Podcasts about te kaha

As the All Blacks took to the field at Forsyth Barr Stadium in Dunedin last night to stagger over the line against the French, I thought about the calls I had on Marcus Lush Nights on Friday, talking about the future of our large stadiums - and in particular of Forsyth Barr Stadium and Wellington's Sky Stadium. It doesn't seem to matter which city you're in across the country, stadiums are problematic. Auckland continues its decade-old debate about whether we need a new multipurpose waterfront stadium and now, what to do with Western Springs. Christchurch rate payers are unhappy about the cost blowouts for their new stadium, Te Kaha - although when it opens I reckon they'll be won over and pretty happy. Wellington has a stadium that's not well designed for rectangle sports - rugby or football - suffers for the city's inclement weather and rarely looks full. Te Kaha has them all spooked. As fans took their seat at Forsyth Barr last night they may have wondered how likely, after Christchurch's shiny new stadium opens next year, they will be to see concerts from artists such as Pink and Ed Sheeran, or All Black tests, in their city again. And they are right to be worried. There is only so much sport to go around, and with more global acts skipping New Zealand, competition is only going to get tougher. We tend to think of large outdoors stadium as a must for a city of a certain size - a required piece of civic infrastructure like a library, theatre or art gallery - but perhaps we're more ambitious than we need to be. Does the South Island really need two covered stadiums? Perhaps not. But if you live in Christchurch you're thinking about Christchurch, not contemplating what it means for the stadium down the road. Forsyth Barr was conceived before the Christchurch Earthquake, opening in time for the 2011 Rugby World Cup. So Forsyth Barr always expected to compete with Christchurch, and obviously there was confidence it could. You could say Dunedin has had an unexpected advantage over the last 14 years. But now with competing stadiums, it's on the council and stadium management to step up and find a way to ensure the stadium remains an asset for the city and not a white elephant. The saying ‘built it and people will come' doesn't apply to stadiums. You need to convince people to choose your stadium and your city to perform in, and then convince the locals to attend. Everyone has a role in making stadiums work. Look at Eden Park. The recent change to allow up to 12 concerts a year to be held there has seen a surge in fondness for the place - even if it's mind-blowing how long it's taken to happen. The benefit are obvious on show weekends. Last night looked like a great night in Dunedin. The crowd in full voice, clearly enjoying the entertainment - both the stadium and the All Blacks got the job done. Gee, I hope it lasts. It's going to be really difficult, but hopefully Dunedin will find a way to make sure Forsyth Barr remains a source of pride. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Construction of Christchurch's long-awaited stadium is entering its final stretch, with the venue on track for a 2026 opening. The stadium is set to have capacity for a crowd of 30,000 for sports matches and room for over 37,000 for concerts. Te Kaha project manager Kent Summerfield joined Piney to discuss. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

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

Christchurch's new stadium is slowly taking shape. Construction of the $683 million Te Kaha stadium is on schedule and within budget – set to open in April next year. Mayor Phil Mauger admits he's uncertain about parking but emphasises there will be public transport and foot traffic access. Te Kaha Project Director Kent Summerfield told Mike Hosking the roof is well and truly on, and cladding is underway. He says it's becoming a landmark in the city as it can be seen from quite a distance away. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Journalists in Christchurch are getting a first look at the city's long awaited new stadium, Te Kaha

Well, we were a little in advance of the day yesterday, weren't we? If you were with me yesterday, I was looking at the armed forces lowering their standards to try to attract more people into the services. They're leaving in droves, finding it very hard to recruit new people, men and women, to join the services. And instead of lowering standards, I said, why not make the Defence Force more attractive as a career? Address the poor pay, the substandard housing and the lack of opportunities for career advancement for servicemen and women to stop them leaving in their legions. And what do you know? Twelve hours later they have. A huge investment into our services, $12 billion over the next four years for a modern combat capable New Zealand Defence Force, $9 billion of that 12 is new money. Where is it going to come from? Who knows? All will be revealed. It's an unprecedented investment into services and it will certainly bring them into the 21st century. Morale must have gone through the roof. So to the grandad that texted in yesterday and said we've just encouraged our grandson onto a Pathways Programme into the Navy, have we done the right thing? This time yesterday morning, no. Today? Abso-bloody-lutely! The Defence Capability plan released yesterday afternoon will see all sorts of things. It will see the ailing Boeing 757s replaced – that'll cost between $600 million to $1 billion. Other smaller vehicles, including light armoured vehicles, will get around the same – $6 million to $1 billion in funding. The maritime helicopters will be replaced, that'll cost $2 billion plus. There'll be uncrewed autonomous vessels. There'll be javelin anti-tank missile upgrades, enhanced strike capabilities, long range remotely piloted aircraft, space capabilities. You name it, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. The Governments chosen not to replace the two Anzac frigates, Te Mana and Te Kaha, certainly not in the first part of the plan. Instead, they're going to spend around $600 million to keep them going. Former Defence Minister Ron Mark says he sees NZ First's hand in the defence commitment. He said there would have been a lot of nudging, a lot of feeing on, a lot of encouragement from NZ First, and he told Mike Hosking this morning that this significant commitment to our defence will only enhance our standing with our long term allies. “This will play well with our strategic partners globally. I mean I'm thinking right now ASEAN, FPDA, and the Indo Pacific. I'm thinking of security comfort that the South Pacific Defence Ministers will get. Five Eyes also, and NATO, can't forget NATO. But it's also going to enhance the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs ability to secure our economic future. You can't have prosperity without security and right now we're living in possibly the most insecure times that we've seen since the Second World War.” Amen to that. He also told Mike that he wanted to get the contract signed as soon as possible so that in the event of a Labour/Greens coalition there wouldn't be a U-turn on this defence commitment. But Labour leader Chris Hipkins said he broadly agreed with the plan as it stood on Monday. He was interested in seeing how it would be paid for, as indeed are we all, but what would he care about that? Didn't bother him in the past where the money came from. He basically sees an increase in defence spending as an extension of Labour's 2019 plan, and they did put in a considerable sum of money, again, probably as part of the coalition commitments. I guess when you see Chris Hipkins saying he broadly agrees with it, political leaders with an ounce of experience and pragmatism, who are not blinded by ideology, understand that the world is indeed a precarious place. We have to be willing and prepared to play our part in helping ourselves and helping our friends, and with that commitment yesterday we're certainly showing that we're willing to do so. 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.

So, Auckland looks like it's doing it again: dilly dallying in decision making about big stuff. A council advisory group has informed us that neither the fancy waterfront stadium nor an upgrade of Eden Park is considered feasible. The full council still must vote on it on Thursday, so we'll see if anyone has some balls. Now by "not feasible" they mean not viable without public funding. We don't seem to have a charitable billionaire in our midst so the dough would have to come from the public purse. This is a question every major city wrestles with, but other cities seem to be braver. This week Brisbane has casually announced a new stadium to host the Olympics, calming putting nearly four billion dollars on the line. We're a growing nation. We need a venue for the events that come in 2025. Whether it's big sport or big concerts. We've seen how much fun Eden Park has been this week, three different sports in one week. It would be great to have a venue that's modern, complete, and full of character. I love stadiums. I'm super excited about Canterbury's Te Kaha. Forsyth Barr is great, and Sky Stadium just needs new seats and maybe a roof. But what do I want for Auckland? Now first I have to admit that Eden Park has given me tickets to events, but I would be happy for the waterfront stadium to go ahead. We'd never regret it I'm also happy for an Eden Park upgrade, after all Sydney ripped down the perfectly functional Sydney football stadium and completely replaced it. But it really is time for someone to put their neck on the block and just do it. Every city needs a Cathedral, and every city needs an iconic stadium. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What is this mania for the building of stadia when this country has so many already and very, very few of them are economic assets? The decision over whether to upgrade Eden Park in Auckland or to build a brand spanking new stadium on the waterfront is such an old debate. And before I go on, I will say I've been a guest of Eden Park, but it does take more to buy my opinion than a very nice lamb chop and a glass of non-alcoholic rosé, I promise you. The contest for Auckland's main stadium yesterday ended with neither Eden Park nor Te Tōangaroa proving feasible without public funding. Eden Park's upgrade is technically feasible but requires $110 million from the Government. Te Tōangaroa's proposal lacks technical and commercial feasibility. So right there I'd say, “well, I'm gonna stop you there” if I was a councillor. If it lacks technical and commercial feasibility, wouldn't we go, “well, thanks very much, bit of a waste of our time, ka kite anō” to the people behind it? Anyway, they plan to progress land acquisition over 12 months. Now, most of you will be familiar with Eden Park, even if you're from around the country. Te Tōangaroa is more ambitious, includes a 50,000 seat stadium —which is the capacity of Eden Park— that can be scaled down to 20,000 capacity for smaller events. It's the centrepiece for the redevelopment of Quay Park with up to four hotels, hospitality, scope for 2000 apartments, plus commercial offices. Different parties have been trying to build a waterfront stadium for years now. You'll remember Trevor Mallard had a plan to build a stadium in time for the 2011 Rugby World Cup, and that came to naught. Another proposal in 2018 was floated and came crashing down to earth. Developers would build a shiny new waterfront stadium, in exchange, they'd get the land at Eden Park, plus the ability to build apartments on the waterfront land. There's always something in it for the people behind the developments. Of course, there is, otherwise, why would they do what they do? And it ends up being chumps like you and me who pay for it. We have stadia. We have stadia up the Yin Yang, all over the country, all over Auckland that are underutilized and uneconomic. As the chief executive of the 2011 Rugby World Cup, Martin Snedden told Mike Hosking this morning we need to get over ourselves and consolidate into just one stadium. “It's time people really got collaborative, and I know, you know, you may not agree with me here, but the Warriors, Auckland FC, they should be incorporated into the program at Eden Park, so that, you know, that venue is... This is what's happened, you know, places around the world is the multi-use of one venue. "Look at what happened at Eden Park over the weekend, where on Friday they had White Ferns and Black Caps internationals played there, Saturday it was the Crusaders and the Blues, and Monday it was the All Whites qualifying for the World Cup. That's the right use of the stadia, and that's what we need to move towards. We don't need to keep propping up other stadia that are just not fit for purpose, let's just concentrate it all on what we've got.” Absolutely. But why is it too, that every city around the country, every large town, big city, wants its own stadium when they don't make economic sense? There's a great piece in the conversation by Robert Hamlin and he points out, there have been just 30 major events at Forsyth Bar in Dunedin since 2014. He wrote the piece last year, so that's three a year. Te Kaha in Christchurch is being funded mostly by ratepayers —the Crown's put in a bit— and the stadium was solely responsible for a 2% increase in rates last year. We come to Hamilton, and these figures are from 2015 so there might have been a remarkable turnaround – I doubt it, but there might have been. Since Claudelands Event Center opened in 2011, it has run at around a $10 million deficit per year. And who pays for that? Ratepayers. Palmerston North: in the 2021 10 year plan, it showed a budgeted income of $19 million, but expenses of $73 million. Come on. It does have facilities for some indoor sports, but much of the money that's going to be spent is on the main stadium in sport of stock car activities, including $4 million budgeted for new pits and more millions for a new grandstand on the south end. Non-stock car income is negligible because the stadium struggles to attract higher level rugby matches or large concerts because of the car track. Invariably, if you do end up building a bloody stadium, It's not good for something else. So, they're not multi-purpose, they can't be used for other events. You build this stonking great white elephant, and we pay for it, us, and then we're not allowed in it unless we pay a fortune for a ticket to go to something that's on inside the stadium that we built. As a ratepayer, you should get a free ticket to anything that's in there for the rest of your life. I just don't get why we're so obsessed with wanting new shiny stadia. In Auckland, we've got Eden Park, Go Media Stadium (formerly Mount Smart), Western Springs, Spark Arena, North Harbour Stadium. No, we don't need another one. Bowl the others, and everybody can play nicely together in one big stadium. At the moment, it looks like Eden Park's the most likely – there you go, I've paid for my lamb chop. But imagine your family budget at the moment: Oh, wouldn't it be nice if we built a beautiful new swimming pool at the back because the kids are getting a bit older now? Be lovely, with a nice little pool house next to it. Yes, it would be lovely. Can we afford it? No. And that's what the Waterfront Stadium is. Honestly, as Robert Hamlin said, the reason why is that people just get so excited, the decision makers get so excited, with all these reports of the extra economic benefit that's going to come to the city, and it's gonna prosper and it's just gonna be the making of the city. No, it's not. No. Ratepayers end up paying and paying and paying for generations for a white elephant that nobody's allowed to ride unless you pay a bloody fortune to get on its back. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Anita Brown, lives in Tauranga New Zealand, works in Hamilton and holidays in Te Kaha with a side of anywhere is the world with the help of the Lovefly group and Lovefly Lounge and a Mc Donald's thick-shake! Talking fear of flying, claustrophobia and anticipatory anxiety...This is a longer episode but is brilliant and is packed full of totally relatable information to help you. Courses www.lovefly.co.uk/courses/ Lovefly Lounge - https://lovefly.podia.com/ FB - Lovefly Insta @loveflyhelp #fearofflying #lovefly #claustrophobia #anxiety    Intro Music 'Fearless' Daniel King

Theres now less than 500 days until the new Christchurch stadium is scheduled to be completed. Venues Otautahi is overseeing the build of Te Kaha, and CEO Caroline Harvie-Teare joined the show to give an update on where the construction is at and the plans for when the build is complete. Harvie-Teare told Piney that they're designing a programme of events for the first 3-6 months after the stadium's completion. She says they want to get as many people in their community through that building as possible, as well as showcase the diversity of the venue, and drive visitation to the area. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You know how you hear people talk about “the million dollar question”? Today, it's a $13 million dollar question that needs answering. It's all to do with the streets around the new stadium in the centre of Christchurch: Te Kaha. You might remember, a while back, how the council came up with this idea of spending $34 million getting the streets ready for the stadium opening in 2026. And how it wanted to do daft things like widen the footpaths, take away car parks and slow-down speed limits in the area —even more— to as low as 10 kilometres per hour. There was some underground infrastructure stuff, which is the boring stuff that usually makes the most sense. But $34 million, and we said to the council, ‘what the hell are you thinking?' They said, “good point guys” and pulled the pin on it. But then, a few weeks later, they had a re-think and it was all-on again. They did listen to some of the big property developers around town who weren't happy with the original idea of making Lichfield Street one-way, between Manchester and Madras. But, apart from that change, it was all-go. And, at the time, what made it so attractive to the council was that $13 million of the $34 million was going to be coming from the Government. But the city council has just found out that that money from central government is at-risk, because NZTA says it has no idea whether the work will be a priority spend for the new government. And the council is going to have to wait until October to find out whether the $13 million it was expecting to come from Wellington for the project, is still going to be coming. But here's the tricky bit. And this is where the $13 million dollar question comes into it. If this work on the streets around the stadium is going to be finished in time for when the stadium is due to open in 2026, the work has to start in July. Three months before the council will know whether the government money is still coming - or not. And the decision facing the council now, is whether to press-on with the work in July —and risk NZTA and the Government saying in October that the $13 million isn't happening anymore— leaving ratepayers to pay the extra. Or pause the work until it knows what the central government funding situation is. Or come up with a cheaper option. I'm in no doubt what the council should do. I think it needs to find a cheaper way of doing it. Because do you really think the Government's going to see this as a priority, when it's already pulling funding from all sorts of things? And when it has said time-and-time again that taxpayers have put enough money into Christchurch's recovery? So of course it's not going to be a priority. And, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if NZTA tells the council —at some point— to do exactly what I'm saying today. Go away and sharpen your pencil. And if it was me who was given the job of sharpening the pencil - here's what I'd do. I would forget about all the beautification and footpath-widening stuff. Because you might remember Annabelle Turley from the Central City Business Association saying when this all first surfaced, that the council planners seemed to have forgotten our old friend the easterly wind. They want to widen the footpaths around the stadium to six metres so people can do things like go to restaurants and sit outside and have dinner. As Annabelle said back then, they seem to have forgotten about the wind blasting from the east. Although, maybe the stadium is going to act as some sort of windbreak. Either way, I'd ditch all that stuff. Another way I'd cut costs, is to do away with this idea of permanently reducing the speed limit around the stadium to 10 kilometres per hour. Because the process of doing that will cost money. I know previously the council's transport manager has said the speed limit should be permanently reduced to 10 kilometres per hour so the council doesn't have to spend money on expensive traffic management plans when big events are held at the stadium. If that's the trade-off, then so be it, I say.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The new stadium in Christchurch, Te Kaha, is shooting up out of the ground and so are our rates. The big news today is that those of us in Christchurch are facing rates increases of more than 30 percent over the next three years. Thanks to inflation, insurance and the cost of the new stadium. Yes, I know our mayor said rates increases wouldn't be any higher than the rate of inflation. But, if you believed that nonsense of his during the election campaign, you'll believe anything. At the moment, the expected rates increase for next year alone is sitting at around 13 percent. The mayor wants staff at the council to do some numbers and work out how they could get that increase —for next year alone— down to somewhere between 9 and 12 percent. Annual inflation, by the way, is sitting at 5.6 percent. So, whatever they come up with, there goes Phil Mauger's pipedream of rates increases matching inflation. And “pipedream” is putting it politely. So Phil can tell the bean counters all he wants to play around with the spreadsheets and come up with different numbers, but let's just leave him be and turn our attention to another councillor who, I think, has come up with a much better idea. This is councillor Aaron Keown, who wants the council to go to the Government and ask for approval for a new regional rate —or let's just be honest and call it what it is, a regional tax— to add the stadium costs to the rates bills of people beyond Christchurch. I've always thought that it's nuts that just Christchurch ratepayers are the ones who are going to be lumbered with these stadium costs. Technically, if you don't live in Christchurch city, you have actually already contributed to the costs because the Government has poured truckloads of money into it as part of the Crown's contribution to the cost of rebuilding after the earthquakes. But, then, so has every other taxpayer in the country. But, unlike a taxpayer in Auckland for example, someone living in Selwyn or Waimakariri or Hurunui is going to benefit from the stadium much more than someone further away. So we can't change the fact that Christchurch didn't get off its chuff earlier in the piece and get the other councils to get some skin in the game with the stadium. That should have happened right from the start. But, even if that boat's already sailed, there is no way that Christchurch ratepayers should be paying for this on their own. Which is why I'm right behind Aaron Keown's idea. And it seems another councillor, Sara Templeton, might be behind it, as well. The two of them don't want the stadium costs to be lumped-in with everything else, which is why Aaron Keown is floating this idea of a regional rate. As for Sara Templeton, she says people are pretty angsty about rates increases and she's worried that if too much gets ploughed into the stadium, then there won't be enough money for climate change adaptation. Although, let's face it, there'll never be enough money for that. She's also concerned that the state of the city's water infrastructure will go downhill even more. Which is probably more of a concern now, given the new government's enthusiasm for local councils to hold on to their water assets. But back to the stadium and Aaron Keown's idea of a regional rate to help pay for it.When someone comes to Christchurch from out of town to see a big sports match or go to a concert at the stadium, they're not just going to do that and then sit in their hotel room the rest of the time. They're going to do other stuff. And that won't just be within the city limits. There'll be people going to Waipara to the wineries. Shooting through to the hot pools and the jet boat rides in Hanmer Springs. Heading up to Mt Hutt - and not just in winter, there's mountain bike tracks there, as well. See what I mean? The whole region is going to benefit from the stadium. So the whole region should be paying for it.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When Tim Li was growing up in Taupo, his parents owned a fish and chip shop and he spent many, many hours looking at the Seafood New Zealand poster, and drawing the different fish. He and the family would trout fish in the Waikato river, and later go on regular fishing trips to Te Kaha on the east cape, where Tim's love of the ocean began. He went on to study art and design at university, and after a teaching art in high school for years, has drawn together his love of marine life and art into a career. His hyper-real, larger than life, graphite drawings showcase and celebrate the underwater world. Tim also practices the ancient art of Japanese Gyotaku printmaking where ink is applied to the fish and the image transferred to rice paper.

The Black Caps might be on a winning streak at the world cup. But things aren't quite the same for the Canterbury Cricket Trust, which is struggling to re-pay a $1.5 million loan to the Christchurch City Council for the lighting towers at Hagley Oval. Originally, the council was charging a 2 percent interest rate. But that's gone up to 5.4 percent. Which means the cricket people are really struggling just to pay the interest - let alone the rest of the loan. And the Council is being really tight about it. You'll remember this - the big stoush over the lighting towers at Hagley Oval. Which, by the way, would have to be the best - if not one of the best - sporting facilities in the country. So there was the big stoush in the first place over the Oval development. But then things went next-level when the cricket people started talking about putting in the big lighting towers. Six of them. Just under 50-metres high. It was all pretty much connected with getting the Women's Cricket World Cup here. We'd already had games here for the men's world cup. But to get the women's world cup here - particularly the final - we needed lighting that was up to international broadcast standard. In the time between the men's world cup in 2015 and the women's world cup, technology had improved and so the TV companies had different quality expectations and demands. So all the people who thought the world was going to end back when the Hagley Oval development at Hagley Park was first brought-up, they got all fired-up again because those lighting towers were going to be absolute armageddon. They were going to be like flames from the mouth of some giant dragon casting a giant shadow over Hagley Park. Spitting fire and scorching our beautiful pristine park, which dates back to 1855. That wasn't quite how the crowd opposed to the idea described them. But you get the gist. Never mind the fact that Hagley Park is 164 hectares - bigger than Hyde Park in London, which is 140 hectares. Despite all that space, the anti-cricket oval people were all antsy that the lighting towers would be the end of Hagley Park, as we know it. Thankfully, the pro-cricket people had the post-earthquake regeneration legislation on their side which meant that, if it could be shown that the lighting would be good for Christchurch's recovery, then they'd get the go-ahead. And that's exactly what happened. Which meant that, by the time the women's world cup was happening in March and April last year, Christchurch had the set-up to be able to host the night-time final between Australia and England. Which Australia won, by the way. So the outfit that led the charge on the lights was the Canterbury Cricket Trust, which needed a loan from the council to pay kits share of the cost for the lighting towers. But because of the increased interest being charged by the Council, it asked for an extra five years to pay the loan off and that the loan be made interest-free loan from here on. The council agreed to extend the loan but refused to make the loan interest-free. Which is nuts when you consider how the city has already benefited and stands to benefit because of the Cricket Trust's fortitude to make the lights happen. Anywhere else, the local council would pay for facilities that benefit the wider community. Especially when you can show there is an economic benefit. And $5 million is what they reckon the women's world cup was worth to the city. And it wouldn't have happened without the lights. But that means nothing to our council. Which is treating the loan to the Canterbury Cricket Trust the same way it treats other loans it's got going. A recent example would be the loan given to finish a new bar in that heritage building on Manchester Street. There is interest being charged on that loan. But there is a commercial operation happening there. So there's revenue - money coming in the door. Unlike the Canterbury Cricket Trust, which is saying today that the interest payments are “crippling”. And we're being warned that the way things are going, the cricket clubs around Canterbury might have to stump up. Which is absolutely crazy, when Sydenham Rugby Club - for example - isn't paying for the lights at our new stadium, Te Kaha. So why should cricket have to pay?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's something going on at the Christchurch City Council at the moment that raises a very interesting question about how we expect or want people elected to our local councils to behave. So, even though strictly speaking it's a Christchurch City Council thing, this is actually relevant wherever you live. The story begins with Christchurch councillor Aaron Keown, who is in the dog box for saying bad things about other councillors and council staff on Facebook. Or maybe “implying” bad things is a better way of putting it. Nevertheless, his fellow councillor Sara Templeton took exception to what Aaron Keown said on Facebook and laid a complaint, alleging that he had breached the council's Code of Conduct. The council hired an Auckland lawyer to consider the complaint as an independent investigator. And he's come back saying that Aaron Keown has seriously breached the code of conduct. Here's a quote from the lawyer's judgement: “The post is discourteous and not focused on the issues, but rather on personalities. The post would tend to place the council and councillors in a bad light with the public.” So Councillor Keown has been found guilty and, this week, his fellow councillors are going to decide what to do about it. They may force him to apologise. There's even a suggestion that councillors could force him to resign. I don't know, actually, how likely that would be. I think an apology is way more likely but who knows? What he said on Facebook was in relation to the panel considering plans to change things on the streets around the site of Christchurch's new stadium, Te Kaha. The council plans to do work in that area way before the stadium's finished. Some of the work is underground infrastructure stuff. Some of it isn't. Above ground, the council's going to bring the speed limit down to 10 kilometres per hour (yes, that's for cars and buses and trucks), widen footpaths etc. So it had a hearings panel to go through the plans and come up with a recommendation as to whether the council should do the work, what changes might be made. And Councillor Aaron Keown went on Facebook and said, when he saw who was going to be on the panel, he decided he didn't want to be part of it or involved in it because he knew what its recommendation would be. He said: “The panel is stacked to get the outcome. I will get in trouble for this post but cannot stand by watching another charade.” He was right. He did get in trouble for it. Because one of his fellow councillors lodged a complaint alleging that he'd gone against the council's code of conduct, which says councillors can't publicly criticise council staff or other councillors. Aaron Keown doesn't think he's done anything wrong. He believes he should be able to speak publicly if he doesn't agree with something. But is this how we want the people elected to our local councils to behave? Do we want our local councillors to do the “united front” thing that central governments try to do? Although, the current government is starting to fail on that one. Or do we want them to say what they really think? I think the united front approach wouldn't work for councils. Primarily, because local council meetings are open to the public and, in some places, they're even livestreamed online. So we know what councillors think about certain things already and we'd see through a united front approach pretty quickly, wouldn't we? But if we've really had a gutsful of politicians behaving like kids as much as we say we have, then we have to tell people like Councillor Aaron Keown to pull their heads in. Because, when you put yourself up for election and you win and you find yourself sitting around a council table, you also agree to behave in a way that is expected of you. And, in the case of councils and councillors, there is a code of conduct. And, if you don't abide by that code of conduct, then you have to face and accept the consequences. Which is why I think Aaron Keown deserves everything that's coming at him.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I first realised it this week, running through the city and around Hagley Park on one of those beautiful, still, cold South Island evenings.   For me, it was a long time coming. Twelve years and three months, all up.  Maybe others felt it earlier. Maybe others haven't reached the point yet. I know those who've lived in Christchurch right throughout, who never left the city, might have a completely different perspective, and that's ok.   But as a Cantab at heart, for the first time I feel I can say it with absolute confidence. It's emphatic. Christchurch has crossed the threshold. For the first time since 2010 I reckon the city today is better than it was before the quakes.  There's no one thing. There's one project or development that's pushed it past that point. It's a collection of little things that make Ōtautahi so good.  For starters, the city. Finally the Cathedral isn't just lying in ruin. The remote-controlled digger cleaning up the masonry and bird crap finished its job in record time. The build's progressing, and fast.  Te Pae, Christchurch's glorious new convention centre, is a stupendous venue. Across the road, Tūranga, the new library is surely the best of any big city in New Zealand. The art gallery is amazing. The Margaret Mahy playground is the stuff dreams are madeof for kids and adults alike.  The food in Christchurch is so good. Christchurch's old strip was seedy as, but Riverside Market, The Terrace, and New Regent Street have energy and life.   The central city's new shape works with Ōtakaro, the Avon River. The water's clear and clean and meanders from the gleaming new buildings down near the splendid historic Arts Centre, and into the World-class Botanic Gardens.  I bristle with envy when I think of all the things on Christchurch's doorstep. Taylors Mistake, New Brighton, and Sumner have surf. Mt Hutt has snow. Lyttelton has perhaps the most interesting music and arts community in New Zealand. Hagley Oval has a gorgeous cricket ground and the Christchurch Adventure Park is the gateway to World-class mountain biking.   There are young people in the city and they want to be there. At a time when many New Zealand universities are being forced to cut jobs, Canterbury University is hiring. This year, they tell me the university is on track for a record number of students. Domestic enrolments are up. International enrolments are up. There are students from 100 countries studying at Canterbury, from Mozambique to Myanmar to Mongolia. The number of people enrolled is up 7% at the end of March compared to the same time last year. It's the University's 150th birthday this year, and the halls of residence are at absolute capacity.   The cost of housing in Christchurch is so much cheaper than Auckland, and the quality is so much less depressing than in Wellington. It's younger than Tauranga, more coastal than Hamilton and warmer than Dunedin.   I know it's not perfect. I know how much pain and stress it's taken to get things to this point. I'm under no illusions that places out East – Bromley, in particular – have a hell of a long way to go. The sprawl North and West means the traffic can be a total pain.  But with good leadership and planning, the city should only get better. Maybe it's too big. Maybe it's too expensive. But just imagine the atmosphere in town for that first All Blacks test in Te Kaha.   Years ago when I was living in New York, I asked the city's chief urban designer about lessons from Manhattan's recovery after the 9/11 attacks. He had a tear in his eye when he spoke to me about the transformation he'd experienced.   “Instead of asking yourself what happens if you get it wrong, ask yourself the opposite,” he said.   “What happens if Christchurch is too good? What happens if you remake your city and it's so good that everyone wants to live there?”  I don't reckon we're far off. Christchurch has energy. Christchurch has mojo. Christchurch is better than ever.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christchurch mayor Phil Mauger has some answering to do. The first question he has to answer, is how does he think he's going to get away with his statement over the weekend that keeping rates increases to four percent or less next year is going to be a challenge? Because this is the guy who said before the local body elections last month that he would be the man to keep rates increases down. At various times during the election campaign he talked about rates increases no higher than three percent, four percent, or something in line with the rate of inflation. None of these are looking likely, with Phil Mauger saying - now that he's mayor - that it's going to be very difficult to deliver what he promised voters, which was to keep rates increases to an absolute minimum. Which some people believed. Or probably, more correctly, wanted to believe. While everyone else knew he was either dreaming or talking absolute nonsense. And so now, with the city council beginning work on next year's budget, we've got the new mayor saying: 'er, actually, about that four percent rates increase…ah, no can do, sorry'. A report over the weekend said city councillors have been given an “indicative range” for next year's rate increase, understood to be between 12 percent and 14 percent. And so here's what the mayor had to say about his promise to keep rates down: “It is going to be challenging, that's going to be very challenging because of what's happening globally.” I mean, do me a favour. Because what he's talking about there are all the problems caused by COVID and the war in Ukraine. The old “supply chain issues”. But hello, these supply chain issues were a thing well before Phil Mauger became mayor. The war in Ukraine was happening well before the election last month. It was all happening when he was running around town promising to keep rates increases at between three and four percent. Running around town, when he knew full well that what he was promising was impossible. So that's the first thing he's going to front up on. The second thing, is this U-turn he's doing on the $33 million being spent on roads around the site of the new stadium, Te Kaha. Over the weekend, we had some of the biggest names behind the revival of Christchurch's central city coming out and condemning the city council for this ludicrous piece of work. Property developers who have poured truckloads into new developments in town. The Central City Business Association is involved, as well. Now previously, the mayor said he opposed it and claimed that he'd stopped it. Not the case, and the council plans to press on. Granted, Phil was probably blind-sided by this one a bit given the council launched its consultation process on day one of his mayoralty. But it seems he's been talked around by the council planners. So what does he have to say to the central city business people and the developers who have come out fighting against this nutbar idea of the council's? Then there are some of his other election promises. The temporary hospital car park in Hagley Park. That was going to be done before Christmas. And what about the roving pothole maintenance crew? They were going to have carte blanche permission to just fix things when they saw things that needed fixing. No permission required. Because they were going to be all about getting stuff done. You may be one of the 53,000 people who voted for Phil Mauger, and you may have done so on the basis of his commitment to keep rates increases as low as three or four percent. So how do you feel about him saying over the weekend that that's unlikely, and that double-digit rates increases are actually more likely next year? And, more broadly - whether you're a Christchurch resident or not - how would you rate your trust in politicians full-stop? Because it's not just the mayor of Christchurch saying one thing and doing another. Also over the weekend, we learned that the Labour Party and the Green Party used last week's urgency in Parliament to tweak the Three Waters legislation to make it as difficult as possible for any future government to pull the plug on it. This was all done on-the-fly and without any public announcements or discussion. Despite all the talk and reassurances from the Government that it is the most open and transparent government we've ever had. Again, do me a favour. LISTEN TO THE FULL INTERVIEW ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I can't believe the Christchurch City Council. Just weeks after causing a huge outcry with its announcement that it wants to spend $33 million upgrading the streets around the site of the new stadium, Te Kaha, it's decided behind closed doors to press on. Let me remind you exactly how nuts this whole thing is. It wants to take away dozens of car parks. 49 car parks to be precise. There are currently 72, it wants to get rid of 49 and keep 23. But that's not all. The council also wants to widen footpaths on some streets in the area to nearly six metres, put in more cycleways and lower the speed limit to as low as 10 kilometres per hour. When the council first announced this daft plan, businesses in the area weren't happy about it - especially the idea of getting rid of dozens of car parks. Annabel Turley from the Central City Business Association said people still come into town in cars and they need to be catered for. Something else the town planners at the council don't seem to have thought about is Christchurch's famous Easterly, because they've got this nutbar idea of taking away car parks on Lichfield Street so the footpath can be widened to nearly six metres for outdoor dining. But as Annabel Turley from the Business Association says, that's the last place you'd want to sit outside and eat, because of the easterly wind which does its thing more often than not. Pretty much everywhere. But the thing I'm probably most confused about, is I thought Mayor Phil Mauger had managed to get this whole thing stopped. That's what was reported a few weeks back. And I thought that was great and I congratulated Phil at the time. As he's been saying, this work should only be done when the city can afford it and when it is actually a real priority. And Phil Mauger is bang on when he says that if the Council wants to spend $33 million, it should be going into the stadium itself first. Because let's not forget the massive funding shortfall that the council is still trying to get its head around. This money shouldn't be going into beautifying the area when the stadium is still years away. April 2026 is when it's due to be completed. But, oh no, we have a behind-closed-doors briefing for city councillors on Tuesday and today the council has come out and said ‘it's all back on folks'. Spending $33 million beautifying the area when, at the moment, the stadium site itself is still pretty much a piece of dirt. It's all back on! Pouring money into widening footpaths, taking away car parks and slowing traffic down to 10 km/h. It's all back on! The Council thinks that by getting on with this work sooner rather than later, it won't have to spend money on expensive traffic management plans when big events are held at the stadium. That'll be because - if the council gets its way - there'll be no car parks and traffic will be crawling along at 10 km/h. But let's not forget how often that's going to happen. As it stands, there's probably going to be about one major event per month at the stadium. The rest of the time we'll be having an even harder time trying to find somewhere to park in town and we'll be crawling around the place at 10 km/h. But the council, in its wisdom, wants to blow $33 million under the guise that it will save money in the long-run. I don't buy that for a minute. And, not that long ago, Mayor Phil Mauger wasn't buying it either and was saying that the Council needed to cut its cloth to suit its budget. But, despite all that, it seems that Council staff have done a brilliant job convincing councillors otherwise and, as a result, the Council has decided not to pull the plug - and the consultation process is up and running again. That will run until the end of the month, then the matter will go to a Hearings Panel in February. As I say, it beggars belief. It beggared belief when they first announced it and it beggars belief even more when you've got the mayor against it, you've got the Business Association against it and you've got ratepayers against it.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Poor old Phil Mauger. After winning the Christchurch mayoralty on Saturday and saying on Sunday that he wants a transport plan for the city that is good for everyone - including motorists - yesterday, his council released details of its plan to spend $33 million upgrading the streets around the site of the new stadium, Te Kaha. And in the process, it wants to take away dozens of car parks. There are currently 72, it wants to get rid of 49 and keep 23. But that's not all. The council wants to widen footpaths on some streets in the area to nearly six metres, put in more cycleways and lower the speed limit in the area to as low as 10 kilometres per hour. Not surprisingly, businesses in the area aren't happy about it. And no wonder, because it's nuts. And I'm with Phil Mauger on this one. He's saying the $33 million should be pumped into the stadium itself, not on taking away car parks, widening footpaths, cycleways and slowing down traffic to 10 kilometres per hour. Phil Mauger is saying the work should only be done - and the money spent - once people start coming to town to go to the stadium and the city starts to reap the financial benefits that will come. “You've got to cut your cloth to suit the budget”. That's what the mayor is saying - and I fully agree with him. Can you imagine when the council eventually gets around to what it should have done years ago, and knocks on the door at Waimakariri and Selwyn and asks them to help out with funding the stadium; can you imagine what they'll say if they know the council is spending more than $30 million upgrading the streets around the stadium site? If I was them, I'd say ‘come back when you've got your priorities sorted, then we'll talk'. Because spending $33 million beautifying the area when, at the moment, the stadium site itself is still pretty much a piece of dirt and when the council is still trying to nut out how it's going to cover the cost blow-out, makes no sense at all. I see the council's transport manager is saying that if the council does this work now, it will mean it doesn't have to spend money on expensive traffic management plans when big events are held at the stadium. That will be because - if the council gets its way - there'll be no car parks and traffic will be crawling along at 10 km/h. But let's remind ourselves how often that's going to happen. As it stands, there's probably going to be about one major event per month. The rest of the time we'll be having an even harder time trying to find somewhere to park in town and we'll be crawling around the place at 10 km/h. I'm not surprised to see that I'm not the only one who thinks what the council wants to do is ridiculous. Annabel Turley from the Central City Business Association says people still come into town in cars and they need to be catered for. And the businesses in town aren't impressed with the council wanting to take away dozens of on-street carparks. She makes a very good point too about the idea of widening the footpath on Lichfield Street to nearly six metres so there can be outdoor dining and all of that - instead of car parks. Annabel Turley says that would be the last place you'd want to sit outside and eat, because of our old friend the easterly wind which likes to invite itself to pretty much everything here in Christchurch. Yet again - an idea that looks brilliant on the urban planner's computer screen, but totally wrong for the area. Nevertheless, council staff wants to blow $33 million under the guise that it will save money in the long-run. But I don't buy that for a minute and, like I say, if the Christchurch council thinks it's going to get money for the stadium from the other local councils, then it needs to pull the plug on this nonsense and spend the money where it's needed. Like Phil Mauger says: “Cut your cloth to suit the budget”.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Prior to the weekend, I was confused about what Phil Mauger's priorities actually were. And, since he won the Christchurch mayoralty over the weekend, I'm even more confused. A few weeks ago, I asked him what he thought the greatest challenges facing Christchurch were. Top of his list were climate change and inflation. But then, in the next breath, he said he wanted to pull the plug on cycleways. And he's gone further than that over the weekend since winning the mayoral race, and he's said that he wants to rip up the draft transport plan and do away with any idea of congestion charges, road tolls and fining companies that provide car parks for their staff. Now I think they're daft ideas too because we don't have major traffic congestion problems in Christchurch - so a “congestion charge” would be nothing more than a tax in sheep's clothing - and penalising outfits that provide parking for their employees is typical of the big stick approach that councils seem to love. You don't get a lot of carrot, it's all big stick - especially, it seems, when it comes to climate change-related matters. So Phil Mauger's worried about climate change but doesn't like cycleways and he wants a transport plan that makes “everybody happy”. His words, not mine. Which is a recipe for failure because, as we know, if you try to keep everyone happy - no one is happy. So big contradictions on how he's going to address climate change. The other big challenge Phil Mauger said Christchurch needs to address was inflation. And here comes another contradiction that's got me scratching my head. One of the big financial challenges facing the new council is the new stadium, Te Kaha, and how it's going to be paid for since the cost blow-out earlier this year. And after all the talk about leveraging council assets and selling-off council-owned land, it seems the new mayor wants to introduce a regional tax to help pay for the stadium. I was reading this last night in the notes from the meeting Phil and councillors Sam MacDonald and James Gough had pre-election with city council chief executive Dawn Baxendale. The notes from that meeting say Phil wants to explore the idea of a regional tax to help pay for the stadium. How wanting a new tax on ratepayers is consistent with tackling inflation, I'll never know. Which is why, as far as I'm concerned - now that he's mayor - the first thing Phil Mauger needs to do is to decide what he actually stands for and be open and honest about it. You can't say you're concerned about climate change and then pull the plug on measures to try and get people to use their cars less. Yes, I think some of the ideas in the Draft Transport Plan are dumb and not relevant in Christchurch. And yes, I think some of the cycleways around the place are way over the top and over-engineered. But if Phil Mauger was really worried about climate change, he wouldn't be coming out swinging five minutes after winning the election and declaring war on cycleways and congestion charges. Just like you can't say inflation is a major challenge you want to address because life's getting too expensive for all of us, and then want to introduce a new tax to pay for a new stadium. I see in the notes from his pre-election meeting with the council's chief executive that he wants to limit rates increase to 3 or 4 percent. Which sounds fine and dandy, but is probably unachievable and would be completely negated by his new stadium tax. Which is why I'm saying: Will the real Phil Mauger please stand up. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Host of The Front Page podcast Damien Venuto and 1News Senior Reporter Katie Bradford joined Francesca Rudkin for the Sunday Panel.LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The mayor of Christchurch says the new Te Kaha stadium is the final piece in the jigsaw puzzle for the rebuilt central city. A fixed price contract has been negotiated for the $683 million multi-use arena after an initial budget blowout of $150 million. But who's going to pay for it? Samantha Gee went to find out.

John MacDonald spoke to Labour's Duncan Webb and National's Gerry Brownlee about the big topics of the week on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings.MacDonald asked them what they thought on the council's decision to build Te Kaha Stadium, the possibility of Christchurch becoming a super city, the new anti-gangs laws and the latest Covid developments.LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christchurch councillors have given the green light to build a multi-use arena, that's been 10 years in the making. The fierce debate over Te Kaha, has centred around its price tag - which is $683 million. The project board negotiated a fixed-price contract for the 30,000 seat multi-use arena, following a $150 million budget blowout. Peter Morrison from Hospitality New Zealand took a creative approach.   

Today saw Casper host his final Friday Wire before the Second Semester Schedule Shakeup™ sees him take over the Tuesday Wire and Liam take on hosting duties from next Friday onwards! On todays show. Casper had a chat with All Aboard Aotearoa about the recent High Court ruling on their case with Auckland Transport alongside City Counsellor Pippa Coom. Liam had a chat with Michael Plank from the University of Canterbury about recent government changes making masks and RAT tests free. They also spoke with Anita Rosentreter about First Unions court case against Uber. Casper also had a chat with someone from the Real Estate Institute about housing market data and what all of the numbers mean. And finally Liam chatted to Christchurch City Councillor James McLellan about Te Kaha, the city's new stadium, being given the go ahead.

After a decade without a premier sports and music venue, Christchurch will finally get a new stadium. The City Council voted yesterday to approve $683 million contract for the city's planned Te Kaha stadium. There's even a new song about it, thanks to resident Peter Morrison. Canterbury Employers' Chamber of Commerce chief executive Leeann Watson spoke to Susie Ferguson.

Christchurch City Councillors have voted to spend another $150 million to build the Te Kaha stadium for a staggering $683 million. It could mean a hefty rate rise of $144 per year and the focus will now shift to how to pay for the multi-use arena. Jean Edwards reports.

Christchurch's Mayor is welcoming the decision to continue its city stadium project.Councillors today voted to sign a fixed-price $683 million contract to build the multi-use Te Kaha arena.Thirteen voted for, and three against.Mayor Lianne Dalziel joined Andrew Dickens to discuss the background behind the decision. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

So a monumental decision by the Christchurch City Council yesterday, with a 13-3 vote in favour of spending another $150 million and getting on with the job of building the new Te Kaha stadium.As we know, it followed the announcement last month that there'd been a budget blowout, pushing the price tag up to $683 million.I think the council made the right decision yesterday and I'm delighted that this thing is actually going to happen. No one could argue that it's ridiculous that it's taken this long to get to this point - but I'm right behind it. Even though there are some aspects that I'm still not completely comfortable with.The so-called fixed-price contract with the Australian construction and civil engineering company running the project - I'm still not convinced that's going to happen.As we heard this week, the Board overseeing the project has managed to negotiate a deal which makes Besix WATPAC responsible for the costs of labour and materials - as well as carrying the can for all other risks and cost overruns.I just can't see - in light of everything that's happened over the last couple of years - how a fixed-price for a project four years out from delivery is realistic. Happy to be proven wrong, but that's how I feel about that part of it.The other thing I think is nuts, is the fact that Selwyn and Waimakariri councils aren't putting any money into it.As I've said all along, the stadium is a regional project. And it will deliver benefits for people not just living in Christchurch.Remember, for example, that nearly half of the people who live in Selwyn come into Christchurch every day to go to work or go to school. So they should have skin in the game when it comes to the stadium, because they will benefit from it.And there's been no shortage of people from Selwyn and Waimakariri saying they'd be more than happy to contribute.But I'm now actually starting to wonder whether these other councils haven't been asked yet because Christchurch wants to keep them up its sleeve - just in case.What if the whole fixed-price thing goes pear-shaped and the council needs to find more  money? The contractors were told very clearly the other day that there'd be no more money coming from Christchurch ratepayers. So perhaps Selwyn and Waimakariri are being kept out of it for now, in case they need to become a bit of a financial lifeline down the track.Just a thought.Nevertheless, even though I've still got my misgivings about the financial side of things, overall - I am delighted with yesterday's decision.  Yes, it should've happened sooner. Yes, the city was stupid to turn down the Government's offers to take over the project all those years ago. But thank goodness it is finally happening.Crusaders CEO Colin Mansbrdge makes some very good points about yesterday's decision in a piece he's written today for nzherald.co.nz. Of course, he's delighted too that it's going ahead - but he also tips his hat to the people opposed to the stadium, for their role in the community's debate about it.And I want to pick up on that and make mention of the three city councillors who yesterday voted against putting-in the extra money - Melanie Coker, Sara Templeton and Celeste Donovan.Melanie Coker's concerned about the impact the rates increase needed to pay for the stadium will have on people on fixed incomes. Sara Templeton voted against it on behalf of the people who don't want more financial burden on the city. And Celeste Donovan thinks there are more important things the council should be spending money on - Bromley being one of them.I had actually thought there might have been a couple more who would vote against. But they're the three who did, and I want to congratulate them for doing it. Because it is never easy going against the tide - and the tide was well and truly against them in the council meeting yesterday.In fact, not...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's been the talk of the town and today, Christchurch city councillors will vote on whether to build the contentious stadium Te Kaha. The so-called multi-use arena comes with a huge $683 million price tag, after a $150 million budget blow-out. The project board has negotiated a fixed-price contract, but some ratepayers aren't convinced that will be the end of it. Jean Edwards reports.

It's anticipated the sign-off of Christchurch's multi-million dollar stadium will regenerate the city.Christchurch City Councillors will this morning decide whether to build Te Kaha - despite an extra $150 million being needed.The lead contractor has agreed to a fixed price of $683 million meaning the average ratepayer will initially pay $144 a year for the stadium.Wellington's Sky Stadium boss Shane Harmon told Mike Hosking he'd argue it's a no-brainer.He says he looks at stadiums in the same way as any other important facility such as a library - and it will add to the vibrancy of the city.LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A Christchurch City Councillor says it would be a travesty if they don't push ahead with the stadium.The future of the controversial facility will be decided in a meeting starting at 10am.The lead contractor has agreed to a fixed price, $683 million, for Te Kaha, meaning the average Christchurch ratepayer will initially pay $144 a year for the stadium.Sam MacDonald told Tim Dower they're in this position now because of indecision.He says if it doesn't go ahead, Christchurch residents will be disappointed, and re-litigating it may not get them any further ahead  over the next ten years.LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Something about this fixed-price contract for building the new Christchurch stadium, Te Kaha, just doesn't stack up for me.In fact, the whole fixed-price thing doesn't stack up, as far as I'm concerned.The gist of it all, is that the Board overseeing the project has managed to negotiate a deal which will make the Australian construction and civil engineering company that is the lead contractor for the project, responsible for the costs of labour and materials - as well as carrying the can for all other risks and cost overruns.So it's put a fixed price of $683 million on the project. Sounds too good to be true? I think it does.And this is my predicament. I'm all for the stadium. But I'm afraid I can't get excited about this big fixed-price announcement because I simply don't think it can be done.Of course, a lot of people are excited about it - including mayoral candidates Phil Mauger and David Meates who are saying today that it gives us all certainty. Other city councillors are saying the same.But, unless I'm missing something here, do you really think the cost of a major construction project - which hasn't even begun yet and isn't expected to be open for business until April 2026 - do you really think you can set the cost now and think nothing's going to change? Really?If you can, then there must be a massive amount of contingency in the price - which is something Phil Mauger suspected when the $150 million cost blow-out was announced last month.Back then, he wanted to press pause on the whole thing to see if costs might come down a bit. But, of course, he's changed his tune the closer we've got to October's local body elections.City councillor Sam MacDonald is saying that, when councillors were briefed on the fixed-price contract yesterday morning, he told the stadium board not to come back to the Council looking for more ratepayer money.“This is a full and final get on and do it,” is what he's saying about the fixed-price arrangement.So there's a lot of bluster, but I'm not convinced it can be done. And, essentially, this is what city councillors are going to have to decide for themselves between now and tomorrow morning when they'll get together to make the big decision whether to invest another $150 million into the project - and sign the dotted line on a $683 million contract.If I was a city councillor, even if I wanted the stadium - like I do - I couldn't vote “yes” tomorrow because - like I said before - I think this fixed price is too good to be true.And I don't think I'm going to be the only person who thinks that.I see Graham Burke from the Construction Industry Council is also scratching his head about it.He's saying that he's (quote) “very surprised that they've managed to tie somebody down to a fixed-price contract.He goes on to say: “We've got costs going up across the board, we've got interest rates rising, we've got shortage of skills, hold-ups and shortages across the supply chain internationally.” (End of quote).That's what Graham Burke from the Construction Industry Council is saying - and he'll know what he's talking about. And I was interested in his comments because I already had my doubts about this fixed-price thing before I saw what he was saying.He's in the construction sector - so he knows what he's on about. But he seems to be a bit of a lone voice when you compare what he's saying with the likes of Phil Mauger and David Meates, city councillor Sam MacDonald and even Colin Mansbridge from the Crusaders.But how many of them are in the construction industry? None of them - so you could say they've got no idea what they're talking about. You could say the same thing about me, because I'm not in the construction sector either.But Graham Burke from the Construction Industry Council does know what he's on about, and if he thinks it looks too good to be true - then I'm happy to go...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's just one day left until Christchurch finds out if it will push ahead with its controversial stadium.The city council's confirmed it took some negotiation, but lead contractor BESIX Watpac has agreed to a fixed price contract, meaning the figure won't exceed $683 million.More than 30,000 public submissions have been made on the project - 77 per cent in support of the council  spending the extra $150 million needed.Crusaders Chief Executive Colin Mansbridge told Mike Hosking he's hoping it's a done deal and the council will get on with it.He says a lot of the uncertainty around the price is gone and there's overwhelming public support to kick on with it.LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Detailed reports on the future of Christchurch's stalled stadium have been made public -including the successful negotiation of fixed-price contract for its construction.And it has emerged that if the project is stopped, $40 million in "sunk costs" will be lost entirely and the budget will rise further if there is any pause on the build.The Christchurch City Council today confirmed the total budget for the project will sit at $683 million.Rates in the city will need to increase by 1.24 per cent to cover the cost of what the CCC will need to borrow to fund the project.In 2010 and 2011 the Christchurch quakes irreparably damaged AMI Stadium - formerly Lancaster Park.The plan to create a covered multi-use arena was put forward by a Government panel in 2012.That plan detailed how both local and central government would foot the bill.The projected cost was $470 million.But that rose to $533m, and in recent months the Christchurch City Council revealed the proposed design for the stadium, Te Kaha, had blown its budget again.The cost then spiked to $683m - with the $150m increase being blamed on rising international costs in materials and construction.The price hike sparked a public consultation last month and the CCC received 30,000 public submissions about the project.Of those, 77 per cent of people were in favour of meeting the extra costs.A further 8 per cent supported a pause and re-evaluate approach and 15 per cent wanted a complete halt to the stadium's construction.Councillors will decide on the stadium's future at a meeting on Thursday morning.The options are to invest the additional $150m to enable the project to continue as planned, stop the project altogether or pause and re-evaluate it.Today the design and construction submission for Te Kaha - on which councillors will base their decision - was revealed. An artist's impression of plans for Christchurch's multi-use arena, Te Kaha. The City Council will make a decision on next steps this week. Image / SuppliedTe Kaha Project Delivery Limited chairman Barry Bragg said today that a "major issue" had been that the lead contractor BESIX Watpac had been "unwilling" to provide a fixed price "because of the volatility in the commodities market"."We were concerned that would leave the council and the ratepayers of Christchurch exposed to the risk of further cost escalations and that is not something we were willing to accept," Bragg said today."The board has been working through the risks with BESIX Watpac and they have now submitted a revised design and construction submission that provides a fixed price."The Board has thoroughly reviewed the new submission and obtained independent legal advice on it."It is now in a position to make a recommendation to the council that it enters into a Design and Construct contract."Bragg said based on the new contract he was confident the arena could be delivered for a total budget of $682 million."That figure includes sufficient contingency to cover any issues that might emerge during the build," he explained."The fixed price means that if the council decides on Thursday it wants to proceed, ratepayers will be protected from any further cost increases."The CCC will need to add $150 million to its current budget for the arena if it decides to sign the contract this week."Consultation with the public shows 77 per cent of the submitters support the council doing that," said Bragg.A further report to be provided to councillors before the meeting and vote shows the financial implications of increasing the budget.Bragg said assuming the CCC borrowed the additional money, rates would need to increase by a net 1.24 per cent. Plans for Christchurch's multi-use arena, Te Kaha. Image / Supplied"For the average residential property, that means they will have to...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's just one day left until Christchurch finds out if it will push ahead with its controversial stadium.The city council's confirmed it took some negotiation, but lead contractor BESIX Watpac has agreed to a fixed price contract, meaning the figure won't exceed $683 million.More than 30,000 public submissions have been made on the project - 77 per cent in support of the council  spending the extra $150 million needed.Crusaders Chief Executive Colin Mansbridge told Mike Hosking he's hoping it's a done deal and the council will get on with it.He says a lot of the uncertainty around the price is gone and there's overwhelming public support to kick on with it.LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you are like me, and you are a fan of the new Christchurch stadium Te Kaha going ahead, a word of warning - don't count your chickens just yet. The results of the city council's consultation process following the budget blow-out are in, with 77 percent of the 30,500 submissions in favour of the Council pouring in another $150 million to make up the difference and make the thing a reality. There were three options put out for feedback: spend the extra money and press on, pause the project or scrap the whole thing altogether. 77 percent say press on, 15 percent want the project completely scrapped and 8 percent of the submissions say the project should be paused and re-evaluated. So, it's safe to say that the key message coming through in 23,485 of those 30,500 submissions is this: “Just get on with it”. And next week, city councillors will meet to consider and discuss the consultation findings and make a decision on the future of the stadium project. But remember it's the Christchurch City Council we're talking about here and remember too that 77 percent of 30,500 isn't actually a lot of people. So, if you think the Council's woken up today with a mandate to pour more money into the stadium, it hasn't. Here are the numbers: From a population of 392,000 people, there were 30,500 submissions. Let's assume each submission is from a different person - which is probably being generous - but let's assume that, and we have 8 percent of the city's population taking part and giving their view. Take that further, and the percentage of Christchurch's population that has stood up and said it wants the Council to spend another $150 million and press on with the stadium project is just 6 percent. Now there will be a lot of people saying today that the results of the consultation are a clear mandate for the Council to stick with the stadium project. But anyone who thinks having 6 percent of the population on your side is a mandate needs to go away and look up what the word means. Essentially, it means an authority to act. Getting the nod from 6 percent of the population is not an authority to act, as far as I'm concerned. Which is why I'm saying, don't count your chickens. Whether you like it or not, there will be a truckload of people who don't want the Council spending more money on the stadium - they just won't have taken part in the consultation. Just like truckloads of people don't take part in local body elections. So, 77 percent of the 30,000 people who actually took part in the consultation process is not the ringing endorsement that some are saying it is. But I tell you what 100 percent of people in Christchurch and Canterbury are in favour of and do want - they want this Council to show some leadership for a change, to make a decision and to stick with it. And the councillors, when they get around that council table next Thursday to decide what to do next with the stadium, we need to remember that this consultation process only happened because local government rules require it. This was not the Council being genuinely interested in what people had to say - it happened because the rules say it had to consult the public before it put more money into the stadium project. And this is what councillors need to remember - it was a box-ticking exercise. Nothing more, nothing less. And that's why they could, and should, pretty much ignore the findings and make a decision that demonstrates true leadership and a bold vision for the future of Christchurch. They don't have a mandate from the people to spend the extra money and get on with building the stadium. Just like they don't have a mandate to press pause or stop the thing altogether. The only mandate they have is to make a decision and show they are capable of seeing past all the noise, and not be swayed in any particular direction by a box-ticking exercise which only a tiny...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to mayor Lianne Dalziel about her upcoming trip to Adelaide which will commemorate 50 years of Christchurch and Adelaide being sister cities. He also pressed the mayor on the situation with the stadium, after 3,000 submissions were received on the first day on consultation after a $150 million budget blowout recently. Did the Mayor ever want a stadium built?LISTEN ABOVE

Labour's Sarah Pallett and National's Matt Doocey joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday.They discussed the situation with Te Kaha, the new Christchurch Stadium, and John asked them both how they felt about the budget blow out and where the money should come from to get the project underway finally. A Bill has been voted on in the house around Ngāi Tahu representation with Environment Canterbury, Sarah Pallett spoke to the Bill and voted on it, as did Matt Doocey with National against the move. And truancy at schools has been in the spotlight this week, MacDonald asked what can actually be done to encourage more kids to attend school. LISTEN ABOVE

Something quite extraordinary happened yesterday.With 10 Christchurch City councillors writing to the head of Environment Canterbury regional council, asking her to get the mayors of Christchurch, Selwyn, Waimakariri, Ashburton and Hurunui into a room to talk about putting money on the table for the new Christchurch stadium, Te Kaha.By the way: are we still calling it the ‘new' stadium - or is it time we started calling it the ‘beleaguered' stadium. We can't be far off calling it that, can we?We've been talking about it for 11 years but there's nothing to show for all the talk - other than a big piece of empty land in the centre of town.And today there's more talking, with city councillors meeting to decide the next steps in this whole torturous process - which is consulting the public on whether it should put another $150 million of ratepayer money into the stadium after last week's budget blowout announcement; or scale back the design to keep it in budget; or put the whole thing on hold for a bit.But what was extraordinary about yesterday, was that - even before today's meeting - we had ten councillors taking it on themselves to get negotiations underway with the other local councils about having some skin in the game.This is something the mayor and deputy mayor should have done months, if not years, ago. But obviously these ten councillors are so frustrated that they've gone to ECan themselves and asked it to get all the councils in a room together.And they've done it without involving the mayor and the deputy mayor.If you want to know who these councillors are: they are Sam MacDonald (who we'll be talking to shortly), Jake McLellan, James Gough, Phil Mauger, Aaron Keown, Pauline Cotter, Yani Johanson, Tim Scandrett, Jimmy Chen and Catherine Chu.And let's not kid ourselves that these councillors are doing this solely for the benefit of the community. All but two of them are seeking re-election later this year, so we could easily make gags about them “grandstanding” and playing “political football” with the stadium issue.And I see that some of the councillors who didn't put their name to the letter are saying that their colleagues are jumping the gun because Lianne Dalziel has a meeting lined up with ECan next week. But these ten want all the councils brought into the tent.As they absolutely should be. There is no way Selwyn, Waimakariri, Hurunui and Ashburton should get away with putting nothing into the stadium.The other thing these ten councillors want ECan to do - as well as bringing the councils together to talk turkey - is to introduce a regional rate or regional tax to cover some of the costs of building the stadium.So that would mean any property owner living within ECan's area of jurisdiction - which is north of the Waitaki River up to the Clarence River, just up from Kaikoura and inland to the boundary with the West Coast.Anyone who owns a property within that ECan boundary would pay a compulsory regional tax to help pay for the stadium.This sort of thing was done to help pay for Forsyth Barr stadium in Dunedin and the Caketin in Wellington - so it's not unheard of, and I think it's a brilliant idea.Because, let's face it, Waimakariri, Selwyn, Hurunui and Ashburton aren't going to commit money overnight, are they? We've already had one of the mayors in the news this week saying “ooh, we'd have to talk to our ratepayers before we made any sort of commitment”.Which has election year written all over it, doesn't it?If ECan just went ahead and introduced a regional tax for the stadium, we'd be on much firmer ground financially, and the Christchurch City Council could box on and get things underway.You may have seen in the news too that even if it decided to scale-back the design to keep it within budget, the extra design work that would have to be done would cost an extra $30 million anyway. This is in a report that's been done by council staff for councillors.So it's looking more and more,...

So, the Christchurch City Council is asking us what it should do about the new stadium, Te Kaha, now we know that the cost has blown out to nearly $700 million.  So far, it's spent about $40 million on the project. As of yesterday, it's looking like it'll cost $150 million more than expected. And because it's looking at spending a truckload more money, it's required by legislation to consult the public and so there are three questions it wants to get our thoughts on whether it should just press on even though the budget has blown out by at least $150 million; scale-back the design to try and keep it within the existing budget; or, press the “pause” button – if not the “stop” button Very interesting to see that city councillor and mayoral candidate Phil Mauger thinks it should press pause until at least Christmas, maybe longer, to see if there's a prospect of the costs coming down before the Council commits to something which, in all reality, could still blow out to a billion dollars by the time the thing is built. He's saying that once the design work is finished and the site is ready, things should be paused, so they can see if there's any chance of costs coming down. Because, at the moment, there are all sorts of global supply issues sending costs through the roof all over the world. But as well as the questions about whether the Council should press on and spend the big bucks, scale the thing back so it costs less, or just stop the project (for the time being anyway), I think there's another question we have to ask ourselves. Is the Christchurch City Council up to the job and should it still be responsible for the stadium project from here on in? Based on its management so far, I don't think it is. Mainly because it's got politics written all over it. I remember laughing out loud last year when I saw Mayor Lianne Dalziel crowing on the TV news about the council committing to a 30,000-seat stadium and banging on about Christchurch being New Zealand's sporting capital. I laughed out loud because I think it's generally accepted that Lianne Dalziel was never a fan of the stadium project and it's part of the reason why the council kept kicking the thing into touch for so long. And here we are, 11 years after the earthquake, and we still don't have a replacement for the old stadium. Another factor was the Council holding out for a final agreement with the Government as to how much money it was going to put into the post-earthquake anchor projects. This was called the Global Settlement and that's where the Government's $230 million for the stadium comes from. But back to the politics. I remember in the years after the earthquake, the city council fell over itself telling the Government it wanted local control back in Christchurch and didn't want people flying in and out from Wellington running the show. The Council hated Gerry Brownlee when he was Earthquake Recovery Minister. The feeling was mutual for Gerry Brownlee too. And that's coming through in comments he's making about the stadium blowout.   “They were the people who constantly said they could do better and it should be left to them.” This is the council Gerry Brownlee's talking about “And look at what they've done. Just made a complete hash of it.” Now, as we know, the Council eventually got what it wanted and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) was shut down. But the Government didn't pull out completely and some smaller agencies were set up to take on some of the work CERA had been doing. And one of them was Ōtākaro Limited. Ōtākaro is a Crown-owned company which has been delivering some of the central city Anchor Projects funded by the Government. So far, its completed work includes the Bus Interchange, the Te Pae Convention Centre and the National Earthquake Memorial. Other things it's working on include the big Metro Sports Facility, the Te Papa Ōtākaro/Avon River Precinct, the South Frame and the East Frame developments. An...

More money to go down the drain, as Christchurch City Council prepares for another round of consultation over the city's costly stadium.Some Cantabrians are angered by the latest setback, with the budget's blow out up to $150 million.The projected new price tag is now at least $673 million.Christchurch Central Business Association chair Annabel Turley told Kate Hawkesby they've been given a large chunk of funding by the Government for the project.She says if a person was given a big sum of money to buy a new home, they wouldn't wait and put it out for consultation as the price goes up.LISTEN ABOVE 

More money to go down the drain, as Christchurch City Council prepares for another round of consultation over the city's costly stadium.Some Cantabrians are angered by the latest setback, with the budget's blow out up to $150 million.The projected new price tag is now at least $673 million.Christchurch Central Business Association chair Annabel Turley told Kate Hawkesby they've been given a large chunk of funding by the Government for the project.She says if a person was given a big sum of money to buy a new home, they wouldn't wait and put it out for consultation as the price goes up.LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I've got that old saying about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing in my head today.And it's why I think we need to seriously consider creating a Super City by merging the Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri councils.I've thought this for some time and I'm thinking about it again today for a couple of reasons.The first, is the uproar in Lincoln over this new housing development - 1700 new houses.The Carter Family is behind it. They want to increase the number of houses in the Lincoln area by more than 50 percent and chew up a huge chunk of farmland in the process.So a truckload more houses and people, in an area with one high school and one medical centre which is already full and not taking on any new patients.And this is why people already living in Lincoln aren't happy about it.This is where the ‘left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing' comes into it.You may have heard about the Greater Christchurch Partnership. This is a group that all of the councils have an involvement with - plus all the usual agencies like Christchurch NZ. And its job is to think about the long-term growth and development of the Greater Christchurch area over the next 30 years.How the population is going to grow, where all the extra people are going to live. All that stuff.Now this proposed development at Lincoln is in an area outside the Greater Christchurch Partnership's urban boundary, so it's going to be up to the Selwyn District Council and only the Selwyn District Council to decide whether this thing goes ahead or not.Which is nuts, especially when you've got the Christchurch City Council competing with Selwyn - and Waimakariri too for that matter - trying to get more people to come and live in the central city in Christchurch. Left hand-right hand. Working in isolation.The other reason I'm thinking about merging the three councils and creating a new Super City council is the new stadium, Te Kaha.As we know, it's looking like the Christchurch City Council is going to have to come up with a truckload more money - possibly as much as $50 million.The Government isn't interested in putting more into it. So the Council's going to have to front up, if it wants the thing to become reality.Surely, it would be in a much better position if the rating bases of Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakaritri were brought into one big pot by merging them all into one?We've heard this week from some people living in Selwyn and Waimakariri who don't think their rates money should be going into the stadium - so you can bet your bottom dollar that some of their local councillors won't be voting in favour of that. Because, as we know, politicians get spooked about brassing people off - especially when there's an election on the horizon.So get all the councils under one roof and that wouldn't be an issue. It's a no-brainer, as far as I'm concerned.The Auckland Super City brought together seven city and district councils, and the regional council.There was a bit of noise when it happened nearly 12 years ago. But I think over time it's shown that it can work.Auckland these days has a mayor and 20 councillors. Christchurch city has a mayor and 15 councillors. Waimakariri has a mayor and 10 councillors and Selwyn has a mayor and 11 councillors.So Auckland, a mayor and 20 councillors. Greater Christchurch - three mayors and 36 councillors. A bit over the top for the size of the place, don't you think? I think so.Here in Canterbury, there were once all manner of borough councils - but they were swallowed up over time. Another amalgamation we've had here happened in 2006 when Banks Peninsula council joined up with Christchurch City.The issue then was that Banks Peninsula didn't have a big enough population to get the rates it needed to operate properly. Selwyn and Waimakariri don't have that problem - they've...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I've got that old saying about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing in my head today.And it's why I think we need to seriously consider creating a Super City by merging the Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri councils.I've thought this for some time and I'm thinking about it again today for a couple of reasons.The first, is the uproar in Lincoln over this new housing development - 1700 new houses.The Carter Family is behind it. They want to increase the number of houses in the Lincoln area by more than 50 percent and chew up a huge chunk of farmland in the process.So a truckload more houses and people, in an area with one high school and one medical centre which is already full and not taking on any new patients.And this is why people already living in Lincoln aren't happy about it.This is where the ‘left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing' comes into it.You may have heard about the Greater Christchurch Partnership. This is a group that all of the councils have an involvement with - plus all the usual agencies like Christchurch NZ. And its job is to think about the long-term growth and development of the Greater Christchurch area over the next 30 years.How the population is going to grow, where all the extra people are going to live. All that stuff.Now this proposed development at Lincoln is in an area outside the Greater Christchurch Partnership's urban boundary, so it's going to be up to the Selwyn District Council and only the Selwyn District Council to decide whether this thing goes ahead or not.Which is nuts, especially when you've got the Christchurch City Council competing with Selwyn - and Waimakariri too for that matter - trying to get more people to come and live in the central city in Christchurch. Left hand-right hand. Working in isolation.The other reason I'm thinking about merging the three councils and creating a new Super City council is the new stadium, Te Kaha.As we know, it's looking like the Christchurch City Council is going to have to come up with a truckload more money - possibly as much as $50 million.The Government isn't interested in putting more into it. So the Council's going to have to front up, if it wants the thing to become reality.Surely, it would be in a much better position if the rating bases of Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakaritri were brought into one big pot by merging them all into one?We've heard this week from some people living in Selwyn and Waimakariri who don't think their rates money should be going into the stadium - so you can bet your bottom dollar that some of their local councillors won't be voting in favour of that. Because, as we know, politicians get spooked about brassing people off - especially when there's an election on the horizon.So get all the councils under one roof and that wouldn't be an issue. It's a no-brainer, as far as I'm concerned.The Auckland Super City brought together seven city and district councils, and the regional council.There was a bit of noise when it happened nearly 12 years ago. But I think over time it's shown that it can work.Auckland these days has a mayor and 20 councillors. Christchurch city has a mayor and 15 councillors. Waimakariri has a mayor and 10 councillors and Selwyn has a mayor and 11 councillors.So Auckland, a mayor and 20 councillors. Greater Christchurch - three mayors and 36 councillors. A bit over the top for the size of the place, don't you think? I think so.Here in Canterbury, there were once all manner of borough councils - but they were swallowed up over time. Another amalgamation we've had here happened in 2006 when Banks Peninsula council joined up with Christchurch City.The issue then was that Banks Peninsula didn't have a big enough population to get the rates it needed to operate properly. Selwyn and Waimakariri don't have that problem - they've grown massively since the earthquakes.But all of these people are still coming in and out of Christchurch city....

My heart sank last night.  It sank when I saw a headline saying the Christchurch City Council is going to consult residents before it puts any extra money into the new stadium – Te Kaha. As we heard earlier this week, material costs have gone through the roof thanks to global supply chain issues and it's now looking like the Council is going to have to come up with another $50 million to pay for the stadium. The Council has been at pains this week not to confirm that figure – saying that it won't know until it gets the final bid for the project from the lead contractor. I don't think I've heard it deny the figure though, just quietly.  But the Council has obviously been spooked enough to let Treasury know about it. So, I think it's safe to assume that we're not talking chickenfeed, and more money is going to have to come from somewhere if we are going to eventually get a new stadium in Christchurch. Yesterday, the National Party's deputy leader and finance spokesperson Nicola Willis made it pretty clear she doesn't think more money should be coming from the Crown for the stadium. And we know that when the City Council raised the idea of more money with the Government last year, it wasn't interested – and it certainly wouldn't appreciate being asked a second time. So, the Christchurch City Council is on its own and needs to decide what it is going to do. Now, the reason my heart sank last night when I saw the headline about the council planning to consult residents before it puts more money into the stadium, was that I thought we were well and truly past the stage of consultation – even over significant matters like investing another $50 million into this significant project. Think back to 2011 when the Council ran its “Share an Idea” campaign. Remember that? Six weeks of sticky notes and writing ideas on big sheets of paper. It was exactly what Christchurch needed at the time. Then we had all those other agencies pop-up and they were desperate to “consult” and “engage” as well and find out what we really wanted in our new city. Again, it was great – for a while. But I remember things reaching a point and people saying ‘we are sick and tired of all your consultation. Just get on with stuff.' And that is exactly how I'm feeling about the prospect of the Christchurch City Council doing another round of consultation about the stadium. It is 11 years since the big earthquake. You probably don't need to be reminded of that. But 11 years down the track, if the Council is so hellbent on consultation – there are other things it can consult us on, surely. A key project in the city's recovery from the 2011 earthquake isn't one of them.  Now I know I'm probably being somewhat hypocritical today, because I took the mayor to task last year when the Council decided in a single day to reduce the seating capacity at the stadium to keep it in budget. And not letting the public have some sort of say as to whether we'd be happy with a smaller facility. But that was then and this is now – and I've moved on, and I just want them to get on with it. In Central Government, they talk about voters giving parties a mandate and letting them get on with the job for three years. We don't always like the decisions they make – and we tell them about it when we don't – but that's how it works.  So why should it be any different with local government? We put the city councillors in the chairs for three years, and we put them there to make decisions. Just like Central Government. And you know what will happen with this. The Council will do its consultation and all the naysayers will come out in force and it'll be left with an outcome that says the majority of people who took part in the consultation process don't want more ratepayer money going into the stadium, so we'll have to build a smaller one. Or, they'll have the same outcome and ignore it and then get voted out at the elections later this year. I can't believe the Council thin...

The budget for the new Christchurch stadium – Te Kaha – has blown out again, by another $50 million. And it's being reported that city councillors are going to have to decide soon whether to increase the budget, go back to the drawing board or press pause on the project. Memo to Council: ‘Please don't go back to the drawing board. Please don't press pause. We know you like to overthink and agonise over things – but please, don't stand in the way any longer. Yours sincerely, John.'    Let's hope they've got a bit more fortitude to deal with this blow-out than they had when the same thing happened last year and they all suddenly became experts on stadium design and thought we could get away with building a smaller facility. Remember all the hoo-hah when they got all knee-jerk on it and in a single day decided to reduce the seating capacity from 30,000 to 25,000? I remember challenging the mayor on the transparency of that decision – all done in a single day – and she tried to say that it was transparent because anyone could've turned up to the council meeting. Let's hope there is a bit more transparency this time around. But when you think back to all the panic last year, it was such a short-sighted response. Especially when you consider how it took our bean-counting councillor, Sam MacDonald, just one night of staying up late and working out that the cost over-run wasn't as bad as council staff had been saying. And so, as a result of that excellent piece of work, the councillors changed their minds again and decided to press on with the 30,000-seat design. Since then, though, material costs have gone through the roof thanks to global supply chain issues and it's now looking like the council is going to have to come up with another $50 million to pay for the stadium. Not that they're talking about it. I see the project's independent chairman hasn't responded to media enquiries. The council's general manager of citizens and community has responded – but only to say “no comment” for now. We invited mayor Lianne Dalziel onto the programme this morning – we were told she was at an off-site meeting and then heading straight into Annual Plan hearings. Lianne Watson from the Canterbury Employers' Chamber of Commerce is talking, though. She's a big supporter of the 30,000-seat stadium and is saying today that cost increases aren't a huge surprise and the longer it takes to build the stadium, the more expensive it will be. The key thing, though, is to keep our eye on the return on investment. Because the numbers tell us that the stadium is expected to bring $16 million of visitor spending to Christchurch every year. And I know the anti-stadium brigade will say ‘how do they know that? Are they just numbers they've plucked out of thin air?' They'll probably say too that Covid has shown that stadiums are a bad investment. Which could very well be the case – but is that a good enough reason not to press ahead and build the thing?  Of course, it isn't! It's a risk – but it's calculated and it's one worth taking – as far as I'm concerned. It's been 11 years since we last stood in the stands at Lancaster Park. You don't want to think about that too much because it's the sort of thing that reminds you how fast life just disappears. But it's a fact. And, after 11 years, we still don't have a world-class stadium in New Zealand's second-largest city. But I'm not that blind to see that the Council isn't going to have to prioritise a few things to pay for it. The budget was always going to blow-out – especially at the pace this thing is going. But I can tell you one thing – there will be no more money coming from the Government. That's what the Government said last year when the project went over budget and it will say exactly the same thing if Lianne Dalziel goes cap in hand again. The thing that amazes me, is that it appears the Christchurch City Council still hasn't formally hit up the other councils here in Canterbury...

Hostem Automatek byl maorský šaman Te Kaha, který nedávno přijel do Česka hovořit o porodních tradicích svého lidu.