure Commissions National Infrastructure Plan. The Leader of the Opposition told John MacDonald that he thinks the Commission has done a "really good job" on their recent report, and we need to focus on the basics. "They've pointed out we have an over reliance on shiny new things, and we haven't done the basic maintenance of the things we've already got." "We need to take the politics out of it and focus on a long-term plan." On the rise of Winson Peters and NZ First in the polls, he said that Peter's lifetime in politics has given some unique political skills of reinvention. "At the moment, he's trying to be an opposition MP while also trying to be the third highest ranking minster in the current government." When asked if he has considered working with Peters to form the next government, Hipkins said that's something they will look at closer to election day. "We'll set out closer to the election where we've got common ground with other parties." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

One of the problems with politicians is that they often stake their political survival on big infrastructure projects. Which is why we've got Waimakariri MP Matt Doocey and Waimakariri mayor Dan Gordon jumping up and down saying like hell, there'll be no Woodend Bypass. The thing that's got them excited is the new national infrastructure plan released by the Infrastructure Commission which, in a nutshell, says we should be building more hospitals and less big roads. They'll be getting no argument from me. Dan Gordon is rejecting any suggestion the bypass is a lower priority than other projects. But he would say that. He says more than 20,000 vehicles go through Woodend every day, and that's only going to increase. He says: “The town is quite literally divided in two by the state highway and the risk this has posed for decades is not acceptable. As the community grows this risk only increases.” And he's not having a bar of the Infrastructure Commission's push for more tolling charges on roads, either. I think he's pushing that one uphill. Because, it's very clear to me that charging tolls to use roads is the way of the future. It has to be. because, as a country, we don't have the money. Meanwhile, MP Matt Doocey is saying there's no way the bypass is going to go down the pecking order. He says: “If experts think the date for exceeding capacity of the current road in Woodend is still some years away, they clearly weren't stuck in traffic last Friday night after work like I was.” He's not anti-tolls, though. Matt Doocey says if paying a toll means roads being built sooner and faster, then that's how it has to be. But I think he and Dan Gordon need to show some fortitude and, instead of banging-on about the Woodend Bypass just because they've staked their political careers on it, they should admit that we need to make the big calls as to what really is most important. Because I can't argue with what the Infrastructure Commission is saying. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

NZ First is on the up, according to the latest 1News Verian poll. The result out last night had Winston Peters' party on 10 percent - its highest rating in that particular poll since August 2017. It comes just a few weeks after a Taxpayers' Union poll ranked NZ First the third most popular party in Parliament. Ask NZ Herald chief political reporter Jamie Ensor and he'll tell you more and more voters are liking the party because of its cautious approach on immigration and climate change policies. That it's a party that is seen as anti-establishment and has, as he puts it, “a charismatic no-nonsense leader”. That bit about Winston Peters being anti-establishment is a reference to his flirtatious relationship with the conspiracy theory brigade. Which tends to be the Winston Peters we see here at home. When he's running around community halls up and down the country barking into microphones. When he jumps on a plane, though, and heads overseas as the Foreign Affairs Minister, he's a completely different guy, isn't he? Nevertheless, whatever version we get on any given day, more people seem to be liking it. My theory is that NZ First is only on the rise because all the other options are so bad. I can't believe that two-and-a-half years on from the last election, I'm still in the same boat and have no idea who I want to vote for. That's how I felt at the last election and that's how I'm feeling now. I've spoken to plenty of people recently who say they're looking seriously at NZ First. People of all ages. What has surprised me most, is the number of young people who seem to like what the party is saying about immigration. These are people who aren't just seeing NZ First as an option because they don't think any of the other parties are offering anything. They're actually liking what the party is saying. And that's what we're seeing in the polls. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Isn't David Seymour the guy who got himself into government at the last election and then went and set up a new government department? But, despite the irony, I agree with him that we need fewer government departments and fewer Cabinet ministers. Previously, the ACT leader has described the public sector as "a big, complicated bureaucratic beast". There are the numbers to back that up. We have 82 cabinet portfolios, 28 ministers and 41 separate government departments and agencies. David Seymour thinks that's crazy and says ACT will campaign in this year's election on changing that. And, instead of having 41 government departments and agencies, he wants us to have no more than 30. As for cabinet ministers - at the moment there are 28, David Seymour thinks we need no more than 20. I remember Oliver Hartwich from the NZ Initiative think tank saying last year that we could get away with having as few as 15 cabinet ministers, instead of the 28 we have at the moment. But he thought that 20 was more realistic. As for government departments, they are monsters. They operate in silos. They compete with each other for funding. They don't talk to each other. That's why there's so much duplication. For example, 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. As for cabinet positions, do we need a mental health minister? Could that all be part of the health minister's job? And don't get me started on things like the Minister for the South Island or the Minister for Auckland that Labour brought in. So, I'm with David Seymour and I think we could do with fewer government departments and agencies. But it will never happen. Talking about having less government departments and less cabinet ministers is easy and politicians talk about it because they know it tends to go down well with people. But it will never happen. Because, whether people admit it or not, they still expect the government and its departments to fix everything. And, unless that changes, the government isn't going to get any smaller. And its list of departments isn't going to get any shorter. LISTEN ABOVESee 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.

Christchurch City Councillor Yani Johanson thinks we should all pay a special levy when we buy tickets for all events at Christchurch's new One New Zealand Stadium. And he won't be getting any argument from me. Yani can't believe the news today that a levy is only going to be charged on tickets for concerts by international artists. He says it is “inconceivable” the levy won't be charged for all events, including rugby matches and everything else that happens there, because he reckons it's only fair that all people who use the stadium help pay for its upkeep. No international acts have been announced yet but, apparently, there are going to be some announcements in the next few weeks. And when the tickets go on sale, the council's events company - Venues Ōtautahi - which is going to be running the stadium, is going to add a $5 levy to the ticket price. The money from the levy is going to be used to pay for the extra toilets and extra food and drink facilities that are going to be needed when they have these big concerts. So it sounds as if we might be queuing up for portaloos even though it's a new flash harry facility. The point Councillor Yani Johanson is making, is that anyone who wants to go to any event at the stadium should make the same contribution towards the running of the place. He says: “A lot of these people buy expensive tickets to these events and are subsidised by the ratepayers in Linwood, Bromley and Aranui. I don't think that is fair.” But the head of Venues Ōtautahi, Caroline Harvie-Teare, says it wouldn't be fair or right to charge a levy for all events. Her thinking is that if you or I are buying tickets to see the likes of Bruce Springsteen or Pink or the Rolling Stones, we're not going to give two-hoots about a $5 levy on top of the ticket price. But she says it would be a different story for some of the smaller-scale, community-type events that are also going to be held at the stadium. She says a levy on those types of events could put some people off and so they would be less viable. But what I would say to that, is that the stadium is not a charity and if events can't pay their way, then maybe they need to be held somewhere else. What's more, do you really think a $5 levy would put people off buying tickets to see the All Blacks or the Crusaders? Of course not. Do you think a $5 levy would put people off buying tickets to see the rugby league world cup double-header in October? Or the Black Ferns when they play here? So, of course, this levy should be added to the ticket prices for every event. Yani Johanson is spot on. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Do you think there is anyone in New Zealand who believes the Government's line that it's a coincidence the findings of its inquiry into the Reserve Bank's COVID-19 response will be released a few weeks before the election? As the NZ Herald's political editor, Thomas Coughlan, puts it: the inquiry will ask the right questions at the wrong time. Because this has election campaigning written all over it. The official line is that the review is being done to “identify any lessons New Zealand could learn to improve the response to future major events”. But how credible is that, given the findings of the inquiry will be released just weeks before this year's election? Not very, according to Labour leader Chris Hipkins, who's saying today: “If this is a genuinely independent review that provides some lessons learned, it could be useful. But doing it right in the middle of an election campaign suggests that's not Nicola Willis' primary motivation here.” And he's spot on. Because it's not. The Government's primary motivation is to spend half a million dollars of taxpayer money on a report that is going to come out at the pointy end of the election campaign, which will do one of two things. It will either rip into the Reserve Bank in the way the Government hopes it will. So it can then say to voters, “do you really want the last lot who let the Reserve Bank get away with this trainwreck back in charge of the economy?” Or, the report will be a bit soft - not quite what the Government wants - but will still give it bragging rights about looking to learn from past mistakes. Unlike Labour, who it will accuse of not having the guts to front up to the COVID-19 Royal Commission of Inquiry. So it's going to be a win-win - especially for National. I think this would have way more credibility if the Government had come out yesterday and said it was launching the inquiry but the findings wouldn't be released until after the election. For the benefit of whoever the government of the day is after the election. If it had done that, I would have had no problem with the timing. Instead, this inquiry - which, in itself, is fully justified - is at risk of looking like nothing more than taxpayers coughing-up for the National Party's election campaign. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Is there anything about the Government's free trade deal with India that anyone likes? The prime minister and the trade minister love it. Winston Peters doesn't. And it seems Labour leader Chris Hipkins is coming around to thinking that he doesn't like it, either. He's concerned about the prospect of an unlimited number of Indian students being allowed to come here and work and the impact that could have on the job market. Which the trade minister is poo-pooing. Because we don't actually have any limits on the number of students who can come here from anywhere. Not just India. But I think we should. I know the trade minister will tell us until he's blue in the face that this is a trade deal - not an immigration deal. But he's pushing that one uphill with the likes of Winston Peters, who is picking up on the immigration side of it because there is no shortage of people who love to complain about foreigners “taking over”. Do you really think NZ First would be making as much of a noise if this was a deal with the UK or the US? I don't think so. So they're just tapping into some good old-fashioned xenophobia. That said - since the government announced the deal just before Christmas - whenever I've been speaking with young people especially about it, I've been surprised how strongly some of them feel about students coming here from other countries. And how many of them think there should be limits. Which I agree with, for several reasons. First of all, students don't come here with any skills. They come here to get skilled. I know they spend money and it's great for the tertiary sector because they pay higher fees being international students. But they don't come here and fill the workforce skill shortages we're dealing with. Secondly, the more students from overseas, the higher the demand for accommodation. Which means student rents going skyward. What's more, if we have no limits on the number of students coming here, then that increases the risk of students getting ripped off by employers. It also makes it tougher for domestic students to find the work they need to pay for their studies. But what do you think? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A lawyer believes the Christchurch couple who found $200,000 in their ceiling space should keep the cash that they found in their property. However, the High Court has decided that the couple are not owed a cent of the money, even though they handed it in with good faith. They uncovered the cash sealed in plastic bricks and concealed in insulation in 2021 and reported their discovery to police. Lawyer and former police officer Matthew Hague told John MacDonald that there's no question that the couple were innocent in their reporting. "They had zero involvement with anything untoward, they should be allowed to keep it" When asked if he thinks the couple will end up with the money, he said there is one thing going against them. "If you pay for something, that can be a factor for something to be returned, but they're not out of pocket." "In my view, they did nothing wrong" LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins has fallen into the trap that I could very easily find myself falling into if I didn't think a little bit more carefully about this plan by the Government to set-up a new shipping terminal in Taranaki to import liquified natural gas. This is the gas that's needed to generate power, alongside the other ways we generate power in this country - hydro, coal and wind. It's going to cost somewhere north of $1 billion, and the Government reckons it will be up-and-running in one-to-two years' time. I think it's dreaming on the timeline front. I also think Chris Hipkins is dreaming when he says $1 billion would buy a lot of solar panels. Because even though Energy Minister Simon Watts banging-on about us paying less for our electricity - or more to the point, not paying a truckload more for electricity - this isn't actually about you and me. Unless you run a big manufacturing or processing plant - in particular one of these big plants or factories that have been struggling with power prices. This is about industrial electricity supplies. This talk about importing gas first surfaced a couple of years ago when factories were actually closing because of high power prices. The big power companies looked into it, and they wrote a report for the Government which essentially said that it wasn't as straightforward as it sounded. They looked into the practicalities of importing gas and they said we could do it, but there are a few things to think about. The main ones being the price tag and how long it would take to get it happening. They said last year that it could be done cheaper than $1 billion - for around $200 million - but the gas would be 25 percent more expensive, because the cheaper option would use existing facilities. However, there wouldn't be the same amount of storage and so we couldn't buy as much in one hit and so we'd pay more for it. They also said it wouldn't be an overnight fix. It would be about four years before we started to see the benefits. Another main point in this report was that we could spend the money and wait for it all to come online, but there could be years when we don't even need the extra gas. But that's a bit like pouring money into a fire alarm and sprinkler system and not using it. You know it's there and it gives you security. That's how I see this gas importation business. It's a back-up. And so, what if it isn't needed all the time? LISTEN ABOVESee 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've done a few things in my time. But one thing I haven't done is serve on a jury. For a long time, I put it down to me working in the media. But I was out of the media for a long time, as well. So I don't know why I haven't had the call up. But, apparently - according to defense lawyer John Munro - I might be somewhat unusual in my enthusiasm. He says people don't have the same sense of civic duty as they used to and aren't keen to do jury service. And, because of that, we need to be offering more carrots for them to make themselves available - starting with paying them more. I think that might help. But if someone has no sense of civic duty, paying them more to turn up isn't going to make much difference, is it? If more money is the only reason they do turn up - then do we really want them on a jury? Would they be there for the right reason? At the moment, you get $62 a day for jury service. Which is chickenfeed. As John Munro says, it's nowhere near enough - especially for people who are self-employed. At the same time, we've got this guy in Auckland saying today that he will never make himself available for jury duty again after his experience. He's really brassed-off after he took leave from his job and spent three days waiting around the court building doing nothing. He wasn't selected for any trials and, after three days, they told him he was done. Nico van Rooyen was very excited to be called up for jury service. But it's only left him out of pocket and a harsh critic of the system. He says: "I won't ever do it again. Believe you me, it's the biggest waste of time I have ever experienced, The selection process is a farce of gigantic proportions." He says 80 people waited at the district court for several hours and then, without any scrutiny, were reduced to 40. He was then told to turn-up at court the next morning. He did that and waited all day and was told to come back the following day. Day three, he turned up and at lunchtime he was told he could leave. He says the system needs a shake-up. “Not a single one of my friends or customers had anything good to say about jury service. Some said, ‘just make an excuse for work'. Some had been excused from it between three and seven times. But not me, mate. I wanted to do it.” Never again, though, he says. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I think the Government is making a terrible mistake ditching the second practical test for new drivers. I like some of the changes it's making to the driver licensing system. But getting rid of the second practical isn't one of them. I'll tell you why. But, first, what bits do I like? And what is missing from the changes? For starters, I like the idea of a zero-alcohol limit for all new drivers. At the moment, this only applies to new drivers under 20. The Government is going to apply that to all new drivers - whatever their age. I would have gone further and introduced a zero-alcohol rule for all drivers. But this is a good start. I also like the increased learner period for new drivers under-25 - which makes total sense because the numbers tell us, don't they, that any driver under the age of 25 is at greater risk of injury or death. So the more time they spend as a learner driver - which stops them running around town with passengers - that has to be a good thing. As to what's missing - I've always thought it's nuts that we only train and test new drivers within the town or city limits on 50 kph roads and do nothing to prepare them for driving on the open road. But my real concern is the second practical test getting the flick. 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. When someone is starting out as a new 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 with new drivers only having a practical test to get their restricted licence - and never being tested again until they're well past retirement age - that is not going to make our roads safer. The second practical test is the perfect opportunity for any bad driving habits someone has developed while they've been on their learner and restricted licences to be picked up and ironed out. Because, if they fail, they remember. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Do you feel better off than you did three years ago? With it being election year, that's the question politicians are going to be asking you. It's the question I'm asking you too in light of the latest unemployment numbers - which are the highest in more than a decade. That's the overall number. In Canterbury, things are a little bit better. The unemployment rate here is down and we've got 12,000 extra jobs. That was in the three months to December. Nevertheless, we can't deny that the better things are everywhere, then the better off we will all be. Not surprisingly, Finance Minister Nicola Willis is saying that employment growth is up. She says people are feeling more confident about the economy. Which is why the data released yesterday showed that, despite the overall unemployment rate increasing, there are more people out there looking for work because they're confident that there is actually work out there for them. My view on that is that, yes, there is work out there - but you have to do a lot more than just email your CV and a cover letter. In some cases, you have to physically knock on doors - just like the old days. But back to whether or not we actually feel any better off. For me, it's a mixed bag. But I suspect that's a stage-of-life thing. The kids have all grown up - so life is naturally less expensive on that front. No school camps and sports trips to pay for. I'm not buying clothes or shoes for kids who keep outgrowing them. So life is cheaper for me on that front. Nevertheless, every time I go through the check-out at the supermarket, I'm still blown away by how much it costs. Not to mention what it's like if you've still got the kids at home and you're doing the weekly shop to keep them fed and watered. Then, if you've got a home loan, there's the mortgage rates. They're still on the up and who knows what further increases might be on the cards with the Reserve Bank still fighting the inflation battle. As one of our listeners, Paul, points out: “Inflation is up, interest rates are up, unemployment is up and redundancies continue. Store closures continue too.” I'm guessing Paul's answer to my question is that he doesn't feel any better than he did three years ago. But what about you? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How on earth did we get to the point where we've got schools saying today that kids are starting school without some of the most basic skills? And when they say basic, they mean basic. According to the Auckland Primary Principals' Association, there are five-year-old kids starting school who can't talk, who can't feed themselves and who haven't been toilet trained. I think I've got a partial solution to this problem. Which would mean putting more pressure on parents to make sure their kids are school-ready. I'll get to that. But first, here's the scale of the problem. Nearly 90 per cent of Auckland primary schools say new entrant students are needing more help than ever before to reach a level where they're ready to learn. Massey Primary School assistant principal, Anna Watkin, is one of the educators speaking out today. She says her school is seeing increasing numbers of children entering the classroom who can't hold a pencil or recognise their name. She says: “They struggle with empathy, focus, and even basic things like toileting. It takes at least three years to catch them up to expected curriculum standards.” And this is not just an Auckland problem. I was talking to someone who said there are new entrants turning-up at the Christchurch school their kids are at who can't eat their lunch on their own. What's more, parents at their child's school have been warned that, if their Year One child wets or soils their pants, the teachers won't be cleaning it up. They'll call the parents and get them to come and sort it out. But that's putting the onus on the parents' way too late. The pressure needs to go on parents' way before Day One at school - and here's how you'd do it. I think every child about to start school should be tested for the basic skills you would expect them to have at age 5. So, they'd be tested to check they can do things like feed themselves and go to the toilet. You might think schools don't have time to do all that. But my response is that schools also don't have the time to deal with these kids once they're in the classroom, either. At least by testing them before they start, the school and teachers would have a warning that they're going to be dealing with kids who don't know the basics. If we were going to be really hard on it, we'd tell parents or caregivers to keep their kids at home until they can do these basic things. So, they wouldn't be allowed to start school until they could prove they were toilet-trained and all of that. I think that would be going too far. But at least if a child was tested for these basics before starting, schools would have a better idea or a warning of what they're going to be dealing with. LISTEN ABOVESee 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 am liking the sound of a law change being introduced in New South Wales, where they are no longer going to allow good character references to be factored into court sentences. You know the drill. Someone is found guilty of a crime, they get their mates to write to the judge saying what a great person they are and how they've done all these good things. The judge reads all these glowing references and, when it comes to handing down a sentence, gives them some sort of discount because of their “good character”. The New South Wales government has decided it's not having any more of that. And I think we should do the same thing here. Because someone's so-called good character means zilch to their victim or their victims, doesn't it? If we're going to make noises about the criminal justice system needing to be more victim-focused, then this would be a pretty good start. Because how galling must it be for the victim of a crime to turn up at the sentencing and hear about all these wonderful things that have been said about the person who offended against them? What's more, how galling must it be to not only hear how wonderful this person apparently is, but to also then witness the judge discounting their sentence because of these glowing reports. Even if someone has done amazing things in the past, that doesn't make their offending any less serious. It doesn't diminish the impact of their offending on their victim or their victims, does it? Not that good character references are going to disappear altogether in New South Wales. They're still going to be allowed during the trial process. But they're not going to be coming across the desk of judges when they're about to dish out sentences. The change follows a report by the New South Wales Sentencing Council which said the references are based on a vague and uncertain concept. It said just because someone has a good character reference, that doesn't tell the sentencing judge anything about the likelihood of someone re-offending or the likelihood of them being rehabilitated. Which makes total sense. It also says that good character discounts are traumatising for victims. I couldn't agree more. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Talk about déjà vu. The smell from the burnt-out wastewater treatment plant at Bromley has been a shocker this week and people have had a gutsful. City councillor Yani Johanson says making people wait for another three years is totally unacceptable and the council needs to get it sorted sooner. I think it's ridiculous that it has taken over four years for the problem to still exist. I agree that it should be fixed sooner. But I don't have any hope of that happening. Because the council has cocked this up from the outset and seems incapable of doing it any faster. Which tells me that it has learnt next to nothing. Remember it did the big mea culpa and admitted that, at the very least, it could have communicated better with people living in the area? And how it was going to do a better job blah blah blah. Right from the start, the council had this “we know best” attitude and was very dismissive of people's concerns. And it's still at it. It's doing a very good job of explaining why it's so bad this week - that the recent heavy rain seems to be behind it. Which is all very well. But, as I've said many times, people don't care what you know - until they know that you care. And I don't see the council showing too much care. Did you see the council guy on the news last night go all sheep-ish when he was asked about compo or support for people living with the stench? But it's not just Bromley that's affected. I was in Mairehau yesterday and the smell was really bad. But I'm not living with it all the time. Unlike Gaylene Ratima. She lives in Bromley and she woke up at 4 o'clock the other morning thinking the dog had done something on the carpet. She soon realised that the rotten egg smell had nothing to do with the dog and that it was coming from outside the house. It was the stench from the wastewater treatment plant seeping-in through the windows and doors - which were all closed. Imagine what that must be like. In fact, she reckons the smell this week is worse than it was after the treatment plant fire back in November 2021. Which is why councillor Yani Johanson is saying today that making people wait for another three years for the smell problem to be fixed is totally unacceptable and the council needs to get it sorted sooner. As he points out - the way things are going, it's going to take longer than it took to build the new One New Zealand stadium. The fire was in November 2021 - over four years ago - and the council's going to take another three years to fix it. Totally unacceptable.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Before the weekend, questions were already being asked as to why the campground at Mt Maunganui wasn't evacuated before last week's devastating landslide. That will be one of the things looked into as part of this independent investigation the local council is initiating. There will be all sorts of questions and, hopefully, a lot of answers. But there is one thing we know for sure already. We don't need an investigation to tell us that what happened on Thursday is a wake-up call for all of us. As tragic as it is, it is a wake-up call. But will we learn from it? I'd like to think so. But, based on history, I'm not so sure. Because I was very surprised to find out over the weekend that, historically in New Zealand, landslides have been more deadly than earthquakes. Tom Robinson is a senior lecturer in disaster risk and resilience at the University of Canterbury, and he was saying at the weekend that landslides have claimed more lives than all of our earthquake disasters. That landslides are our most deadly hazard. I had no idea. Which tells me how little we have learned from previous landslides. And, even though we're all gutted by what's happened at Mt Maunganui, chances are we'll all move on. We'll keep doing things like removing trees from hillsides - something that people in the Mt Maunganui area are already making noises about. We'll have this council review and we'll hear that, yes, perhaps the early warnings raised by locals on Thursday morning should have been acted on sooner. But that will be about it. I remember growing up in Dunedin when the Abbotsford landslide happened. It was 8 August 1979. That was major. More than 60 houses lost. 600 people evacuated. Thankfully, no fatalities or major injuries. The Abbotsford landslide happened after people in the area had been saying for years that there were signs of land movement. Cracks on people's properties - inside and out. And then, on the night of 8 August, away it went. That was 46 years ago. So, if we didn't learn anything from that experience, what hope that we'll learn anything from this? Or more to the point, what hope that - whatever we learn - leads to the kind of change and accountability needed to, at the very least, limit the chances of it happening again? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Send us a textIn this episode of the Right Hand Drive Guys Podcast, we sit down with John Macdonald from Florida — the man who took a humble R32 GT-R and completely transformed it into a purpose-built drag car in his own garage. No big shop. No shortcuts. Just skill, patience, and an obsession with getting it right.John walks us through the full build process, the challenges of restoring and modifying a GT-R at home, and what it took to bring this car from vision to reality. The payoff? The car was officially unveiled at GT-R Festival in Ennis, Texas, where it didn't just turn heads — it took home Best of Show.This episode is all about grassroots passion, hands-on craftsmanship, and proving that some of the wildest builds still come out of home garages.

I reckon we should have signs up at our international airports saying: “Welcome to the people's republic of pushovers”. Because of our crazy ACC system which, a lot of the time, makes those of us living here fight tooth and nail but tells anyone coming here for a visit that they can tie themselves to bungy ropes, jump on skis, do whatever they want - and we'll pay for their treatment. It seems even crazier when we've got ACC announcing today that it's got a plan to become more financially sustainable, after that big loss last year and a projected $26 billion deficit in four years' time. ACC says it's going to focus on getting people back to work quicker after an injury. But I think it also needs to think about who it covers, starting with people from overseas. Because we are too much of a pushover. Not that it's ACC in isolation that's the problem. The reason we provide ACC to visitors from other countries is that we don't have the right to sue here in New Zealand. That's why visitors are covered. So, let's say someone comes here and goes skiing and has an accident and ends up getting helicoptered to hospital. They can't sue the ski field operator or the clown who was gunning it down the mountain and lost control and ploughed into them. So ACC covers the cost of their treatment and care. But I think this needs to stop. Some people will probably argue that, if we make tourists pay for their own treatment if they injure themselves, then they won't come here. But that's nonsense. There are two approaches we could take. We could either charge non-residents at the door when they need treatment. Or we make it mandatory for anyone visiting New Zealand to have travel insurance. Because it isn't at the moment. It needs to be. Because it's time to turn-off the ACC tap for people visiting from other countries LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Inflation's officially higher than it's supposed to be. Latest Stats NZ data shows inflation's reached 3.1% – up from 3% at the last update three months ago. That's above the Reserve Bank's target range of 1 to 3%. The Herald's Liam Dann told John MacDonald it's also well above the Reserve Bank's forecast of 2.7%. He says there were hopes inflation was starting to fall again, so to see a rise like this isn't good at face value. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Inflation's officially higher than it's supposed to be. Latest Stats NZ data shows inflation's reached 3.1% – up from 3% at the last update three months ago. That's above the Reserve Bank's target range of 1 to 3%. The Herald's Liam Dann told John MacDonald it's also well above the Reserve Bank's forecast of 2.7%. He says there were hopes inflation was starting to fall again, so to see a rise like this isn't good at face value. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Phil Goff agrees with the Christchurch City Council's response to a Government proposal of capping rates to no more than 2 to 4 percent per year. Goff says the Government is not performing in lowering the cost of living, but a rates cap is not the right answer. The former Mayor of Auckland told John MacDonald the Government sees local councils as an "easy target". Christchurch City Council has responded to the Government's proposal, saying that while they support a prudent approach to managing rates, the cap as currently designed is “unrealistic and unworkable”. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you bump into Chris Hipkins today, can you tell him he's dreaming? Because, now that we know this year's election is happening on 7 November, Chris Hipkins is saying that Labour can get more than 40 percent of the party vote and form the next government. He also wants Labour to win back Auckland. He's dreaming. Because I don't think voters, generally, are ready yet to give Labour another chance. And I don't think voters in Auckland, especially, are ready to trust Labour again. Hipkins is doing what leaders do - especially in election year. They rally the troops. But it's going to be a big task keeping the troops rallied for 10 months. And I know Labour will be disappointed that the election isn't happening sooner. An earlier election would have meant less time for the economy to recover. Plus, Labour has nowhere near the same campaign resources that the likes of the National Party has. So it's going to be a tough winter for the party. The thing is: what would we need to see from Labour or hear from Labour to buy into this talk from Chris Hipkins that it's a different party from last time around? Rather than banging-on about changing and being different, we need to hear what it is the party has accepted about itself that has driven this so-called change. It's very easy to say “oh, we've changed. we're different now, you're gonna love the new us”. That's just telling people what you think people want to hear. To even think about giving Labour another chance so soon, people need to see the difference. Let me give you an example: you're running a cafe but customers are leaving in droves because they don't like the way you and your staff treat them when they come in for lunch or a coffee. You're a bunch of grumps. Terrible vibe. So people give you the flick. You realise what's happening and you go onto your Facebook page and you say “hey guys, I'm hearing that some of you haven't been that impressed with our service. Hey, I've had a word to the team and we're different now, we've changed our ways, so come on back.” Would you buy into that? I'm picking voters will be exactly the same with Labour. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hats off to the Christchurch City Council. Which is telling the Government today that its idea of forcing a cap on council rates increases is “unrealistic and unworkable”. Which is a polite way of saying “rates caps are a daft idea, so just drop it right now”. And that's what I think too. I've always thought it's a daft idea to force local councils around the country to increase rates by no more than 2 to 4 percent each year. It sounds brilliant, but it's never going to work. The Christchurch council says even at the upper range of a 4 percent cap, it would be forced to cut costs by up to $120 million a year. Which confirms to me that the Government either has no idea or no interest in the financial realities local councils are dealing with. Christchurch city council says rates caps would force cuts to essential services, lead to a decay in assets, delay investment in critical infrastructure, and reduce the council's ability to repay debt. Not only that. It says they would drive up fees and charges. Which the Government isn't being totally upfront about. Because, just before Christmas, a Cabinet paper was quietly published which shows we're only being told part of the story. In the paper, the local government minister says the rates caps are intended to “incentivise greater use of user charges, which have declined in recent years”. Which is what the Christchurch city council is warning us about today.If councils are forced to limit annual rates increases to somewhere between 2 and 4 percent, we'll just end up paying more in other ways. How do you feel about higher parking fees? Higher dump fees. Paying more to use your council pool. Higher consent charges. Life won't be cheaper, it will be more expensive. I've always known that this idea isn't actually going to deliver us any benefits. This cabinet paper and the people who actually know a thing or two about how councils work - Christchurch city council staff and councillors - are proof. No matter how much you might think your local council needs to rein-in the spending, this idea of rates caps won't make one bit of difference. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The personal responsibility brigade will be going ape over Pharmac looking into funding weight loss drugs. This wouldn't be for anyone wanting to lose a few kilos here and there. This would be for people who are obese and at risk of serious health complications. Around 200 potentially serious health complications, actually. Such as Type 2 Diabetes. I think it's a no-brainer. Because we have the third-highest adult obesity rate in the OECD, which is a problem for all of us. Even those of us with the metabolism of a racehorse. Because, with the health complications that come with obesity, we all end up paying. Whether it be in a financial sense as taxpayers or as users of the health system seeing waiting times blow out because of the demand for treatment. Because of the impact of obesity on the health system. The fact that Pharmac is even considering giving these weight loss drugs the time of day is brilliant. It now needs to ignore the naysayers and get on with it. And there will be naysayers. The people in the personal responsibility brigade who look at every overweight person and think they've got no control.You know: “They're all just a bunch of lardies who eat KFC every day. And why the hell should us taxpayers pay for that lot to get a magic potion because they can't say no. Because they've got no self-control. Haven't they heard of personal responsibility?” Blah blah blah. The funny thing is, you don't hear this lot ripping-into people with high blood pressure. Or people with heart disease. Or even people with cancer. You don't hear the personal responsibility crew saying those people shouldn't be on Pharmac's funding list. Because, if you apply the logic they apply to obese people, the exact same thing could be said. That someone who smokes, for example, shouldn't get their blood pressure pills funded by the taxpayer or someone who smokes and gets cancer shouldn't get medications that might save or extend their life. Obesity is a disease just like any other disease. A disease people have because of genetics or hormonal issues or psychological issues. It's way more complicated than just how much food someone eats.Which is why we need to accept that, if these drugs are a genuine option for people who have no way of losing significant amounts of weight and no other way of avoiding serious conditions like Type 2 Diabetes, then why wouldn't we fund weight loss drugs for them? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In his state of the nation speech yesterday, Christopher Luxon continued the great New Zealand tradition of kicking the retirement age can down the road. He said raising the retirement age was “inevitable”. But that was it. And, when I say kicking the can, it was more like nudging the can with his foot really. Because what the Prime Minister and every other politician should be doing, is showing some fortitude and accepting that tweaking with the retirement age is never going to be enough. What I think we should be doing, is telling people who are 35 and younger right now, that they'll have to provide for themselves completely when they retire because there won't be a NZ Super pension. That's what needs to happen. Instead of increasing the age of entitlement by one year or two years, we should ditch the scheme completely. But over a sustained period of time. Because the problem we're trying to solve is the fact that it is completely unsustainable. By the end of the decade, we're going to be spending $30 billion a year on NZ Super and, as economist Brad Olsen said recently, every other thing in the government's budget will be “rats and mice”. So, if we are serious about leaving a legacy for future New Zealanders - which is something the Prime Minister talked about a lot in his speech yesterday - we need to make sure that legacy doesn't include lumbering future generations with an unsustainable state pension scheme. But, the way we're going, nothing's going to change. Because politicians seem to be terrified of doing anything meaningful. Whereas, what I'm talking about would be meaningful. It would have no immediate impact, given it would only apply to people 35-and-younger now. But you can't underestimate the long-term benefits. I know doing away with NZ Super would be huge. But we can't afford to be all sentimental about it. We have to face the reality that the way we do things now - and the way we've been doing things - can't continue forever. LISTEN ABOVESee 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.

After yesterday's half-year fiscal update from the Government, the canary in the mine is gasping for air and the elephant in the room is walking all over everything. And economist Cameron Bagrie is saying that we can't ignore either of them - particularly in relation to the long-term outlook and what it means for superannuation and retirement planning. He says, with Government debt forecast to blow-out long-term, we need to accept the fact that the universal pension scheme is unsustainable. Government debt is forecast to increase to 180 percent of GDP in 30 to 40 years because of the ageing population and Cameron Bagrie says if we think tinkering around the edges with KiwiSaver is the solution, then we're dreaming. And I couldn't agree more. He says a conversation about the sustainability of superannuation can't be avoided forever. I would disagree with him slightly on that one. I think that conversation about the sustainability of our NZ Super scheme needs to happen now. My view on NZ Super is that it's crazy people who work beyond 65 get the pension. Even though it's taxed at a higher rate - I get that. But I still think it's wrong. I've also been a fan of some form of means testing. But, if I'm honest, do I really think the scale of the problem we've got - especially long-term - would be sorted out by not paying the pension to people who continue to work beyond 65 and means testing people before they get the pension? Probably not. So, if we're really going to think long-term, I reckon we need to make the call that people of a certain age are told that the NZ Super pension won't be available to them by the time they reach retirement age. This would have to be long-term. So, for arguments sake, let's say we told people who are 35 and younger that they will have to provide for themselves completely when they retire. That would give them at least 30 years to get themselves sorted. In fact, I would say that people in this age group probably assume now anyway that they won't be getting a government pension by the time they reach retirement age. So what I'm talking about is a very gradual phase-out of the government pension. I'm in no doubt that something like this is needed. Because we are dreaming if we think we can keep doing what we're doing. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You would think that, having had a major terror attack here, we'd be the last people that needed to be told after what happened in Bondi on Sunday night that we're too complacent. But that's what security experts are saying. That New Zealand remains complacent and naive, despite 51 people being killed in the mosque attacks in Christchurch in March 2019. And I think we are getting to the point where we need to have armed police at all major events in this country. These security experts are saying that what happened at Bondi should be something of a wake-up call for us. With one of them putting it this way in the NZ Herald: “We're only a small millimetre away from that occurring in our own backyard again.” That's a quote from Chris Kumeroa, who is a director of Global Risk Consulting and principal security adviser to the Government's Crowded Places Security Advisory Group. He says, even though there are significant differences between New Zealand and Australia in terms of international relationships and migrant communities, there is still growing political, religious and social polarisation here. And he says we could be doing more to deal with the risk of another mass casualty event happening. But what more could we do? How could we be more vigilant? Armed police at major events would be one way. Anyone who went to the public gatherings after the 2019 mosque attacks will remember the police being heavily armed. And I know that what I'm suggesting would definitely be confronting, but I think it would be comforting, as well. Because the clincher for me is this: in Bondi on Sunday night, one of the alleged attackers was a licensed firearms owner. The father, who was still allowed to keep his weapons despite his son apparently having an interest or a connection to ISIS. Nevertheless, the guns weren't illegal. Which shows how gun laws aren't enough on their own. So what I'm talking about is armed police at big sporting events, big concerts and gatherings of particular communities that might be considered at-risk. As former SIS agent and now Massey University senior lecturer Rhys Ball is saying today: “We still don't have conversations within New Zealand society that is thinking about security and safety in any way other than this kneejerk response. Security is usually down the pecking order of issues.” Armed police at major gatherings and events would be a definite way of putting it up the pecking order, don't you think?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I'm glad I'm not a volunteer firefighter. Because, if I was, I would be brassed-off that an attempt to get volunteer firefighters the same ACC cover as full-time firefighters has gone nowhere. A petition calling for the change has been rejected by a parliamentary select committee because it doesn't want to set a precedent. The committee is trotting out all the usual platitudes but the fact remains that volunteer firefighters have just had another kick in the guts. A bit of background: Katherine Lamont from the Queenstown volunteer brigade started the petition after another volunteer developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, but couldn't get any help because he's a volunteer. That's because volunteer firefighters don't get the same ACC cover and benefits as full-time firefighters. Which means if they suffer from any mental health issues because of their firefighting work, or if they get some kind of gradual injury from their firefighting work, or develop cancer because of their firefighting work, they can forget about any ACC entitlements. Whereas, full-time firefighters get all of that covered. Which is so wrong. Especially when you consider that volunteers make up 86 percent of the front-line Fire and Emergency New Zealand workforce and are often first responders in emergencies. In 2023, volunteer firefighters responded to callouts for 70 percent of all motor vehicle crashes, 71 percent of all medical emergencies and 81 percent of vegetation fires. That's according to Katherine Lamont from the Queenstown brigade who saw how much of a rort this is and started the petition to try and get a better deal for the volunteers. But Parliament's education and workforce committee has said no. Because it doesn't want to set a precedent - because it doesn't think it's practical for all volunteers to get ACC workplace coverage. The committee says: "While we are sympathetic to the petitioner's arguments, we are concerned about the precedent that extending ACC cover to volunteer firefighters might set.” I don't buy that for a minute. Because is the committee saying that, if volunteer firefighters got full ACC cover, then we'd have people doing meals on wheels demanding the same? So that's what the committee says about its reason for rejecting the petition. Then the weasel words start: “We would like to take the opportunity to express our heartfelt gratitude to all those who volunteer for this important and challenging work." Do me a favour! Heartfelt gratitude would be recognising these people properly. Telling them that, if their “important and challenging work” means one day they find themselves suffering from PTSD, or some other serious injury or cancer because of that "important and challenging work”, then they will be looked after. That would be “heartfelt gratitude”.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Australia pressed go yesterday on the social media ban for kids under-16 and a Parliamentary select committee here thinks we should do the same. I don't. Nor does retired district court judge David Harvey, who is saying today that a ban would be a cop-out for parents. He says it would be another example of outsourcing parental authority to the state. He might have a point, but I think a lot of parents are to blame for the problem people seem to be expecting Parliament to fix. Because a lot of parents have been pushovers when it comes to social media. You go anywhere today, and you'll see the next generation of pushover parents letting their kids on devices anytime, anywhere. I'm anti a ban because I just don't think it's practical. I don't see it working. I know the counterargument to that is that people get around all sorts of laws, so does that mean we shouldn't have any? Underage kids get their hands on alcohol even though it's illegal. People on learner licences drive with passengers, even though it's illegal. I get that, but it's still not a very good argument for a law that sounds great, but which I don't see being great in reality. The other reason I'm against a social media ban is that the under-16s who would be impacted have already grown up with social media. It's ingrained in their lives. It's a genuine communication tool – schools use it, sports clubs use it. Tell that though to the MPs on Parliament's Education and Workforce select committee, which has been looking into the idea of a social media ban for under-16s here in New Zealand. The committee's interim report, its final report will be out early in the new year, its interim view is that we need something like that here. The committee also thinks we would need to have a social media regulator to make sure people and the social media companies follow the rules. Back to retired judge David Harvey, who thinks banning under-16s from social media would be a cop-out for parents. He says: “Supporters of the ban increasingly frame it as a tool for parents – an additional “lever” to help them say “no” to persistent children. That rationale reflects a growing trend: shifting parental responsibility onto the state.” He says: “Telling children ‘the law says no' is not parenting. It is outsourcing authority.” And I agree.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.

Chris Hipkins is hitting out at the Taxpayers' Union as it prepares to launch a campaign against Finance Minister Nicola Willis. The lobby group is questioning Willis's track record on the economy. Willis has responded, challenging chair and former finance minister Ruth Richardson to a debate. The Labour Leader told John MacDonald the Taxpayers' Union has a view of "entrenched privilege". He claims the organisation is funded by a group of rich people who want to keep all of their money. Hipkins is also unimpressed by Willis' decision to agree to the debate, which he says shows deep divisions among the National Party. He calls it petty and says Willis should be focused on things like creating jobs. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

These researchers calling today for a ban on alcohol marketing and sponsorship sound to me like they're living in the past. Maybe it's the circles I mix in. But I reckon things have come ahead leaps and bounds when it comes to our drinking culture in New Zealand. And before you start yelling “what about things like crate day mate?” - I'm not saying we've got it perfect. But I think we've moved on from any decade before the current one - when what these experts are saying today might have carried more weight. So health promotion advisor Lizzie Barratt and researcher Dr Debbie Hager are saying that, with people drinking more at this time of the year, there is a spike in violence - especially by men against women and kids. I'm not going to argue with them on that one. But is advertising to blame for that? I don't think so. But it's not just an end-of-year thing. They say there needs to be a permanent ban on alcohol marketing and sponsorship to protect women and children from violence. They say a ban would eliminate alcohol's role in reinforcing a masculine drinking culture and eliminate its link with sporting activities. And, if we do nothing, things will only get worse. But the alcohol adverts I see these days are way different to the ones we used to see. For starters, they are way less “blokey”. They also seem to be promoting restraint, as much as anything. I really started noticing this a couple of years ago. Maybe further back than that. When the beer companies seemed to be putting as much effort into advertising their zero-alcohol products, as their other products. So doesn't that diminish the argument for a marketing ban and sponsorship ban? What's more, whatever I personally choose to drink has nothing to do with what I see on a billboard or whatever beer logo I might see on a rugby jersey. I'm not saying that the alcohol companies should be allowed to run ads encouraging us to get tanked. I‘m just saying that I don't think banning alcohol ads and banning alcohol sponsorships would stop the mongrels who do get pissed and go home and beat up their partners and kids. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's a lot to take in with these planning law changes. But what it comes down to is the Government wants people to be able to do more with their own property with less red tape. If you want to do something that has no impact on anyone else, you'll be able to do it. Your house, your castle. That's where there could be a few sticking points, because who determines what impacts others and what doesn't? But overall, I like what the Government is doing. And I know it will have looked for some of the most extreme examples of the current planning laws to sell the changes it's making. Which is to ditch the Resource Management Act and replace it with a planning act and a natural environment act. But you can't argue with the minister responsible, Chris Bishop, when he says we need to see the end of developers being told one thing by one council planner and something different by another – such as one planner saying front doors have to face the street and another saying they can't. What the Government is saying is that the days of council planners playing god are over. And amen to that. So the sorts of things it's going to let us do without needing consents are things like adding a balcony or a deck or building a garage. Chris Bishop says he knows of a guy who wanted to replace a garage on his property but spent nine months arguing with the council, because the council didn't like the look of the garage. It seems a lot of people are saying the devil will be in the detail. And one of the sticking points or potential bones of contention I see is where do you draw the line at what impacts others and what doesn't. For example: the Government wants me to be able to build a deck at my place without a consent, providing it has no impact on others. But what if building that deck means I can see over the fence more easily? Overall, though, I'm in favour of letting people do more with their own property with less red tape. But how do you feel about it? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Whether-or-not you saw former police commissioner Andrew Coster's TV interview yesterday, you'll know about the allegations he's making. He thinks people are running for the hills after the Jevon McSkimming scandal and aren't telling the whole story in terms of what they knew and when they knew it. Especially current police minister Mark Mitchell and former police minister Chris Hipkins. Isn't it weird that someone who served in the police for more than 25 years - who, I imagine, determined at some points during that time that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute - thinks he can make all sorts of accusations without one shred of evidence to prove it? That's what I took away from yesterday's interview. Can you imagine the police charging anyone with an offence with zero proof or zero evidence? Yet that is exactly what Andrew Coster did yesterday. He made these allegations that Chris Hipkins and Mark Mitchell aren't being upfront. Then, in the next breath, admitted that he had no record or evidence to prove it. That would be “case closed” if it was a police investigation. And, because he can't prove it, I can't believe him. This is someone who spent 28 years looking for evidence of guilt. He's got no evidence to back-up what he's saying - so I'm not buying it. Chris Hipkins and Mark Mitchell are both denying Coster's claims. Chris Hipkins says he “was never briefed on Jevon McSkimming's relationship with Ms Z during his time as minister of police or prime minister. Andrew Coster claims he told Hipkins in 2022 in the back of a car while they were on an official trip in the South Island, when Hipkins was police minister in the Labour government. And, Mark Mitchell is pushing back big time on Coster's claim that he knew earlier than 6 November last year. On Newstalk ZB this morning, he said Coster's claims were “absolute nonsense”. He said this morning - as he has since the Independent Police Conduct Authority report came out last month - that he first became aware on 6 November 2024, when Andrew Coster was told by the Public Service Commission to brief him on the situation. Mitchell says he didn't buy Coster's narrative that McSkimming was the victim. He says he's a father and that he pushed as much as he could as a minister to make sure the woman at the centre of all this was looked after. So it's “he says-he says”. But Andrew Coster has no evidence to prove his allegations so I can't believe him.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.

The automotive industry has come a long way from three-piece suits and mechanical production lines. Twenty-five years ago, manufacturers weren't thinking about EVs, tool changers, or the complexity we see today. Those who weathered 2008 will tell you: when the next downturn comes, it won't be your sales pitch that saves you, it'll be whether you were a true partner to your customers.This episode was recorded Oktoberfest-style at RAM Solutions, featuring eight industry leaders discussing what's transforming automotive manufacturing. Mitch Yencha and Scott Hunter share timeless lessons from surviving 2008, while Tanner Boyko and Jim Marlowe highlight the insane amount of innovation happening right now, from the safest cars in history to new EV players entering the space.Paul Otto and Andy Johnson reveal how AI is finally unlocking value from terabytes of welding data generated daily, while John Macdonald and Markus Weckbach from STÄUBLI explain why you need proactive planning with Plans B and C ready. They also cover why technologies like AMRs, AGVs, and gigacasting have finally crossed the adoption threshold.In this episode, find out:How team culture and customer empathy helped manufacturers survive 2008Why automotive has been having the supply chain conversation since Henry Ford's assembly line daysHow AI is analyzing terabytes of welding data daily to optimize qualityWhy cobots, camera programming, and automated forklifts are creating new job opportunitiesWhat gigacasting is and how it's eliminating spot welding by casting car bodies in 3-5 componentsWhy trade roles like maintenance and electricians are seeing a resurgenceThe proactive vs. reactive approach needed when running hundreds of jobs per hourHow RAM Solutions trains hands-on with STÄUBLI equipment to fully support customersEnjoying the show? Please leave us a review here. Even one sentence helps. It's feedback from Manufacturing All-Stars like you that keeps us going!Tweetable Quotes:“You have unbelievable technology coming into the automotive industry. It might be perceived as stagnant but that's just not true. There's a wide range of opportunities for anybody with any type of background to participate in this space.” – Scott Hunter“We talk about AI, but you still have to know the basics and know how to work with your hands. You need to know how to weld or operate a robot. You need to know the core foundation principles before you can take the next step.” – Paul Otto“We've always had a ton of automative data but the next step has been how to get it into a format so data scientists can use it and draw conclusions from it. Now the number crunchers can use AI tools to drive decision making on the manufacturing's floor.” – Andy JohnsonLinks & mentions:RAM Solutions, LLC, providing specialized automation solutions and 24/7 technical support across North America, with expertise in robotic tool changers, collision sensors, pneumatic systems, and overhead lifting equipment.STÄUBLI, a global mechatronic solution provider delivering robotics, electrical connectors, fluid connectors, and textile solutions across nearly every industry with long-term support in 28 countries.G.E Schmidt, a global leader in resistance welding solutions providing complete spot, seam, and projection welding systems with proprietary technologies for automotive and industrial manufacturers across the U.S., U.K., and...

What do street lights, tree cover, and public art all have to do with criminology? According to the data, these small initiatives can move the needle on the prevalence of neighborhood crime. In the fourth special edition of the Ampersand Podcast, Mark Trodden, Dean of Penn Arts & Sciences and Thomas S. Gates, Jr. Professor of Physics & Astronomy, talks with John MacDonald, Professor of Criminology and Sociology, and Director of the Master of Science in Criminology, about crime prevention through design, big data and technology, and how the Cambridge inspired a new program at Penn.

Send us a textGary pays a return visit to the Restitution contest held on Raasay in early September, and explores the contribution that island has made to Scotland's creative culture more widely.PlaylistAngus Nicholson with Barabel Phadruig, The Eavesdropper, Waulking the Floor and John MacDonald's Exercise from the Raasay Restitution Contest 2025, EYP Recording. Decker Forrest with Siud an gaol a bh' agad orm, Janet tyed the bonnet tight, St. Anne's Reel, 'S e mo ghaol an gille dubh and Mrs. MacKenzie's Reel from the Raasay Restitution Contest 2025, EYP Recording.Hazel Whyte with Fhuair mi Pog from the Raasay Restitution Contest 2025, EYP Recording.Finlay Cameron with Inns Dhòmhsa Cà'il Thu Cadal, The Tothiemurchus Rant, David MacIsaac's, An t-seann Cailleach, Mary Thomson, Lochiel's Rant and Jenny Dang the Weaver from the Raasay Restitution Contest 2025, EYP Recording. Martyn Bennett with Hallaig from Bothy Culture Hamish Hepburn and Jack Houston with The Mull Wedding  Ciar Milne with Drover Lads, Boys of Ballymote, The English Gardens of Munchen from the Raasay Restitution Contest 2025, EYP Recording. Brendon Eade with Unknown, Captain Horn, Devil in the Kitchen, Unknown,  High Road to Linton and General MacDonald from the Raasay Restitution Contest 2025, EYP Recording.   Support the show

Send us a textGary chats to Bede Patterson, one of the new generation of Australian pipers blazing a trail in fresh and exciting approaches to piping.PlaylistMatt MacIsaac with Gaelic Air, The Old Woman's Dance and the Firedrill from The Piping Album P/M John D Burgess with the Baldoozer, Center's Bonnet, Cork Hill and John MacDonald's Jig from King of the Highland Pipers The Whistlebinkies with Inner Sound from Inner Sound Fraser Fifield with The Piper's Premonition from Piobaireachd Bede Patterson with Atude in E flat from a Private Recording. Martyn Bennett with Karabach  Bede Patterson with Theme from a Private Recording Matthew Welch with High Street 2005 from Welch: BlarvusterLinksNational Piping Centre Clubs Producer PostBede Patterson The Nexus Project Info and FundraiserSupport the show