Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

The naysayers will be loving the admission from One NZ Stadium bosses that the number of concerts booked in so far isn’t what they’d been hoping for. I think it’s fair to say that we’d all hoped for more than what’s confirmed so far. Robbie Williams in November and the Foo Fighters in January. The naysayers will be loving it because they’ll say it proves their point that spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a stadium was always going to be a waste of money. That there’s no shortage of stadiums around the world that have become the proverbial white elephant, pointing down the road to Dunedin as an example. You're not going to hear me saying that. Because I have always been, and will remain, a big supporter of One NZ Stadium. And, instead of bagging Venues Ōtautahi, the council agency which runs the stadium and other venues around town, I’m asking whether we need One NZ Stadium as well as the Wolfbrook Arena. Caroline Harvie-Teare, who is the chief executive of Venues Ōtautahi, has told The Press that events at the stadium have been more sport-heavy than initially expected. There have been five sold-out Crusaders games, the Super Rugby Super Round, the Warriors, the All Blacks. And there’s a lot more sports events booked in too. Concerts at the stadium, though? Well, it’s been a bit quieter on that front. We had the big opening concert with Six60. Robbie Williams is doing his sold-out show in November. And the Foo Fighters are here in January. And that’s it. Meanwhile, at Wolfbrook Arena, since the stadium opened in March, we’ve had the likes of Jimmy Barnes and Split Enz and others. And coming up at the arena we’ve got Bryan Adams, Westlife and Stan Walker. Apparently, another show at Wolfbrook is going to be announced in the next few weeks. Venues Ōtautahi  runs all three main concert venues in town: the stadium, Wolfbrook Arena and the Town Hall. The stadium’s concert capacity is 36,000. Wolfbrook Arena’s capacity is 9,000. And the main auditorium in the Town Hall has room for up to 2,500 people sitting and standing for a concert. So do we need all of them? Could we do away with Wolfbrook Arena and have a lot more concerts at the stadium? We kind of could. Because the new stadium can be closed off to create a smaller venue. They’ve got this curtain set-up, which allows them to close off parts of the stadium and, when they do that, it takes the capacity down to about 15,000 people. But going from the Wolfbrook Arena, with room for 9,000 people, to the scaled-back arena within the stadium, which has a capacity of 15,000, that is still a big jump. Consider too that, with the Parakiore Sport and Recreation Centre now open on Moorhouse Ave, do we still need the arena? The arena has been where the Mainland Tactix have played most of their home netball games. They had a pre-season game this year at Parakiore so, perhaps, they could do that on a permanent basis. But for me, when I balance it all up, I think we do need the stadium and Wolfbrook Arena. It would be easy to look at the lack of stadium concerts and say the arena is the reason. That we have two venues competing against each other. But I think we need both. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National's Hamish Campbell and Labour's Reuben Davidson joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week. They covered some of the biggest issues of the week, from the Governments fuel tax cut, if e-scooter riders need to be licenced, and the "Jades law" petition calling for an increase on penalties for careless driving causing death. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sometimes it seems that Labour’s decision to ban exploration for fossil fuels gets blamed for nearly every problem we’re dealing with in New Zealand. And today is no different. With Labour copping the blame for the closure of the big Methanex manufacturing plant, in Taranaki. The company has announced that it’s closing the methanol plant, which uses as much as 40 percent of the natural gas produced in New Zealand, because of what it describes as no clear path to new gas supplies. It will stop production at the end of February. Putting about 200 jobs on the line. Which has Economic Growth Minister Nicola Willis pointing the finger at Labour. Energy Minister Simeon Brown is piling-in too. He says "The reason why we're in this position is because Labour decided to ban oil and gas exploration, crashed a sector, thousands of jobs in our regions lost, particularly in Taranaki, and now even more being lost." Which is the predictable response, I suppose. But he’s wrong. So is Nicola Willis.  And here’s why. The last really significant natural gas discovery in New Zealand was the Pohokura field in 2000, off the Taranaki coast. It was discovered in 2000 and production started in 2006.  Since then, there’s been nothing comparable to that. And certainly nothing comparable to the Maui gas field, which was discovered off the coast of Taranaki in 1969.  I’ve seen it described as enormous, by international standards. But there hasn’t been a second Maui. Which, by the way, is due to end production at the end of this year.  But back to this nonsense that the Methanex plant is closing because of Labour’s gas ban.  Rich Sumner is President and CEO of Methanex Corporation. He says: “Our New Zealand production facilities have operated for more than four decades and our people have made significant contributions to the company’s global operations and the New Zealand energy sector. However, we have also been preparing for the eventuality of this day given the declining gas availability in the country.” Key words there: “declining availability”. And the reason for that “declining availability” isn’t because of the gas ban. The declining availability is because we spent 18 years looking and didn‘t find anything. Eighteen years between the last significant discovery and the start of Labour’s exploration ban. You would think, wouldn’t you, that 18 years would be long enough to discover something worthwhile. But we didn’t. And that’s why Methanex is shutting-up shop here. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nine billion dollars a year. $750 million a month. Or $24 million a day. That’s how much interest we are currently paying on government debt. Just the interest. But, despite that, the Government thinks it’s a good idea to borrow more money to cover the cost of the revenue it’s not going to get because of the fuel tax freeze. The Transport Minister has confirmed that more money is going to have to be bow-wowed. Because the Government’s books are in deficit. Chris Bishop says borrowing is the only way to do it, given the state of the country’s finances. Which comes at a time when we are spending $9 billion a year just paying the interest on government debt. It is nothing short of lunacy. I’m not against governments borrowing money. But it has to be money for essential things like infrastructure. If we have to, borrow money to build roads. If we have to, borrow money to build hospitals. But don’t go borrowing money because you’ve decided, for whatever reason, to deny yourself revenue because of this political paranoia about taxation. Politicians go on all the time about the Government having to run the books just like you and I run our household budgets. So sticking with that analogy, what the Government’s doing with this plan to borrow money to pay for its decision to play politics with taxation is like someone getting a loan from the bank to pay for the kids’ pocket money. The kids are happy but, because the money has to be paid back with interest, they struggle to pay the powerbill during winter. Sounds nuts? That’s exactly what the Government is doing with its borrowing to pay for less tax revenue. It’s exactly what Labour did too. Remembering that the long-term picture when it comes to government debt isn’t pretty. We’re heading for a situation in the next few decades where government debt will be 180 percent of GDP. Yet, these politicians in Labour and National, claim to be the ones who know what it takes to run the economy. And they think more debt is the answer. Do me a favour. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Opposition Leader Chris Hipkins is waiting for the Government to release its pre-election fiscal update before explaining how Labour would fund a freeze to fuel taxes over the next three years. Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, Hipkins said Labour would need to wait until the government's books were opened to determine how it would fund the election promise, but he backed the party's plan to ease petrol costs for Kiwis. "What I'm being really clear about is that we're not going to ask New Zealanders in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis to pay another 25 cents a litre every time they fill up the car." Hipkins also discussed Labour's policy to guarantee jobs for all graduate nurses, the latest Roy Morgan poll numbers, and the Paris Agreement, which currently divides the coalition government. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You know how we’ve been saying for ages how much of a problem e-scooters, in particular, are? How we’ve been saying for ages that, in the wrong hands, they’re death traps? How we’ve said all that, but we’ve done absolutely nothing about it? I reckon we need to be looking at what they’re doing over in Queensland right now. And I think we should do the same. Because, as of this week, Queensland is the first state in Australia - and one of the very, very few jurisdictions anywhere in the world - to set age limits and licensing requirements for e-bike and e-scooter riders. Which is a brilliant move. As of this week, in Queensland, anyone wanting to ride an e-scooter or e-bike on their own needs to be 16 and, at the very least, have a learners driver’s licence. As of this week, in Queensland, there is a new speed limit for e-scooters - 12 kilometres per hour near pedestrians. And because people will now need at least their learners licence to use these things in public, the police in Queensland have a lot more power to intervene when someone’s being a muppet. So, when they’re breaking the speed limit, the cops can now stop them and fine them. If they’re under-16 or if they don’t have a licence, the cops can ping them. If they’re riding an e-scooter or an e-bike drunk, they can be done for it. What’s more, the parents of any kids in Queensland caught breaking these new rules can be fined. They’re doing this over there because people have had a gutsful of e-scooters, e-bikes and those electric dirt bikes. But we have too, haven’t we? And we’re not imagining how much of a problem they’ve become. Especially the e-scooters. Between 2022 and January this year, ACC claims for e-scooter crashes totalled $49,580,000. On average, that’s $12.5 million a year. What you don’t get from those figures is the ongoing consequences of those injuries. The numbers show too why what Australia is doing with its age limit makes sense and why we need to do the same here. Over the last two years, there have been 3,090 e-scooter ACC claims from teenagers. Last year, here in New Zealand, 10-to-19-year-olds were the most crash-prone e-scooter riders. You might have noticed that I said crash-prone, not accident-prone. Because most e-scooter injuries are avoidable. They’re not accidents. That’s because of the way people use these things. Especially, the hire scooters. Which, by the way, do require people to verify that they’re over 18 before using them. But we know that a lot of kids just use their parents' details to get around that. Besides which, putting it on the scooter operators makes no sense. Which is why I think it would be an absolutely no-brainer to do what they’re doing in Queensland. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Selwyn Mayor Lydia Gliddon joined John in the studio for their regular catchup. They discussed the key issues facing the district, including managing fast-track developments, the council's amalgamation plans, and proposals to reduce speed limits on sections of Leeston Road from 100km/h, which have faced significant opposition from local residents. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Instead of cracking down on New Zealanders with student debt living overseas, we should be making things easier for them. Especially, if we want them to come back. Tell that to the National Party, though. Which has announced that, if it forms the next government, it will be going after graduates overseas with student loans and doing nothing about it. The ones who account for 93 percent of the student debt that needs to be paid back. National is promising to make life a bit easier for graduates living here. Giving them more time to pay off their loan with lower repayment rates. But the ones overseas will face higher interest and tougher penalties if they don’t pay it back when they should. Which makes no sense to me. Especially, if we want to get these people back to New Zealand. How the system works, is that anyone with a student loan who moves to another country gets hit with interest. Which means more debt to pay-off. If you’ve graduated and you’ve got a student loan to pay off and you’re in New Zealand, no interest. But the minute you go overseas to live, the interest starts getting added. And you’re expected to make two lump-sum payments every year. Not everyone does, though. And these are the ones National has in its sights. With Nicola Willis saying the taxpayer has subsidised their education and, if they choose not to use their skills to contribute to New Zealand society, then two things are needed: they need to pay more for the privilege of the taxpayer subsidising them and there needs to be consequences if they don’t follow the rules. I agree there needs to be consequences for not paying it back. Because a loan is a loan. But what National is proposing isn’t the answer. Because this so-called crackdown won’t do anything for the New Zealanders overseas who are way behind in their student loan payments and are too scared to set foot here because they think they’ll be arrested at the border. It’s crazy to get all hardcore on it when some people are already too scared to come back. The thing is, too, it’s all very well going overseas. But that doesn’t mean people walk into well-paying jobs. The grass doesn’t always turn out to be greener. Which is why I think a much better approach would be to be a bit flexible with these people. What would be wrong, for example, with IRD talking to them and seeing if they might qualify for some grace on the basis of hardship? Or agreeing to letting them come back, pay a few hundred bucks for a start and see how it goes. I wouldn’t have any problem with that. Because what would you rather have? These people stuck overseas owing all this money? Or would you rather they were here using their skills and knowledge and making a genuine contribution to the country? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Anyone celebrating that ruling by MBIE last week about one apartment in central Christchurch not being suitable for Airbnb accommodation needs to put the bubbly back on the ice. Because this Air BnB scourge in Christchurch isn’t going away anytime soon. With a block of 24 new apartments, on Madras Street in the East Frame area of central Christchurch, that was supposed to be used for residential housing, being sold to one Airbnb operator. The sale hasn’t happened yet. But the crowd building the apartments, Fletcher Living, is looking for an investor to buy the three-storey block holus-bolus. The price for all 24 apartments is thought to be somewhere between $12 million and $15 million. Which is a price bracket that would enable an investor from overseas to buy it. What really sticks in my claw, is that this development is happening in what became known as the East Frame area after the earthquakes. Which was a key development designed to get more people living in the central city. Not having a one-night holiday in the central city. Living in the central city. The specific area where this development is happening is on land bought by the Crown after the quakes, on Madras Street, near the Margaret Mahy Playground. A local lobby group isn’t happy that people won’t be able to buy the apartments to live in, saying it would be better than having them sitting empty most of the time. Would it ever. A nearby resident is saying today too that this bulk sale of these 24 apartments is “outrageous” and will only make the area feel more lonely for people, like her, who live in the area. People who have been saying for some time now that they’re finding themselves living in ghost neighbourhoods, with all these Airbnbs around them. In one new development, residents say about 80 percent of the places have become Airbnb-type properties. At another one, on the corner of Kilmore and Manchester Streets, there are 25 new townhouses and the people living there reckon only four of them appear to be occupied by long-term residents. Which has them feeling like they’re living in a “pretend neighbourhood”. And they’re not imagining it. We found out recently that, in the last year, 484 new homes were built in the central city, but the number of people living permanently in the area in that same period has only increased by 50. That’s less than 1 percent growth in the number of people living in the centre of town. Which isn’t going to improve with Fletcher Living now selling what is effectively going to be a 24-room virtual hotel. Councillor Yani Johanson says: “How do you build communities when you’ve got so much short-stay accommodation?” The answer to that is, you don’t. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Local broadcasting legend Barry Corbett joined John MacDonald to look back on his time as the breakfast host on 3ZB and Newstalk ZB as the station turns 100 years old. Barry was the breakfast host on 3ZB and Newstalk ZB from 1981 to 1998. He then took his hand to local politics as a Christchurch City Councillor and is now a part-time tram driver across the CBD. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Duncan Webb joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week. They covered some of the biggest issues of the week, from the Government's plan to cap council rates, if trust in the public service has dwindled after the MBIE officials were found to mislead parliament, and the tax talk from both sides of the aisle. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Whatever happened to accountability and consequences in the public sector? They’ve gone, it seems. With no one at the Ministry for Business, Innovation & Employment or Immigration NZ copping it for misleading MPs about throwing $33 million of taxpayer down the drain. And I’m with this business professor from Victoria University who is saying today that heads need to roll. What’s happened, is an investigation has found that officials from MBIE and Immigration NZ misled Parliament when they turned up to a select committee hearing in March. They were asked how things were going with their upgrade to Immigration NZ’s security technology which, they knew full well at the time, had been scrapped months earlier. They knew it had been scrapped. But they didn’t let on. Even when one of the MPs asked about making sure the project was on track and not turning into another public sector IT disaster. They could have said: “Err not good news, actually peeps. We pulled the pin on that project a few months back. And we don’t really have anything to show for your $33 mill.” But they didn’t say that. They fudged it. And that’s putting it politely. Parliament’s Privileges Committee, which looked into this, says these officials “misled” Parliament. But we know what that really means, don’t we? Not only was it bad enough that they blew $33 million of taxpayer money with nothing to show for it. Not only was it bad enough that they didn’t tell anyone about it. And not only was it bad enough that they didn’t fess up to MPs when they had the chance. On top of all that, nothing’s going to be done about it. No consequences. The committee that did the investigation seems to think that naming and shaming these officials is punishment enough. Which I completely disagree with. I also disagree with the decision by Public Service boss Sir Brian Roche not to accept the offer from MBIE boss Nic Blakeley to resign. After all this came to light, Blakely said to Sir Brian that he was prepared to be the fall guy. But Sir Brian wouldn’t accept Blakely’s offer to resign. Why’s that? Because he’d only been in the job five minutes. So what? Which is exactly what Professor Geoff Plimmer from Victoria University’s School of Business and Government is saying today, as well. He says what happened was an insult to the entire public service and public servants need to get the message that they can’t get away with this kind of thing. Do they ever. Which is why I think Sir Brian Roche got it wrong. It doesn’t matter how long he’s been in the job. Because, as it stands now, no one is copping it. And I can’t accept that. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The extra $20-a-week most of us got from the government’s tax cuts was like winning First Division Lotto, compared to the miserly amount you and I are going to save when this cap on council rates kicks in. The Local Government Minister has confirmed that the rates cap will come into force in July 2029 and will ban councils from anything higher than a 4 percent annual increase. And, when it does, we’ll save, on average, $34 a year. Which proves that this is yet another placebo policy. A policy that might make some of us feel good, but won’t actually make much difference. It will make a difference for the local councils. Because the screws will go on their budgets. But it will make next to no difference for ratepayers. And the government needs to acknowledge that, get some backbone and change its thinking on this. Because what good is a mind if you can’t change it? How Local Government Minister Simon Watts can talk about these miserly savings for ratepayers and keep a straight face, I’ll never know. But there are three choices facing councils, now that they’re going to be limited to 4 percent annual rates increases. They can borrow more. How do you like the sound of that? Especially if you think council debt is a real problem. I heard Simon Watts saying that councils can access cheap loans. But debt is debt. They can charge us more for services. Because there’s not going to be any limit on how much councils can increase fees for consents and library services and getting into places like council pools. They won’t be allowed to increase the rates by anything more than 4 percent, but they can go to town with other fees. Or they can trim their services back to the bare bone. Fewer rubbish collections anyone? More unrepaired roads anyone? See what I mean? And we can have some or all of those options while, at the same time, saving a miserly amount on our rates bills. On average, $34 a year. Is there any good I can see in all of this? At a push, I would say that it’s probably got councils focusing or thinking a bit more about costs and expenditure. But I think they, generally, do that anyway. They just seem to get snowed under by all the demands we place on them. We demand more. It costs more. This isn’t me saying that councils should be allowed to run free and spend whatever they want. But, as anyone who has thought they can become a local councillor and deliver zero rates increases has discovered, that kind of talk is cheap. The reality is, it costs money to run councils and deliver council services. That’s why this 4 percent rates cap the government is forcing on councils is not going to do anyone any favours. It’s not going to do councils any favours. And saving a pitiful $34 a year isn’t going to do ratepayers any favours, either. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Well done to ACT and NZ First for not agreeing to National’s social media ban just because it’s election year. Because that's all this is. Another example of a political party getting so-called runs on the board at the last minute so it can say to voters “look what we’re doing”. Or, “at least we’re doing something”. It’s something they’re already doing in Australia. And a new report out shows, surprise, surprise, it’s not working. Which I’ll get to. But, yesterday, the Prime Minister and the Education Minister announced to the world that legislation is being introduced to get the under-16s off social media here in New Zealand. Now I’m not denying that there is a problem with kids and social media. But this needed to happen 15 years ago if we wanted it to work. That’s not putting National off. The fly in the ointment, though, is that its ACT and NZ First coalition partners are using the “agree to disagree” clause in their agreement. And so National is going to need Labour’s support to get it across the line. Labour’s making all sorts of noises about wanting to know more detail. But they’ll eventually support it. Because they’re just as politically desperate as National. ACT and NZ First, though, at least they’ve got some principles. In relation to this anyway. That’s because they’ve seen the same reports I’ve seen, which show Australia is really pushing it uphill trying to make their ban work. According to Australia’s internet regulator, more than 80 percent of teens and pre-teens over there are still using social media. Despite a social media ban for under-16s being introduced late last year. So, if it’s not working over there, should we even be bothering here? No. Because it was never going to work in Australia. It will never work here. And it will never work anywhere else that wants to give it a go. Because it’s too little, too late. It would have worked 15 years ago. Not now. Because the horse has already bolted. And politicians are dreaming if they think they can put a lid on it at this stage. Let’s not forget too that social media can actually do a lot of good. I saw mental health campaigner Jazz Thornton saying that social media can be a lifesaver for teenagers. I’ve heard the same said about young people in the LGBTQIA+ community. How social media can be very positive in terms of creating a sense of belonging, at a time when they can feel very, very isolated. And if you think it sounds like I’m saying just because a ban won’t work we shouldn’t be doing anything about kids and social media, I’m not. But I’m realistic. And, like it or not, parents and caregivers are the only ones who can actually make a difference. But, even then, and I know from experience, parents and caregivers are limited in what we can do. The kids will always find a way. Just like they’ll find a way to get around any ban. The most obvious way is to get a virtual private network (VPN) set up, which hides your internet protocol (IP) address. It’s like turning off the caller ID on your phone. You do that, and people can’t see your number when you call them. You get a VPN, and the social media companies can’t see where in the world you are. Kids in New Zealand will do that and there’ll be no chance of Facebook and Instagram and the rest of them shutting down their accounts. Because what it comes down to is this: if a kid wants to be on social media, they’ll be on social media. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Is National’s promise of no new taxes as good as it sounds? If you ask Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown, he’ll say no. Because he’s been pushing for a bed tax for tourists and, yesterday, Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis announced that that won’t be happening under National. Wayne Brown won’t be the only person upset, either. You ask anyone in tourism or local government and they’ll tell you that a bed tax is a no-brainer. But, if you ask the banks, they’ll say no new taxes is brilliant. Because, as well as ditching the bed tax idea, National has dropped the other tax it had been mulling over. Which was a levy on bank profits. Christopher Luxon says neither of those will happen under National. Because they would have just been passed on to customers. Or “everyday Kiwis”, as Christopher Luxon put it. We know, though, that the real reason National has dropped these two new taxes is because, being election year, all it thinks about is catchy slogans. And you can’t go bringing in new taxes if your catchy slogan says no new taxes. But is that approach really what’s best for the country? I don’t think it is. Which is where Labour comes into it. Announcing a few details of its finance plan over the weekend. At this point, let me remind you of my position on Labour. I think it has wasted the last three years and does not deserve to form the next government. The latest poll out this morning, though, the RNZ-Reid Research poll, says a small majority of voters don’t feel that way and has Labour on 32 percent and National on 29 percent. But I think Labour has just coasted since losing the election three years ago and hasn’t come up with any good reasons to give it another turn this time around. That said, when you compare National and Labour’s approach to taxation and spending and you consider what the country needs right now, Labour’s approach makes a lot more sense. There are bits that don’t. Such as the free doctor visits for everyone. Which would be paid for, apparently, by Labour’s new capital gains tax. And be available to everyone. Even people who can well afford to pay to go to the GP themselves. But, when you consider what Labour and National have been talking about over the past 24 hours, it comes down to this: Labour wants to tax more and spend more, while National wants taxes to stay as they are and to spend a bit less. Your gut instinct might be to go with no new taxes and less government spending. But is that really what this country needs right now? As independent economist Cameron Bagrie said this morning, if you want things like better health services, you have to pay more tax. If you want Health NZ to hire more than just the miserly 54 new nurses it’s taken on over the last two years, do you think we’re going to do that without putting a bit more coin in the tin ourselves? Of course not. More cops with no new taxes and less government spending? Be honest. Of course not. That’s why Labour’s tax talk is way more realistic than National’s. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Grass verges have had their day. These are the areas of grass you see on streets, between the road and the footpath, where people sometimes park their cars. I’ll tell you why I think they should go. But first, let me tell you about some residents in the Christchurch suburb of Somerfield who aren’t happy about the city council putting in a heap of red and white markers to stop people parking on the verge. Rose Street is where 130 white and red markers, like the ones you see on state highways, have been put in. A move being described today as “ridiculous”, “hideous” and “stupid”. Apparently, since the markers have gone in, some people are parking on the road, next to the markers, which is making the space for vehicles more narrow. Which is crazy, isn’t it? I know Rose Street pretty well and it’s not off the beaten track. There’s a lot of traffic there at times because one of the entrances to Cashmere High School is on Rose Street. There’s a couple of rest homes. It’s a pretty busy street. The council’s not having a bar of the complaints, though. The local councillor, Tim Scandrett, is saying that people parking on verges and damaging them has been a problem for about 40 years. And so they have to try something to stamp it out. Now I’ve had an issue with grass verges for quite a while. Ever since people started putting rocks on the verges outside their houses, because they were brassed-off with people using the verge as a parking area, and the grass getting damaged and all that. I’ve had an issue with it because these busy bodies don’t own the verge, yet they carry-on as if they do. Rose Street is one of the areas where people have put these blasted rocks. So the council’s intervened and installed all of these white and red markers. The same council, might I point out, that has been perfectly happy to issue building consents left, right and centre for in-fill housing. Not just in Somerfield but across the whole city. In-fill housing developments that, most of the time, don‘t have enough space for off-street parking. Which means more people needing to park out on the street. So, instead of putting up markers and closing off the verge areas, the council should be getting rid of verges completely to create more on-street parking spaces. Because the situation at the moment, where more and more people are needing to park on the street and all of this parking space is being chewed up by grass verges, makes no sense to me whatsoever. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Dan Rosewarne joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week. They covered some of the biggest issues of the week, from the Wolfbrook's Pegasus Golf Course development being denied fast track approval from the Government, what needs to be done about aged care in New Zealand, and what they reckon about The Green's wanting to increase the school lunch programme. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If we aren’t all despairing at this revelation that the deadly Mount Maunganui landslide was preventable, then don’t expect anything to change. Because the fact that consultant after consultant warned about the risk of a landslide coming down on that campground for more than 25 years and yet it still happened, shows how much of a buck-passing country we are. Six people died in that tragedy in January this year. Six people who, I think it’s very fair to say, would still be here if these warnings hadn’t been ignored. I think the retired judge who did this report which came out yesterday has done a very good job. But I can‘t accept his view that blame can’t be pinned on any one person and that it was the system that failed. I can’t accept that. Because systems are only as good as the people who run them. And I’m really concerned that this disaster is going to turn out to be another example of how brilliant we are here in New Zealand at letting people get away with what I would describe (in my honest opinion) as nothing short of negligence. Whenever something like this happens, everyone talks about making sure it doesn’t happen again. Which I always take with a pinch of salt. In this case, I would like to think that this kind of thing will never happen again. But we can’t say that, unless we are prepared to see people carrying the can if they cock up. Let me share a little bit of what Judge Paul Davison says in his report. “For more than two decades, one competent consultant after another identified the landslide hazard to the campground, located it on the very slope that failed, and explained, sometimes in stark terms, what the consequences of a landslide occurring could be.” His report says: “As long ago as 1999, Dr Laurie Richards warned that the siting of fragile holiday accommodation directly beneath these slopes was imprudent and the risk to sleeping occupants was high.” It gets worse. Another warning 20 years ago, in 2006, said a slip there would kill 21 people. And still, nothing was done. If there is anything to be thankful for, it’s the fact that it was six people who died and not the 21 talked about back in 2006. Nevertheless, this was a monumental cock-up. And, even though I get what the judge is saying about the system being the problem, I can’t accept that we’re just going to let faceless people get away with this. Because all that’s going to do, is enable people to continue to get away with turning a blind eye time and time and time again. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sometimes, outfits like the Lyttelton Historical Society have to be told to get a grip. And today is one of those times. Because, in a place the size of Christchurch, how many museums is too many? What’s happening, is the Lyttelton Historical Society is gearing up to ask ratepayers for $8 million to help pay for a new maritime and colonial history museum. They want $8 million from the council to help build it and $300,000 a year on top of that to run the place. It would be in Lyttelton, which hasn’t had a museum since the earthquakes, and would house thousands of items which are being kept in storage at the Air Force Museum, in Wigram, free of charge. In the years between the quakes and now, there have been a few attempts to get a new museum off the ground in Lyttelton. But it hasn’t happened. And I don’t think it should happen. Unless they can pay for it without running to the council. Because, do we really need to shell out millions of dollars for a new museum in Lyttelton, when we’ve got Canterbury Museum just 20 minutes' drive away in town? No we don't. Do we really need to shell out millions of dollars for a new museum in Lyttelton, when we’ve also got the Okains Bay Museum on the Peninsula? No we don’t. The Okains Bay Museum which, by the way, is also telling us today that it’s planning a multi-million-dollar upgrade. No word yet, though, as to whether they’re also going to be asking the council for money to do it. But we know, for sure, that that’s what the people behind this idea of a new museum in Lyttelton are going to do. And, in my mind, the council has to say no. The argument that the Historical Society people seem to be basing their request on, is the findings of a feasibility study. Which found that only 53 percent of “stakeholders” they’ve spoken to about it think they would have any chance of raising the money themselves. And that 53 percent are dreaming. But 100 percent of these stakeholders they’ve spoken to think it would be a worthy project. Which is what always happens. Everyone thinks it’s a great idea but no one wants to pay for it. Or has any idea how to pay for it, apart from doing the usual thing and putting the hand out to ratepayers and taxpayers. And so they’re about to run off to the council to try and get $8 million. They’ve drafted up a proposal document which claims a museum in Lyttelton would support tourism and education and create jobs. Remembering this is the town where the locals complain about the cruise ships and say they do nothing for Lyttelton because as soon as they arrive, the passengers get off the ship and shoot straight through the tunnel into town. Now, though, when it suits, they’re saying a multi-million-dollar museum would stop these cruise ship passengers in their tracks. Dream on. What’s more, the council is already shelling out millions of dollars for the Canterbury Museum development. And, instead of shelling out more for another museum in Lyttelton, it should be telling the Lyttelton Historical Society that, if their collection is so important, then put it on a truck and send it to Canterbury Museum. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Opposition Leader Chris Hipkins has insisted Labour will not support additional tax policies proposed by potential coalition partners. Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, Hipkins said Labour only have one tax policy that they are campaigning on, which is a targeted capital gains tax, and the rejection of any new taxes from any other parties is a bottom line for any potential coalition talks post-election. "If the Opportunity Party comes into Parliament and says look, a bottom line for us is that you must introduce a land tax, they'll be negotiating with National." They also discussed the comments Hipkins had made in Parliament about Christopher Luxon "hating" New Zealand, the new report showing the troubles facing aged-care, and the upcoming valedictory speech of Christchurch Central MP Duncan Webb. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you’re not convinced yet that our aged care system needs an overhaul, then maybe this will get you across the line. We’re being told today that we are facing “a mountain of unmet need” in the aged care sector. And the result of that is going to be even more pressure on hospitals and hundreds of millions of dollars for taxpayers. So this report from a government advisory group, which was given the job of doing an assessment of care services for older people, is pretty sobering. It says in just over a decade, we are going to have a shortage of more than 9,000 aged care residential beds. That’s the equivalent of half the population of Rangiora not having anywhere to go. You imagine 50 percent of the people in Rangiora being of an age where they can’t live independently anymore and needing to go into care and there not being anywhere for them to go. That’s the scenario we’re being warned about today. And the additional cost of that shortage of residential care beds to the taxpayer is going to be $600 million a year. Because, if people can’t go into care, then they’ll end up using hospitals more. Once it worked that out, the government advisory group had to work out what we can do to try and prevent that happening. And it’s saying today that the best course of action would be to make people pay more of their own money when they need to go into care. At the moment, you can have $300,000 worth of assets, not including your house, if you own one, before means testing kicks in. The advisory group says that threshold should drop to $100,000. Again, not including the house. Associate Health Minister Casey Costello is non-committal. But I don’t think this government, and whoever is in government after this year’s election, can ignore what this advisory group is saying. We can’t let things continue the way they are if it’s going to mean the equivalent of half the population of Rangiora not being able to get into aged care facilities within a decade. That’s why I think we have no choice. I think we are going to have to make people pay more. And the way to do it is through a tougher approach to means testing. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

David Seymour is out there fighting for the angry white guy, with this move to stop what he calls “race-based hiring requirements” in the public sector. I know about the angry white guy. Because I almost became one myself. Which I’ll tell you about. But what the ACT leader is saying today, is that the decision whether-or-not to give someone a job in the public service should only be based on their skills, their experience and their suitability for the role. He says: “Public service jobs should go to the best person for the job, regardless of race.” Which is going to be music to the ears of people who think they’ve lost out on a job because they had the wrong colour skin. ACT is also making music for people already working in the public sector who get brassed-off when they turn up to a meeting and nothing happens until there’s been a Māori Karakia blessing. David Seymour says government workers shouldn’t be expected to take part in spiritual practices just because they work for the government. He says: “Taxpayers should not be required to fund staff time or other resources for employer-initiated spiritual activity, either.” What are we talking about here, though? 15 or 30 seconds for a Karakia? That’s about it. Max. If David Seymour’s so worried about this all happening on taxpayer time, what about all those government workers who hang around outside sucking on cigarettes and vapes when they should be working? In David Seymour’s world, it’s OK for workers to do that while they’re clocked on. But they can’t possibly ‘waste’ 15-to-30 seconds doing a Karakia before a meeting. Because, generally, that’s how long these take. I know, because I’ve been in public sector meetings it happens. Which brings me to the story of how I almost became one of the angry white guys that David Seymour is fighting for today. I was working at Oranga Tamariki a few years back when the late Wira Gardiner took over as chief executive. And, as he settled into the job, I could tell that there was change happening. That there were a lot more Māori joining the organisation. Even in non-frontline areas, where I was working. Initially, I started to feel like I was on the outer. Because of the colour of my skin. And, for a while there, I started to resent it a bit. But the more I thought about it and learnt about the organisation needing to get away from being the outfit that had done a very good job of separating families - particularly Māori families - it made sense. It made sense to have people working across the organisation who live and breathe Māori culture. And, once I realised that, I pulled back from the brink of becoming another angry white guy. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Instead of mucking around and asking local councils to come up with ideas on how to re-arrange themselves, the government should have just gone straight to Ngāi Tahu. Because, even though the iwi wasn’t asked to put forward a proposal, it has. And I think it’s brilliant. It’s one of those ideas that the councils themselves were always going to be incapable of coming up with. Because, what Ngāi Tahu has done, is it’s looked at the South Island and thought about what is best for the South Island. Which none of the South Island councils have done. Because they only care about what’s in it for them. In a nutshell, Ngāi Tahu is saying that, instead of having 24 councils in the South Island, we should just have five bigger ones. One area that isn’t covered in the plan is the very top of the South Island. That’s because it’s not part of Ngai Tahu’s tribal area. But the vast majority of the South Island would, generally, be divided by river boundaries. So Christchurch, Selwyn, Waimakariri, Hurunui and Kaikōura being merged into one council. With the boundaries pretty much being the Clarence River to the north, the Rakaia River to the south and the Southern Alps. Each council area would have a number of local boards, which people would be elected to and they would make decisions about really local things like pools and libraries. And there’d be a South Island-wide shared services entity which would be responsible for things like consents and planning. Which, to me, sounds something like a South Island-wide version of ECan. What is there not to like? My only criticism is that I think Ngāi Tahu might have left its run a bit late. It should have been coming out with this way before now. Because it might just have encouraged our councils to think beyond their own doorstep. Because, when you look at what the councils around here have come up with, their own doorstep is pretty much where their thinking has started and finished. Christchurch has decided it wants to stay as it is, the only change being adding ECan’s responsibilities to its workload. Selwyn is exactly the same. And Waimakariri says it’s prepared to merge with Hurunui. But we know it’s doing that reluctantly, because it had to come up with something to keep the government happy. What’s more, the government isn’t obliged to take any notice of what Ngāi Tahu is saying here, because it’s not a council and wasn’t asked to put any ideas forward. But I think this would be a way better way of arranging local government in the South Island than the hotchpotch of ideas from local councils that have landed on the government’s desk. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Reuben Davidson joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week. They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from the Christopher Luxon surviving another leadership vote, Ngāi Tahu's amalgamation proposal, and if developments benefiting from fast pass should pay more council rates. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christopher Luxon is in a hell of a bind. Because he is dreaming if he thinks sacking Defence Minister Chris Penk is going to be enough to get National back on track. But if he did what I think he should do after that shambles of a leadership challenge yesterday, things would come to a complete standstill. Because he’s not just running a party. He’s also running the government and there’s stuff the government has to keep on doing. And you need ministers, capable ministers, to do that. But if Christopher Luxon wants us to come anywhere close to believing that he has a caucus capable of holding itself together and not falling apart at the next hurdle, then he needs to go further than just sacking the Defence Minister. If he wants us to believe that, after what happened yesterday, he’s anything more than a lame duck leader, he has to sack Chris Bishop and Erica Stanford too. Because with those two still lurking around, he’s talking out of his backside telling us that they’re all happy and united and stable. He’s also talking out of his backside saying that Chris Penk has been given the heave-ho because he was the one who wanted to be party leader and prime minister. It’s nonsense. Chris Bishop and Erica Stanford were the ones who wanted Luxon gone. But they were so pig-headed about it and were fighting against each other as much as they were fighting against Christopher Luxon. Stanford wanted to be boss. And so did Bishop. The person who has come out of this looking like the good guy is Mark Mitchell. There was talk that he was another one wanting Christopher Luxon gone. But he told Newstalk ZB this morning that that was nonsense. He also said he was 110 percent certain we won’t see this happening again and seems very confident that National will recover from this, saying the party isn’t “mortally wounded”. Obviously, he isn’t going to say anything otherwise. But there’s no way we can look at National now and think they’re anything close to stable, with Chris Bishop and Erica Stanford still sitting around the Cabinet table. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I feel very sorry for Christopher Luxon. And that was how I felt too watching the coverage last night. Reporters falling over themselves at Wellington Airport asking him questions that he was never going to answer. And watching some of his colleagues who, in the last few days, were saying he was their man and they had no interest in getting rid of him. Last night, they were saying next to nothing. And that’s being generous.  “I’m on the phone mate,” was Chris Bishop’s lame reply. Stoney silence was Erica Stanford's. I feel sorry for Christopher Luxon because, despite his many, many political shortcomings, let’s not forget he was the guy who put himself forward to take on a party that was in complete disarray. He didn’t have to. But he did. Sure, there was all the usual ego involved. But he did it.  He took it over, sorted things out and led it to a significant victory in 2023. And, on the basis of most recent polls, it looked like National was or is on track to be able to form the next government in some way, shape or form come November, as well. Which is why what’s happening today is so weird. Just 87 days out from the election.  It follows a difficult couple of weeks for Luxon, with him copping flak for using Defence Force aircraft, criticising the business sector and surprising his colleagues with a captain’s call on an MMP referendum.  Which has had the vultures in his caucus circling all over again.  Christopher Luxon doesn’t need me to feel sorry for him. He’s a grown up. But he doesn’t deserve this. And the party needs to ask itself, what does National need right now?  My answer, is it needs to stick with Christopher Luxon. If it doesn’t, National will be toast. Because who could trust this lot ever again? Because all this talk about doing it for the country and fixing the basics and building the future will mean nothing to voters.  The only thing the MPs wanting Luxon to go are worried about is building their future.  The other thing the National Party needs, aside from keeping Christopher Luxon as leader, is it needs Luxon himself to run the party the way Helen Clark or John Key would.  If he’s stays on as leader, he needs to do an immediate cabinet re-shuffle and tell those ministers plotting to get rid of him that their days are numbered. That would mean the likes of Erica Stanford, Chris Bishop and Chris Penk losing their portfolios.  Some people think they’re great ministers. But there are plenty more fish and no one is indispensable. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I think there’s a real risk that the city council is drunk on the Kool Aid with its ongoing involvement in this bid for a second NRL rugby league team, based in Christchurch. Because, if it’s such a good idea, shouldn’t the people campaigning for a team front-up with the money to see if it’s even possible? You would think so. But no, it’s ratepayers, paying for a consultant to do the leg work. Yesterday, it was announced that the group behind the Southern Orcas proposal have got their eyes on former Crusaders and All Blacks coach Scott “Razor” Robertson to be coach. League legend Sir Graham Lowe and former rugby league administrator Andrew Chalmers have offered him a four-year contract, apparently. Today, we’re finding out that the city council has hired and paid for a consultant to work through the nuts and bolts with league bosses on establishing a Christchurch-based team. Our newsroom has asked the council for details of this consultant’s work. How much, how far down the track things are. So far, no response. And I know why that is. Because the council knows, like me, that hiring a consultant to do this donkey work with the NRL won’t go down well with ratepayers. Because it is not the council’s job. More to the point, does the council really know all the ins-and-outs? For example, does the council know that the NRL is desperate to get another team in the competition? There’s one starting in Perth next year and one in Papua New Guinea the year after that. Which will take them to 19 teams. But the Sydney Morning Herald says they have to have a 20th team up and running by 2029, or they will start losing $20 million a year from the big $5.3 billion broadcasting deal signed earlier this year. Sir Graham Lowe, when he was on Newstalk ZB this morning, was full of gusto about what a great meeting they had with NRL bosses when they were in Christchurch earlier this year for the Warriors game. He went on about the Warriors match against the Panthers at the weekend showing why another NRL team in New Zealand would work. But, with respect to Sir Graham, it was an unconvincing sell job. Which the city council seems to have fallen for. Because, if a second team here in Christchurch is such a great idea, the people behind it should be fronting up with the money to see if it’s even possible. Not ratepayers. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How would you feel about an area of Christchurch’s Red Zone being made permanently available for homeless people? There’d be positives and negatives, for sure. And yes, it would probably put some people off going into the area. But, when you weigh everything up, would it really be such a bad idea? The thing is, homeless people are living there right now. But not for much longer, if the city council gets its way. There’s up to 60 people living in the Wetlands Grove area in Bexley in cars, trucks, buses, tents and shacks. And they’ve been saying over the weekend that there’s a sense of community there and they’ve got nowhere else to go. However, they’ve been told they have to pack up and leave by the end of February. Because the city council wants to start work on landscaping and flood protection work in the Bexley area. Which is all part of the master plan developed for the Red Zone which stretches from the city out to the coast. There are bike tracks and walking paths planned. But also a big wetlands area to help with flood protection and filter the water before it ends up in the Ōtākaro/Avon River. It’s a plan that’s going to take decades to put in place. But the council wants to crack on with some of the work next year. So it needs the homeless campers to up sticks by February. The land’s been sitting empty since after the quakes. But it seems it was only two years ago when people really started congregating in the area and calling it home. A woman by the name of Fire, who is 65, is saying that she moved in about a year and a half ago after feeling lonely and unsafe in some sort of transitional housing she’d been in. So she joined the crew in the Red Zone. Another one of the people living in the Red Zone, Moko, says there are all sorts of people living there. Some of them have jobs. He says they’ve got toilets and showers and a security team. They’re people who care about each other because they understand the living arrangement and have regular dinners together. And, when you think about it, these people want the same thing we all want. They say they’ve got their own rules to keep things under control. But they also say the most important thing for them is staying together and maintaining their sense of belonging. Who doesn’t want that? What’s more, it’s very easy for those of us not living rough to tell these people to get their act together and find somewhere decent to live. It’s also very difficult to understand why some people even choose to live this way. But they do. Which is why I think that, at the very least, the city council should look into a better solution than just telling these people they have to be gone by the end of February. Because, when it comes down to it, would it really be such a bad idea to let them have somewhere else in the Red Zone to stay? I don’t think it would. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Politically-speaking, the current MMP coalition government is the most successful one we’ve ever had. Because, unlike coalitions of the past, the minor parties - ACT and NZ First - have managed to maintain their presence and identity. In the past, the minor parties have been swallowed up by the bigger parties and, generally, disappeared from view. This time around it’s a completely different story. With ACT and NZ First making their presence well and truly felt. Not just recently. But for the whole term. Some might put that down to Christopher Luxon’s failure to keep David Seymour and Winston Peters under control. But no one can say that ACT and NZ First have disappeared off the radar the way the Maori Party did after being in cahoots with National. Even the Greens found the confidence and supply arrangement they had with Labour between 2017 and 2020 took the spotlight off them. This time, though, we’ve had a coalition government like never before. In that none of the parties have become bit players. So, from a purely political perspective, it’s been a raging success. But Christopher Luxon wants a referendum on our voting system to find out if people are still happy with MMP. He’s obviously not a fan, because he says he doesn’t want to work with “yahoos and numpties” in a coalition cabinet. His ham-fisted announcement on Newstalk ZB yesterday was news to his caucus colleagues. It was news to his coalition partners too. With Winston Peters describing it as an “inexplicable power grab”.But I reckon that if we didn’t have MMP, there’d be a truckload of people unable to bring themselves to vote in this year’s election. That might be an easy thing to say, given we’ve had MMP for the past 30 years and because MMP has given us more voting options. But the idea, after all this time, of going back to the days where it was pretty much Labour or National doesn’t sound great, does it? And, whatever your politics, you’vec got to say that the choice and the variety MMP gives us is brilliant. There’s certainly no way I would want to see it go. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week. They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from the Prime Minsters seemingly off-the-cuff call from an MMP referendum if re-elected, Labours small business policy, and what they think about the Greater Christchurch council's amalgamation plans. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Do we need a dedicated plane for the Prime Minister? I’m starting to think that we do. Before now, though, I’ve been of the opinion that we’re New Zealand for goodness sake, we’re not the United States, so why should we blow money on a plane? But, after listening to Sir John Key talking to Heather last night about Christopher Luxon using the Air Force to get him around a bit, I’m thinking it would make sense. Heather was talking to him after Chris Hipkins ripped into Luxon for getting the Air Force to fly him from Whanganui to Auckland after being at a National Party fundraising dinner. Which was kind of dodgy. Because, if Christopher Luxon was going there as the National Party leader as part of his campaign to get re-elected in November, then he shouldn’t be using the Air Force to get him there. Which is why Labour’s Chris Hipkins is accusing Luxon of using the Defence Force as his own “private fleet”. But the way the Prime Minister’s Office explains it, is that he got to the fundraising event on a commercial flight. But left afterwards on the Air Force flight, so he could get to Auckland for prime ministerial commitments. What happened is that he needed to get to Auckland for Sir Bill Birch’s funeral. Which meant some re-arranging of the schedule and him needing to travel sooner than was originally planned. You could say he flew there as the National Party leader and left with his Prime Minister’s hat on. So, a bit of dancing on the head of a pin there. The reason we’re talking about this is because this wasn’t just a one-off. It follows a string of times the PM has used the Air Force to get him around. Generally, it’s accepted that during a civil defence emergency, for example, the PM will jump on a Defence Force plane or helicopter. John Key flew to Christchurch in a Defence Force plane pretty much straight after the 2011 earthquake. Christopher Luxon’s been doing the same sort of thing during more recent emergencies. But, in the last week or so, there have been reports about him getting the Air Force to fly him to non-emergency events such as an event he went to at Mystery Creek in 2024 and a trip in 2025 to visit the Kmart distribution hub in the Hamilton area. Overall, since becoming Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon has flown 41 domestic flights with the Air Force, which, according to official documents, weren’t part of a disaster or civil defence emergency response. I’m with Sir John Key on this, whose view is that it makes sense for the PM to use the Air Force planes because they’re there, anyway. The crew have to be paid, anyway. And what would you rather? A plane and crew sitting on the ground doing nothing? Or a plane and crew helping the Prime Minister make the most efficient use of his time? What’s more, it hasn’t just been the Prime Minister on these flights. There are staff and security and all the usual hangers-on. So pretty cost effective when you consider that we’d, otherwise, be buying all these people tickets to fly on commercial flights. So, when you consider that, doesn’t it make sense for the Prime Minister to have a dedicated plane available at all times? I think it does. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Waimakariri Mayor Dan Gordon says his council has shown leadership by asking the community for their preferred amalgamation option before their unanimous decision to amalgamate with Hurunui District Council. Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, Gordon says he is grateful that Christchurch City Council voted to remain in their current boundaries, and deciding against taking over urban areas of both Waimakariri and Selwyn.  "I've made it very clear from early on that that wasn't a viable option or something that we wanted to see happen." The mayor also discussed the Pegasus Golf Course fast track application, and his view on building restrictions being mooted by Christchurch City Council and Christchurch International Airport.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that our local councils have made such a hash job of coming up with amalgamation ideas. These are the ideas the Government has asked for, giving them until this Sunday to send them through. They’ve had three months to do it. Which I think isn’t actually long enough. Nevertheless, it’s turned out to be a real dog’s breakfast. And, because of that, I think we’re just going to have to let Wellington decide what happens. So the city council is going to vote on its preference today. Waimakariri councillors are also voting today on what they want to happen. But, already, Mayor Phil Mauger is saying he thinks the urban areas of Selwyn and Waimakariri should be cherry-picked and become part of Christchurch. With the remaining bits joining up to create some sort of new rural council. This is the first time Phil Mauger has talked publicly about his preference. Up until now, he’s been all tippy-toe on it, not wanting to brass-off the other councils, apparently. But, now that he’s talking, he’s gone nuclear on it. Especially, when you consider the consequences of what he’s talking about. Picture this: Selwyn has already said no to any merger. Its councillors have said they’re not interested in merging with any other council. And the only change they’re prepared to make is taking on the work Environment Canterbury currently does in its area. Because regional councils like ECan are getting the chop as part of the local government reforms. So we’d have Selwyn wanting to stay independent from all the other councils around here. But, at the same time, you’d have Phil Mauger trying to take places like Rolleston, Lincoln and Prebbleton off Selwyn. As well as taking Kaiapoi and Rangiora off Waimakariri and letting the bits left in both Selwyn and Waimakariri join up to create some sort of rural council. That’s never going to happen. Which leaves us with one option: the government stepping in and banging some heads together. Because Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri have blown it. Which is exactly what the government is going to think too when it sits down on Monday and looks at the hotch potch plans the three councils in the greater Christchurch area have come up with. This was their chance to lead. Their chance to determine the future of local government. But they’ve blown it, because of petty parochialism. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Opposition Leader Chris Hipkins says while Winston Peters performs well in some aspects of his Foreign Affairs portfolio, he would not keep him in the role if Labour were elected.  "There's parts of the job he does quite well, you've seen him up to the Pacific, he does quite a good job of schmoozing in the Pacific and strengthening New Zealand's relationships there"  "If not being racist is a key criteria, he's doing a terrible job."  Hipkins' comments come after Peters told Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan to "Go back to his own country" in the House last week. Xu-Nan was born in China and has lived in New Zealand since 1997.  Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, the Labour leader also discussed the latest Roy Morgan poll, Labour's plan to raise the birth rate, and ACT's policy to remove disruptive students from classrooms.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There are two types of people in the world. There are the ones who think Prime Minister Christopher Luxon shouldn’t be apologising for what he said to business owners at a meeting in Rotorua the other day. And there are the ones who think he should. And I’m one of them. Because what he said was so dismissive and so tone deaf, that he had no other option but to apologise. Which he did yesterday. What happened, is the Prime Minister was at a business breakfast in Rotorua organised by the local Chamber of Commerce. Which, you would think, would be the type of gathering where there’d be absolutely no chance of him putting his foot in it. Because business people are his people, aren’t they? But he did. And, quite rightly, he has apologised. Because if I was one of those business owners at that event, I would be furious. It happened when the Rotorua Business Chamber’s Melanie Short stood up and said the city had experienced the “sharpest fall” in business confidence in almost a decade. She said: “The affordability of doing business, it’s getting harder and harder. How long can we hang on?” Christopher Luxon, though, wasn’t having any of that sort of talk. He told her that her view was “quite negative”. He said New Zealand businesses needed to move away from a “parent-child mentality” of waiting to see what the government is going to do for them. “Who cares what the government will think or do?”, he said. Which I thought was a staggering comment to make, considering he is the leader of a political party that bangs on all the time about National being the party for business people. Thankfully, the Chamber of Commerce boss wasn’t going to be shut down and went on to tell him about the Chamber’s Business Pulse survey, that’s done twice a year. She told him that the latest survey had found optimism among members in relation to where the economy is going had dropped 62 percent. And that members’ confidence in their own businesses had dropped 43 percent. And that they were absorbing a lot of the rising costs they’re dealing with, rather than passing them on. Because business is down enough, without giving customers more reasons not to buy their products or use their services. But Luxon was having none of it. He told the people in the room that, if they weren’t “retooling and radically disrupting” their businesses then “you ain’t doing your job”. He said he knew the reality of running a business. And said when he was, “the last person I wanted to ever talk to as a CEO was the government.” He said: “I’m a business person. I’m building a kick-ass company that actually has commercially superior returns, great customer experience and awesome internal culture.” And he went on to say that, when he returned to New Zealand after working overseas, he found that business people here had a “parent-child mentality” and were too hung up on what the government was going to do for them rather than just getting on with it. He said: “Who cares what the government thinks or does? Our job is to be adult, adult, adult”. Telling his audience to “go out there and smack it and go create the road”. Over the weekend, his office was complaining that his comments hadn’t been reported accurately. But, by late yesterday, he realised he’d put his foot in it and apologised. As he had to do. Because, even though he’s a former chief executive of Air New Zealand and even though he’s had very senior roles with Unilever in Canada and the U.S., Christopher Luxon has never done what most of those people in that business breakfast have done. He has never started or owned his own business. He’s been the highest paid employee of some big business organisations, but he’s got no experience of opening or running a business of his own. Particularly, a small business. Which most businesses in this country are. Which, apparently, are best represented by the party Christopher Luxon leads. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How is it that a political party which attracts its fair share of people who think there are women having babies just to get on the benefit, now thinks we should pay people to have more kids? It makes no sense to me. Its great we’re talking about the birth rate problem in this country. But this isn’t the solution. Because incentivising people with money would only have one outcome. More deadbeats bringing children into the world just so they can get their hands on money from the government. NZ First has come out with this policy becuase it says it’s concerned about the declining birth rate and thinks people would have more kids if the government paid them $15,000 per child. Leader Winston Peters says the payments would be available to New Zealand citizens for up to three children, meaning families could receive as much as $45,000 from the government. Former Work & Income boss Christine Rankin can smell a rat. She’s saying today the fact that NZ First would limit these payments to families where at least parent is a New Zealand citizen, means it’s more anti-immigration than pro-family. And, like me, she sees it being something people would take advantage of for all the wrong reasons. Such as the deadbeats I’ve already mentioned. But also, she says, people struggling who would look at the chance to make $45,000 if they had three kids, see it as a decent chunk of money, and not think about the ongoing costs once the kids turn three and the government money dries up. Australia's already tried it. They started paying families a baby bonus in 2004 to encourage people to have more babies. The line the Australian government used at the time was “have one for your husband and one for your wife and one for the country". But it was scrapped in 2013. For several reasons. Their government realised it couldn’t afford to keep it going. It was paid to anyone and everyone, meaning rich families who had kids got the money - even though they didn’t need it. And the public didn’t like that. The other reason it was dropped, is that people were using it to by things like big screen TVs and flash phones. The kinds of things new babies really need. And I can tell you now, the exact same thing would happen here. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The weird thing about Winston Peters is that, when he’s overseas, he’s all Henry Kissinger or Kofi Annan on it. The ultimate diplomat. But then he comes back here, goes through Customs, and turns into Nigel Farage. Which is why, on one hand, we shouldn’t be all that surprised by the appalling things he said to Chinese-born Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan. Comments which, quite rightly, are being described as racist. And which he needs to apologise for. Politicians across the political spectrum are saying the same thing - including some of his own coalition colleagues. National’s Simeon Brown is one of them. Because, of course, telling someone to go back to where they came from is racist. It’s also dumb, when this person you’re accusing of only being here five minutes - as Winston Peters did - has lived here more than 30 years. Christopher Luxon, though, is being Christopher Luxon. At least he isn’t taking Winston’s side, but the strongest thing he seems too capable of saying is that Winston Peters has a long track record of making inappropriate comments. And that what he said was “unhelpful”. Which just plays into those tired old excuses that some people keep making for the NZ First leader. You know: “Oh, that’s old Winston up to his usual tricks”. And, yes, he is up to his usual tricks. But is that an excuse for such appalling, antiquated behaviour? Not in my book. And that’s why he has to apologise. He can’t be sacked as Foreign Affairs Minister. So he has to apologise.So how this all started, is that Peters was speaking in Parliament’s debating chamber and this Green MP - who was born in China and moved here when he was a child in 1994 - started a bit of the usual heckling that MPs on all sides of the House like to do. Peters was talking about the Covid inquiry and Lawrence Xu-Nan called out, asking if he was vaccinated.Winston wasn’t happy about that and said: “Go back to your own country. You only came here just five minutes ago. Go back to your own country, that's where they lie like a flat fish. But they don't lie like that here, alright. This is what we call democracy.” Saying: “This is called a democracy, unlike what you’re used to.” Not surprisingly, China isn’t happy. And former Trade Minister and former Speaker of the House Sir Lockwood Smith says that’s going to be a bit of a problem. Because China now knows how he feels about our biggest trading partner. The other thing, is that if racism isn’t tolerated anywhere else - if it isn’t tolerated at schools and universities and at workplaces - then why should it be tolerated at Parliament? Answer is: it shouldn’t. What’s more, the Human Rights Commissions says this on its website: “In 1972, New Zealand signed up to the UN’s International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This requires the government to take action to eliminate racism and racial discrimination and promote understanding between all races in Aotearoa New Zealand.” For now, Winston Peters is part of New Zealand’s government - one of its most senior ministers - and, as part of that government, he is obliged to honour this commitment. And, instead of pushing back and saying that those of us who think he’s behaving like an out-of-touch fossil are just pearl clutchers indulging in faux outrage, Winston Peters needs to pull his head in and apologise. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If anyone tells you today that they believe all this talk about the government being more transparent when the next pandemic hits, just put it down to a bit of the old Covid brain. And, if you find yourself believing it, just tell yourself too that that’s what it is and that it will eventually wear off and you’ll come to your senses. Because are we really expected to believe this? So, what’s happened, is the government has released its response to the Covid-19 Royal Commission of Inquiry. The inquiry which made 63 recommendations. All of which have been accepted by the government in some way, shape or form. With Health Minister Simeon Brown saying that a key thing is going to be rebuilding New Zealanders’ trust. After the way things went during Covid. Which is why he’s saying that, next time, any key advice used by the government to make decisions which affect our individual rights will be made public within five working days. Which sounds great, doesn’t it? But don’t think for a minute that that will mean you and I knowing more and understanding things more. Because, for starters, while the current lot might think this should happen. There’s no guarantee any future government will think the same. Can you imagine Labour, for example, signing up to this? They're not going to make this any sort of legal or constitutional requirement. It’s just what the current government says, in an ideal world, should happen. And has its fingers crossed that another crowd in government would feel the same. Also, what Simeon Brown isn’t telling us, is the level of detail the government of the day would share with us. Within five working days. There’s a big difference between releasing information that is useful and enlightening and releasing information just because you said you’d release information. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If we’re not prepared to stop paying the NZ Super pension to people whether they need it or not, then we need to think very seriously about whether we pay it to people who move here from overseas. Sounds tough, I know. But, hopefully, this revelation today that we are paying $1 billion a year in pension payments to people from other countries - double what it was 10 years ago - will bring us to our senses. Because we can’t keep carrying on the way we are. So, $1 billion a year in pension payments is going to migrants over the age of 65. Which Finance Minister Nicola Willis is OK with, saying changes that require someone to be a New Zealand resident for 20 years - instead of 10 years - are enough. Winston Peters, though, disagrees, saying that we should “watch this space” for some sort of announcement from NZ First sometime soon. But, if we go by what NZ First has said previously, the party could be about to announce that it’s bringing back an idea that it floated about 10 years ago but never got anywhere with. But it’s an idea I like. So what NZ First has talked about previously, isn’t stopping paying the pension to migrants full-stop. But running a pro-rata system, based on how long they’ve lived here between the ages of 20 and 65. Funnily enough, Labour and the Greens supported the idea when it was floated in 2015. But National, at the time, opposed it, with some of its MPs saying the policy was “disgusting, bigoted and racist”. It seems, based on what Nicola Willis is saying today, that it hasn’t changed its tune since then, either. But something needs to change. Because, over the next 30-odd years, the number of pensioners is expected to roughly double. And the cost of the NZ Super scheme during that time is expected to grow 1.5 times faster than the economy. Which is why Winston Peters is right when he says we haven’t gone far enough just requiring migrants to be New Zealand residents for 20 years before they qualify for the pension, instead of 10 years. The thing is, I understand how odd it would be for someone to move here, spend a decent chunk of their working life here, and then - when they turn 65 - be told that there’s no pension for them and to fend for themselves. But when the cost of the NZ Super pension scheme is going to blow out to the extent that Treasury says it is, what do we do? Banning people who move here from overseas from getting the pension would put us at odds with other countries, such as the UK, where you can go and get a pension after being there for 10 years. That’s why I think the pro-rata idea, that NZ First may be about to resurrect, would be a much more realistic approach. Because doing nothing isn’t an option anymore. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I wonder if Christopher Luxon woke up this morning and thought he might have jumped the gun a bit yesterday, saying he wasn’t interested in working with Opportunity. Possibly not. Because, as one political commentator said recently, the National Party leader and Prime Minister has a few faults, but self-doubt isn‘t one of them. Either way, I think he should be having second thoughts. Because, when you’ve got a party sniffing around the 5 percent mark needed to get into Parliament, there’s a very real chance they’ll be needed down the track. And I think Christopher Luxon might very well have to eat his words come election night and get on the blower to Opportunity leader Qiulae Wong and ask her to forget about what he said yesterday. I’m confident in saying that because I’ve been amazed at the number of people across the political spectrum who have told me that they’re thinking very seriously about voting for Opportunity in November’s election. Now I know thinking about voting for them and actually voting for them are two different things. But I think ruling them out of any arrangement after the election is very shortsighted. Of course, as soon as you mention Opportunity, people start reminding you about their land tax policy. Which is one of the reasons why Christopher Luxon says National doesn’t want a bar of them. With Luxon saying that National doesn’t do business with “people who want to increase taxes”. Which is consistent with what National is saying in its pre-election advertising about Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori tripling our taxes. So Luxon is very much “on brand” with yesterday’s announcement. But, when you look at the state of the coalition right now, the National Party is going to need as many friends as it can get come November. And, if you look at the state of the country right now, I think Opportunity is one of the very few parties prepared to front up and state the obvious. That we can’t expect things like hospitals and schools and the pension, without doing our bit and paying our taxes. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Congratulations to Catholic Bishop Michael Gielen, who has announced that he’s not going to be asking the city council or the government for money to rebuild Christchurch’s Catholic Cathedral. This is the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament on Barbadoes Street, which was demolished after the earthquakes. And I think the Anglicans need to take a leaf out of his book and drop their request for more public funding. It’s expected to cost $80 million. The church says just over half of that will come from insurance and selling assets. The rest will come from fundraising. Half of which has already been raised. Talk about just getting on with it. The key thing for me from yesterday’s announcement, is that the Catholic Bishop won’t be putting his hand out to ratepayers and taxpayers. Instead, he’s asking Catholic parishioners to donate the money that still needs to be found. Talk about learning from the debacle the Anglican Cathedral project has become. Also, to be fair, when you’re building from scratch, you can be more confident about your costings. Compared to when you're fixing something up. So, when Catholic parishioners went to mass yesterday, a letter from the Bishop was read out to them. In it, Bishop Gielen said he hoped every Catholic in the diocese would contribute over the next five years. It’s a structured gifting programme. Giving local Catholics the option of donating $10-per-week over five years - which would add up to $2,600. Or $25-per-week for five years - which would add up $6,500. We know partly why the Bishop is taking this approach. Because he will have seen the Anglicans get the push-back from central government when they went asking Nicola Willis for more money. Her argument was that the Anglican Cathedral in Cathedral Square is a place of worship and not a truly public facility. And she would say the exact same thing if the Catholics knocked on the door asking for money. So the Catholics didn‘t have much of an option, other than to put their hands out to parishioners. But, as Bishop Gielen says, when the original cathedral was built, it was the Catholic parishioners who paid for it then. So it makes sense to do the same thing again. While I think the Anglican Church should be doing the same and dropping this idea of getting more money from the city council and the government, I doubt they will. Because there’s this superiority thing going on. This thinking that the real cathedral, or the only cathedral worth worrying about, is the one in Cathedral Square. There’s the fact too that it’s the Anglican Cathedral putting the handbrake on any further development in the square. Whereas, the Catholic Cathedral site is conveniently out of the way on Barbadoes Street. But that doesn’t change my thinking that the Anglican Church and the people involved in the Anglican Cathedral reinstatement should be watching what the Catholics and doing the exact same thing. Because, if local Catholics are being expected to have some skin in the game, then local Anglicans should too. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I know the real reason why Federated Farmers is so brassed-off with Environment Canterbury. Nevertheless, I agree with them. They’re saying that ECan is showing “flagrant disregard” for the community, with this push it’s making for Ngāi Tahu to have a permanent role in the region’s resource management after ECan disappears. Because, with the Government’s local government reforms, ECan is toast. But what ECan wants to do before it goes out of existence, is sign a deal with Ngāi Tahu and eight of the 10 Canterbury rūnanga, which would have given them a mandatory, permanent role in planning, resource consent processes, monitoring and reporting. Which has got Federated Farmers’ RMA spokesperson Mark Hooper all excited. He is condemning the move - saying it shouldn’t be happening before the local government reforms. And he wants the Government to step in and tell ECan to drop the idea. And I agree with him. The real reason Federated Farmers is so spooked by this, is that it wil be thinking that it’s a repeat of the co-governance sideshow we saw with the previous Labour Government’s 3 Waters reforms. But what ECan is doing here is, to put it politely, a case of the cart before the horse. And the Government must step-in and tell them to drop it. Because, if these reforms are going to be worth all the upheaval, we can’t have any premature side deals and arrangements being made before it’s even known how many councils there are going to be and where they’re going to be. To me, this move by ECan looks like an outfit that has its nose out of joint because of the reforms and wants to make some sort of political statement doing this deal with Ngāi Tahu. What ECan will tell you, is that, since 2013, it’s had an agreement with Ngāi Tahu which effectively means it doesn’t do anything without getting the iwi’s approval first. But, because ECan is going to be disestablished, it wants to sneak this one through before the lights go out. Which is a bit like someone selling a business and, before they hand over the keys, giving all the staff a massive pay rise and signing them up to lifetime contracts. Which wouldn’t be tolerated. And that’s why this move by ECan, which is refusing to talk about it, shouldn’t be tolerated. As Mark Hooper from Federated Farmers says: “ECan is showing flagrant disregard for its community, pushing this through with no public notification before it appeared on the agenda.” He says: “That’s deeply concerning and we’re calling on the Government to intervene, so councils can’t rush these agreements through before the system is reformed.” And he’s spot on. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Dan Rosewarne joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week. Doocey rejected claims the Woodend Bypass has been put on the back burner, while Rosewarne accused National of over-promising and under-budgeting, and said Labour would prioritise its construction. However, when repeatedly asked whether Labour would deliver it sooner than National, Rosewarne couldn't provide a clear explanation of how that would be achieved. They also covered some of the other biggest stories from the week, from David Seymours idea to ban smartphones for under-sixteens, to the Green's new policy to make union membership opt out rather than opt in. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

ACT Party leader and Acting Prime Minister David Seymour joined John MacDonald in the studio. They discussed his idea of a smartphone ban for under-16-year-olds, Paul Henry throwing his hat into the ring for ACT, and Seymour's views on the Government’s school lunch programme. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The political angst over kids on social media has gone next level with this idea David Seymour is pushing today. He’s saying that, instead of banning kids under-16 from social media, we could just ban them from having smartphones. Quite rightly, he thinks it would be too easy for kids to get around a social media ban, that the likes of National are in favour of. And I couldn’t agree with him more on that. But banning kids from having a smartphone? Dream on! At least with the social media ban idea, it sounds good on paper. And only on paper. But trying to ban kids from having a smartphone doesn’t even sound good on paper. I’m not sure what David Seymour is trying to do here. If he just doesn’t support a social media ban, leave it at that. Because we know already that it isn’t working in Australia. In just the past week, we’ve found out that over there it’s failed at the first hurdle. Because the social media companies aren’t even complying with the requirement to check the ages of new users. As I’ve said all along, we should - at the very least - be waiting for this experiment in Australia to show some positive results before we start going down the same track. But it won’t work. The early results show that. And we shouldn’t be thinking it would work any better here. Because the horse has already bolted. And the horse is going to keep on bolting. Because that’s what happens in the online world and the technology world. Kids under 16 wouldn’t just use virtual private networks to access their social media accounts. There’d be some kids who would create their own social media platforms. That’s how it is. And don’t just listen to me. Listen to experts from Queensland University who say banning under-16s from social media is a pipedream. They say there is insufficient evidence to show social media is responsible for the increase in youth mental health problems. They say some marginalised young people actually benefit from social media. Example: I remember hearing someone who works with young members of the Rainbow community saying that social media can be really valuable for the kids he works with. These researchers in Australia also say there is a lack of clarity as to what social media actually is. For example, are all those WhatsApp groups you’re part of, are they social media? David Seymour needs to forget about this idea of the government coming in and telling kids they’re not allowed to have a smartphone. Because, just like the kids using VPNs to access social media if they were banned from using it in New Zealand, they’d also get around a smartphone ban. Because it wouldn’t stop them using their laptops and tablets. So it’s a weird idea David Seymour is floating today. The fact that it’s coming from someone who is all for personal freedoms and liberties, makes it even weirder. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger has pushed back on a Councillor's suggestion the city's relationship with central government is failing. Heathcote Councillor Nathaniel Herz Jardine says the council is still waiting for a reply after writing to South Island Minister James Meager in February. According to Herz Jardine, the lack of communication is creating uncertainty around infrastructure planning and future collaboration with the Government. However, Mauger says those concerns are overstated. Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, he described the comments as "bollocks" and said he speaks with Meager "from time-to-time". "We're doing okay and I don't want Christchurch to be seen as greedy buggers." Finance Minister Nicola Willis claimed last month the Christchurch City Council did not ask for anything in this year's Budget and that was why it missed out on funding. Mauger also discussed the council's proposal for an additional glass recycling bin, local government amalgamation, and the Government's plans to shift responsibility for climate adaptation planning to councils. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Paul Henry is everything Christopher Luxon isn't. He’s everything Chris Hipkins isn’t. He’s everything his potential new boss, ACT leader David Seymour, isn’t. Which is why his announcement that he’s standing in this year’s election has taken a lot of people by surprise. And has got some people excited. But aren’t we over celebrity politicians? I certainly am. Nevertheless, if there was a political party in New Zealand that Paul Henry might be a good fit for, philosophically, it would be the ACT Party. But is he a good fit for Parliament? Or is Parliament a good fit for him? Or, more to the point - is this personality and wit that people are talking about - are they the kinds of things we need in our politicians right now? I don’t think so. It’s what the ACT Party needs right now. Because, of the three parties in the current coalition government, it needs a bit of a boost. And there’s no doubt that Paul Henry’s announcement has put the spotlight on the ACT Party. But, a lot of the time, publicity doesn’t lead to substance or delivery. Take Jacinda Ardern, when she became leader of the Labour Party just weeks out from the 2017 election, she was a publicity darling. She was someone who could spin a good yarn. A great communicator, as they say. But we all got sick of that. And, as Thomas Coughlan points out in the NZ Herald, Paul Henry’s announcement yesterday was a communications “masterclass”. Thomas writes: “After a brief introduction from Seymour, Henry gave probably one of the best ‘new job’ press conferences since Dame Jacinda Ardern’s famous 2017 effort after becoming Labour leader.” He does point out, though, that there were some differences. Yesterday, Paul Henry wasn’t facing the full gallery of political journalists. He didn’t need to defend any policies. And he didn’t have to look like he could credibly be Prime Minister in a matter of weeks. Nevertheless, he made a good fist of it. Which you would expect from someone who’s been in the public eye for yonks. Who is well used to talking about himself in front of an audience and who has a truckload of experience in the live broadcast environment. Where you have to think on your feet all the time. No wonder David Seymour and the ACT Party welcomed him with open arms. Because they need him way more than he needs them. And he has said as much. But I thought, after the Jacinda Ardern experience, that we were over celebrity politicians. I certainly am. Which is why I can’t get excited about Paul Henry potentially being in Parliament after this year’s election. Because I don’t care about charisma. All I care about is substance. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Fresh off the announcement he's headlining Selwyn Sounds 2027, British musician and co-founder of the iconic group Eurythmics Dave Stewart joined John MacDonald ahead of the tenth anniversary for the popular all-day music festival. They discussed the new sound of Eurythmics all-female band, and how he started creating the renowned 1983 album Sweet Dreams in his bedroom.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If only the people who run Mt Hutt Ski field were also in charge of our roads up and down the country. Because I think it’s brilliant what they’ve done after a few muppets turned up there at the weekend and decided the request to use chains on the access road didn’t apply to them. Which meant, of course, they got stuck. Not only that. They got stuck and caused something like a two-hour delay for a lot of the other people using the road and wanting to get up the mountain and make the most of the brilliant skiing and snowboarding conditions. In fact, the delay was so significant that they kept the mountain open for an hour longer than usual at the end of the day to make up for the disruption. But the reason I think Mt Hutt should be in charge of all our roads is that they actually did something about this situation at the weekend. The very next day, they brought in an $800 fine for anyone who ignores their request or their instruction to use chains on the access road. And I’m thinking that, if a ski field can do this, should we be doing the same on public roads? Yes we should. The council in Queenstown has seen the light on this one and, earlier this year, announced a $750 fine for drivers who don’t use chains when they’re required. So, if it’s good enough for one council and one ski field to crack down on this, why can’t we apply the same logic everywhere else? I see absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t. And I see absolutely no reason why we can’t. Because, in Queenstown for example, it’s going to be the police who enforce the chain rule there. So the cops could do the exact same thing here in Canterbury and everywhere else. Because, just like Mt Hutt is finding, people do what they’re told if they know there are consequences if they don‘t. It was Friday when those clowns went up the access road with no chains and got stuck. And, from Saturday, the new fine was in place and everyone has done what they’ve been told to do since. Unless we do the same for all drivers on all of our roads, the type of people who think it’s all sweet to drive up a ski field access road without chains will do the same everywhere else. Because there are so many know-alls out there who either think they’re God’s gift to driving or are so selfish that they don’t give two hoots about inconveniencing other people. I don’t know which ones are worse. The know-alls or the muppets who don’t think twice about the impact their behaviour has. Not only on other drivers, but the people who have to come to their rescue as well. And I guarantee that taking a leaf out of Mt Hutt’s book and fining drivers on any roads who don’t use chains when they’re supposed to would make a real difference. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Coast to Coast founder Robin Judkins joined Canterbury Mornings ahead of his new album, I'm a Slut for a Beat, that recently released. The album is composed of a collection of poems transformed into songs and brought to life by a heavyweight cast of local musicians and songwriters. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.