Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

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.

Yet again, the South Island is taking a back seat to the North Island. With Transport Minister Chris Bishop announcing that the Government had done a re-think on all the new roads it promised before the last election. And for us here in the South Island, that means none of the ones we were promised going ahead anytime soon - including the much-anticipated Woodend Bypass. More than 20,000 vehicles go through Woodend every day and local residents, the council and MP Matt Doocey have been fighting for years for a bypass to divert traffic away from the township. This has been going on for 20-odd years, or so. But the Government says there’s no more money for the project. Other than what’s already been approved for design work, land purchases and some early works. But there’s no money for actual construction of the road and, therefore, no start date. And I wouldn’t put money on it happening anytime soon. Waimakariri Mayor Dan Gordon isn’t taking no for an answer. And he’s demanding answers from Wellington. But good luck Dan. Because what you’re fighting here is bigger than just the Woodend Bypass. What Dan Gordon and the rest of us are fighting is the fact that the South Island has always and will always take a back seat to the North Island. And, despite what any politician from any political party says, the South Island will always play second fiddle. And that’s exactly what we’re seeing here. The Woodend Bypass is effectively on ice. The same with the only other major South Island road promised at the last election - the Hope Bypass, in the Nelson-Tasman area. As someone was pointing out over the weekend, the Roads of National Significance have become the Roads of North Island Significance. And it’s not just a Woodend thing. Just look south of Christchurch for another roading example of the South Island playing second fiddle. Someone was telling me this morning that it took them two hours to get from just south of Ashburton to Christchurch last night. Another traveller heading home after the long weekend told me they had similar issues on that stretch of road last night. With the average speed between Ashburton and Christchurch about 60 kilometres per hour. There may have been a crash somewhere. But it just reinforces how hopeless that stretch of road is. And is another example of how happy Wellington is to dish out the lip service to the South Island, but that’s all.I’ve never been a “cut the cable” kind of guy. Because that sort of stuff is way too parochial for me. But, at the same time, I can’t ignore the fact that our political parties - when they’re in government and when they’re out of government - don’t care as much about the South Island as they do about the North Island. And this announcement about the Woodend Bypass going nowhere anytime soon is just another example. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Whatever happened to this country’s ability to think big on the energy front?   And why is it that we’re not doing the same with solar energy and why are our politicians relying on households to do the heavy lifting? I mention thinking big intentionally. Because that’s what we did back in the 1970s and 1980s, especially with the big hydro power schemes. These days, though, instead of thinking big about energy we’re tinkering around the edges. The latest example is Labour’s solar energy policy which, like National’s policy which came out the other week, is all about getting more households going solar. Essentially, both policies focus on giving people the chance to take out a cheap loan to pay for solar panels and batteries. Some banks already offer this. But you have to have a mortgage with them to qualify. Labour’s policy has a few extras. Such as option for renters to use plug-in panels, which are all the rage in some overseas countries, apparently. But I reckon that, if our politicians are really serious about using solar to get cheaper and more reliable power supplies, then they need to be thinking bigger than just solar panels on the roof. And we should be investing in state-owned solar farms. Instead of relying on people to take out loans and put panels on top of their houses, the government should have some skin in the game and get into the business of mass solar generation itself. If it was good enough for us to build big hydro power stations back in the day, the state should be doing something similar and building massive solar farms. You could say it’s already doing a bit of that, with its shareholding in the big power generators. But I think it could and should do more. Because, as much as Labour and National will tell us that it’s all about dealing with the cost of living and reducing household power bills, that’s not the real issue. The real challenge is ensuring we have enough power to keep the lights on at the likes of big manufacturing plants. That’s the real challenge facing us. And that’s where solar can play a vital role. But we’re not going to do that with you and I getting a cheap loan and adding a few panels and a battery to the house. Which is why I think large-scale government investment and ownership of big solar farms would be an absolute no-brainer. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I think the animal welfare people are clutching at straws with this last-minute legal action they’re taking to try and stop this weekend’s feral cat hunt. You’ll know the event. It’s all part of the North Canterbury Hunting Competition. Which raises funds for Rotherham School. It hit the headlines a few years back when people got all excited that wild cats were going to be included. As they should be. Because they’re a pain in the backside. Wildcats are pests. But we had people jumping to all sorts of conclusions. Saying it was going to be impossible to tell whether a cat was wild or domestic. And pet cats could end up being killed. A lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Well, the wailing and gnashing is happening all over again. Except, this time, the animal rights people are going next level and taking legal action to try and stop it. And wait ‘til you hear some of the claims they’re making. They being former regional councillor Kathy White, NZ Cat Foundation founder Anne Batley-Burton and a bunch of animal and child protection advocates. Let’s start with the animal side of it. Because that’s pretty much more of the same. With Kathy White saying today that “bounty-based slaughter will incentivise the catching of any cat, including pets.” She says: “We know from watching videos of previous hunts that people pay little attention to checking the cat for a microchip.” Going on to say: “One video of a dog about to catch a cat cuts out just as the dog is about to tear the cat apart. Not only do they have no idea if the cat is a pet, but there are serious Animal Welfare Act breaches, and we want it stopped.” The hunt organisers are poo-pooing that. Saying any cat has to be 10 kilometres away from any residential or lifestyle block before it’s taken out. Box traps need to be checked daily, and kids need to be hunting with adults who have a firearms licence. That’s good enough for me. But here’s where things get really weird. The anti-cat-hunt people are now also claiming that the United Nations might also be unhappy about this wildcat hunt. Because they’re saying today that it may contravene the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Saying kids shouldn’t be exposed to violence against animals. They’ve got a letter from an international law firm, apparently, which has been signed by several animal and child protection organisations and says kids being involved in the wild cat hunt isn’t consistent with New Zealand’s international child rights obligations. But let’s remember where this hunt is happening and the kids who are going to be involved. It’s rural and these are farming kids who hunt, anyway. They’ve been brought up with it. Which is exactly what competition organiser Mat Bailey is saying. He says: “They’ve seen Dad kill a sheep every month. It’s farming. It’s rural New Zealand, and that’s the thing that these people don’t get because they live in their little Auckland world thinking everything’s lovey-dovey. Well, sorry, it’s not how it works.” Amen to that. Which is why these people need to give it a rest and tell the lawyers to stand down. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour Leader Chris Hipkins is open to working with the Government on a bill banning social media for under-16s. Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, Hipkins said any social media ban should go through the select committee process, and New Zealand should take lessons from Australia's recently introduced restrictions. "We've got to do more to keep our kids safe online, but the Aussie experience has shown that it's not easy". Hipkins also shared his views on recent policy announcements from NZ First, National and the Greens, as well as China's missile tests in the South Pacific. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former Defence Minister Wayne Mapp has come out firing today, saying that China’s nuclear-capable missile test yesterday was smack bang inside the South Pacific nuclear-free zone. Just hours after giving the New Zealand Government a heads-up, China launched a long-range ballistic missile from a submarine into the area. It’s not saying where it was launched from, nor where it landed. I get where Wayne Mapp is coming from. But there’s a technicality. Which I’ll get to. It’s being viewed by some as China retaliating to Australia and Fiji signing a new defence alliance, which also happened yesterday. This is called the Ocean of Peace Alliance. Anthony Albanese was in Fiji yesterday for that. He’s also heading to the Solomon Islands to continue negotiating a treaty there. And, when he gets back to Canberra, he’s going to be hosting leaders from Tonga, Samoa and Papua New Guinea.So, if China was sending a message yesterday, it won’t just be aimed at the Fiji agreement. It’ll also be ticking-off Albanese for his South Pacific charm offensive. But there’s a chance here that the people jumping up and down about what China did yesterday might look somewhat hypocritical, given the United States did its own missile testing in the South Pacific back in March. There’s also the fine print in the South Pacific nuclear-free zone agreement. It was originally signed by Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Island countries in 1985 and bans the use, testing and possession of nuclear weapons in the South Pacific area. China signed up to parts of it two years later, in 1987, but didn’t agree to the no-testing part. So, technically, it was fully within its rights to do what it did yesterday. Besides which, it was a dummy missile. Which is why I think we need to calm the farm and see it for what it is. It’s just a bit of flexing, and the Pacific region is under no greater threat from China than it was before this happened. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I enjoyed the temporary seating set-up at One NZ Stadium on Saturday night so much, that I want to give it a name. I’ll admit that, after being told by stadium boss Caroline Harvie-Teare that those of us in the temporary area would only have access to the internal hospitality and toilet facilities until 6pm, I had my doubts. But I have to say, the experience was brilliant. We were perched right on the try line and, like many other areas in the stadium, we were so close to the action.The view was spectacular. Being at the south end of the stadium, we looked straight out to the rest of the crowd. Granted, the weather was good and going outside to get a drink or go to the toilet wouldn’t have been much fun if it was raining. But there were more than enough portaloos and topping-up our drinks was straightforward and relatively quick. Well done too to NZS Group and everyone else involved in getting the seating in place. I gather that, after 18 months of planning, engineering and building, they worked back-to-back shifts, handling 250 tonnes of equipment. If anything, they did too good a job. Because stamping the feet wasn’t as effective as it was at Addington. Nevertheless, even though it didn‘t sound like the old temporary set-up, all the scaffolding and strops certainly looked a bit like it. Which is why I think stadium bosses should add a touch of nostalgia to the shiny new venue and name the 5,000 extra seats, when they’re needed, the Addington Stand. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

All Blacks legend-turned-All Blacks Tour Guide Ian Jones joined Canterbury Mornings ahead of the first test against the French in Chirstchurch. Jones now wears many hats, one of them is being the General Manager for the All Blacks Experience in Auckland - taking tourists and rugby tragics alike through the motions of what an All Black or Black Fern experiences before a test match. He also touched on the improvements in awareness of mental wellbeing in the game, with his perspective of how things were back in the day compared to now. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

All Blacks legend Richard Loe has always worked on paddocks, albeit pasture on the farm or the rugby field. He joined John MacDonald ahead of the first All Blacks test in Christchurch, what his thoughts are on a "weaker" French side, and they also touched on "Loey's" work on promoting health and safety on the farm. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Inkster company owns a large portfolio of local pubs, bars and restaurants across Christchurch, and they are soon set to have another pub right across the road from One New Zealand Stadium, affectionally called "The Lancaster". Nick Inkster joined Canterbury Mornings to talk about his journey from moving out of home and straight into buying his own property with his brother, his time working in Western Australia, and how he got to his high position on the local hospitality scene. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The temporary seats are up at One New Zealand Stadium ahead of the first All Blacks test, and Venues Otautahi CEO Caroline Harvie-Teare joined Canterbury Mornings to hear about the excitement brewing for tomorrow night.  She was asked about the fee that Christchurch paid to lock in the test under the roof, and why those on the temporary stands can only use the stadium bathrooms until 6pm on the night. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What were the people at Wolfbrook Property Group thinking when they decided to fill the holes at the Pegasus Golf Course with concrete? As if they haven’t put enough noses out of joint with their plan to build houses on the site. They’ve now gone and rubbed those noses in the dirt with this carry-on, which one resident is describing today as childish. And I completely agree. Yes, I get it that this land is now theirs. I get it that it’s not a public facility. In fact, as the company itself is pointing out, it’s never been a public facility. And yes, therefore, the public does not - technically - have any right to use it. But what a stupid thing to do. I don’t have a problem with the company buying the land and wanting to develop it. The golf club at Pegasus went under, Wolfbrook bought the land and it’s theirs. I’m good with all that. I’m not comfortable, though, with the company using the Government’s fast-track legislation to try and get things happening sooner rather than later. Fast-tracking it would be bad for something so controversial. Because people need to feel they’ve, at least, had their say and I don’t think that would happen if it was fast-tracked. And, even though I don’t have a problem with Wolfbrook wanting to turn the golf course into housing, I think they need to calm the farm and pull their heads in. Because filling the golf course holes with concrete isn’t going to get anyone on their side. As one Pegasus resident is saying today: "It's sort of pettiness. If they want to protect their brand and if they want to have a good name with their investors, I would have thought they'd be encouraging us to play and perhaps look after the golf course in the meantime until this is sorted out legally." Couldn’t agree more. Because it’s not as if the developers want or need to protect the golf course. As soon as they get it approved, they’ll be moving in with the diggers and trucks and ripping the whole thing up. So they’re not trying to maintain some sort of pristine facility. And so what if the people at Pegasus want to use it in the meantime? The company is saying today that, as the owners of the land, they’re the ones paying for its upkeep. Which, as I say, I get. But this is not any old piece of land. It’s a piece of land that the people who live at Pegasus believe - wrongly, I think - should stay as it is forever. The company was buying enough of a fight in the first place. It’s now ramped that up with this behaviour which, quite rightly, is being described as childish. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jeff Wilson played at the highest level for New Zealand for both the All Blacks and the Blackcaps, and these days he follows rugby all around the world as a Sky Sport commentator.  "Goldie" took some time to chat with Canterbury Mornings ahead of the All Blacks first test of the year, and first match in Christchurch for over four years. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sam Darry may play for the Auckland Blues, but he grew up in Christchurch. He’s been named in the starting line-up for tomorrow night's test against France and joined Canterbury Mornings ahead of the first test under the roof at One NZ Stadium. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Yesterday, Treasury released a whole lot of documents showing the advice it gave the Government during the early days of the fuel crisis. One of the key things was a recommendation not to cut fuel taxes or road user charges, because it didn’t think it was needed. The Government went with the advice. But, you might also remember, that the Government went a step further than that and said that the fuel tax increase - due to kick in at the start of next year - was unlikely. Which I thought was a bad move. And I still do. In the reports I’ve seen about yesterday’s document dump, there’s nothing about any Treasury advice on next year’s increase. But there’s two reasons for that: 1. This advice was to help the Government deal with things in-the-moment. And 2. When Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop poured cold water on the fuel tax increase, that was just politics. Because, as you’ll remember, there were all sorts of people crying out for help. The Government went ahead with the support for low-to-middle income earners. But that was it. And it knew it wouldn’t be a good look if it said no to everyone else wanting help and, in the same breath, said it was also going ahead with next year’s fuel tax increase. But that was a bad move by the Government. My view on that hasn’t changed. And that’s why I think the Government needs to bite the bullet and press on with the fuel tax increase early next year. As planned. There’ll be plenty of people who will say that they couldn’t afford fuel taxes increasing. But I don’t think the country can afford not to increase them. And I’m not the only one. Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour thinks the same. He says the Government shouldn’t do anything to limit its revenue from fuel taxes because of the long-term consequences for the Government’s finances. And what he’s talking about there, is limiting or restricting the amount of money the Government gets in to pay for road maintenance and construction. It also helps pay for things like public transport. The Finance Minister even acknowledged this negative impact when she said a few months back that the fuel tax increase was unlikely to go ahead. So, in its heart of hearts, the Government knows that increasing fuel taxes is a no-brainer. Which it is. The Government knows it. We know it. So there’s only one thing for it to do. It needs to stop being so antsy and it needs to commit to putting the fuel taxes up, as planned, early next year. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chef and co-owner of Christchurch's popular fine-dining restaurant INATI Simon Levy joined Canterbury Mornings after his restaurant won a Michelin star on Tuesday evening. He told John MacDonald about his beginnings as a young chef under Gordon Ramsay, and what he reckons won over the judges when they anonymously visited his central city restaurant. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Can we all just accept now that David Seymour’s school lunch programme is a dog’s breakfast? With this report out from the Auditor-General saying only 50 percent of the lunches are up-to-scratch on the nutrition front and about 20,000 meals a day aren’t being eaten. The Associate Education Minister has hit back of course, using his usual tricks of discrediting the report and going on about how much money he’s saved. Tell that, though, to all the people who have been vindicated by this report. People like Christchurch principal Peggy Burrows who ended up in a tit-for-tat spat with Seymour over mouldy lunches, and who was to blame. The Auditor-General’s report paints a pretty shambolic picture. It says last year only 50 percent of the school lunch collective’s meals met the ministry of education’s nutrition standards. That improved a bit later in the year. I’ll come back to the nutrition part. Because I think a re-think is needed on that front, but I reckon the biggest concern has to be how much food is being wasted. Not that that’s a major surprise. because we’ve seen plenty of reports of food being fed to pigs and principals getting into trouble for letting their staff take uneaten food home. Now I’m a big supporter of the government providing school lunches. But I can’t support that level of waste. 20,000 meals a day. I’m a big supporter because, as anyone will tell you, it’s no use sitting a hungry kid in front of a teacher. You know what it’s like trying to do something yourself when you’re hungry, hopeless, and that’s why we just can’t have hungry kids at school. And if that means the government feeding these kids at lunchtime, then I’ve got no problem with that. But I can’t turn a blind eye to 20,000 meals a day being chucked out. Which brings me to the criticism in this Auditor-General’s report that the school lunches aren’t nutritious enough. I’ve always said that we can go on as much as we like about our school lunches when we were kids being pretty basic. And I guarantee my school lunches would never have met these nutrition standards the ministry of education has these days for the lunch programme. The difference is, though, I didn’t go to school hungry in the first place. I had breakfast and I had dinner at night.Some kids these days don’t, but aren’t we defeating the purpose if the kids themselves aren’t even eating the lunches because they don’t like them? Which is why I think the ministry of education needs to accept that it's got things wrong. It needs to go back to what you might call the basics and serve up something the kids will actually eat. And if that means something basic like a cheese sandwich, then do it. Because eating something has to be way better than eating nothing. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I think the people at the NZ Initiative thinktank need to have an away day in Christchurch Then they would understand why I’m poo-pooing this claim they’re making today that having multiple local councils in close proximity to each other is a good thing. Because if there’s one thing that proves how wrong they are, it would be the disjointed situation we have with housing developments in Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri. A situation I would sum up as the left hand having no idea what the right hand is doing. So what the NZ Initiative is saying, is the government is wrong reducing the number of local councils. It thinks that having multiple councils in close proximity to each other is a good thing, because it allows them to keep an eye on each other. I think he’s wrong. And I don’t think our three councils have any idea what each of them is up to.Because we have the Christchurch council flat out consenting townhouses and apartments to get more people living in the central city.We have Selwyn building homes too fast for the infrastructure to keep up. And, in Waimakariri, we’ve got that 850-home development proposed for Ohoka.Not to mention the Pegasus golf course development. If these three councils were keeping an eye on each other, as the NZ Initiative guy seems to think they are, we wouldn’t have this piecemeal approach to housing developments. But we do. Christchurch city council has been signing off any townhouse or apartment development that comes across its desk, meaning all the people wanting to build or live on a full section in a 3- or 4-bedroom house are flocking to Selwyn and Waimakariri. Selwyn, especially. So much so, that the infrastructure in Selwyn isn’t keeping up You might have seen the reports about developers striking problems with sewerage capacity. Selwyn council’s executive director of building, planning and regulatory services, Robert Love, says the systems in Selwyn are definitely under pressure. He says: “The scale and speed of growth in Selwyn is among the highest in the country, which creates ongoing pressure on all infrastructure networks. While significant investment is being made and major infrastructure upgrades are under way or planned, including working with Selwyn Water, our treatment plants and networks are currently nearing capacity.” And that, right there, is proof that the three councils in the greater Christchurch area are not keeping an eye on each other - as the NZ Initiative claims - and is proof that we desperately need one council. To get a much more co-ordinated approach to where homes get built.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I’ve never been on a sickness benefit. But I imagine that, for anyone who is, the government telling you what you can and can‘t spend your benefit money on, and spying on you to make sure you toe the line would be pretty degrading. Tell that to the ACT Party, though.   Not only that. In this policy announced yesterday, instead of your own GP signing you off for the sickness benefit, you'd need to see a government-approved doctor.  Which sounds a bit like ACC, doesn’t it?  Last week, when we were talking about ACC, people were telling us about their dealings with ACC’s own doctors and how it felt like their main priority was turning people down.  Which is exactly what it would be like under this system David Seymour wants to introduce for the sickness benefit.  He says a person’s GP or specialist would still be able to provide medical history details, clinical notes and supporting evidence. But it would be doctors employed by the government who would decide whether someone qualifies.  And we know what would happen, don’t we? More and more people would be turned away. We know that, because the only reason David Seymour wants to make these changes, is to get less people on the benefit.   David Seymour says these government-employed doctors would have one job. Getting people back to work. Which sounds all kind and supportive. But I don’t buy that for a minute.  Then there’s this bit where he wants to stop paying the sickness benefit into people’s bank accounts.  Instead, the benefit would go onto a payment card that would track how the money is spent and wouldn’t let people spend it on alcohol, gambling and tobacco, or get cash out.   This would kick-in after someone has been on the benefit for four  months.  I’m not sure which of these two ideas is worse.  Getting through the hoops with these government-employed doctors, as I say, sounds like ACC all over again.   But I actually think telling people what they’re allowed to spend the benefit money on and forcing them to use this special card that would be monitored by the government would be nothing short of degrading.  Because, yes, I know there will be people out there on the sickness benefit who are taking the mickey.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I don’t know what to make of the fact that thousands of people have put their name to this petition calling for the Christchurch City Council’s rates increase to be paused and put to a referendum. I don’t know what to make of it for a couple of reasons. First of all, I’m not a petition guy. Because I don’t think they achieve much. It’s very easy to stick your name on something. But does it achieve anything? No. The other reason I can‘t believe people are getting behind this, is that they seem to have forgotten what city councillors are elected to do. They’re elected to make decisions. And one of the biggest decisions they have to make every year, is how they’re going to spend ratepayer money. Which means that, quite a lot of the time, they get criticised left, right and centre. Like yesterday, when I was ripping into the council for getting involved in this apparent bid for a second professional NRL rugby league team. But I’m not starting a petition over it. Because, while I might think it’s not what the council should be getting involved in, I respect the fact that it’s the job of the councillors around the council table to make the decisions. Just like it’s their job to decide how much of a rates increase they need to hit us with to make the city tick. Tell that to James Pawson, though. He’s the guy behind the petition. Who is saying today that the 7.35 percent rates increase the council has signed-off on is a burden and people should get to have a say before being expected to pay up. He’s dreaming. Just like the 7,000-plus people who have put their name to the petition in the past 48 hours. No doubt us talking about it this morning will get more people adding their names. One of James’ particular concerns, is the council including $15 million in the budget for the Anglican cathedral reinstatement. His introduction to the online petition describes this particular spend as “staggering”. Saying: “It raises critical questions around funding priorities and equity, especially in an economic climate where many residents are already facing financial hardships.” He says: “The decision to allocate $15 million of ratepayer money to a project that should arguably be funded by the Anglican Church sends the wrong message to the people of Christchurch who are directly affected by this rates increase.” What James doesn’t say in his petition blurb, is that the council’s $15 million is dependent on the government chipping-in the same amount. And we know that’s never going to happen. Yes, Winston Peters has pledged $15 million if he’s part of the next coalition. But that’ll be forgotten about. Just like he was going to be the first person to walk into the Pike River mine. Remember that promise? And whether I agree with the council wanting to spend more on the cathedral or not, it comes down to the fact that it’s the job of the council to make these decisions. What’s more, if the people signing this petition want a referendum on this rates increase because they’re brassed-off about more of their rates going into the cathedral or whatever, what happens next time there’s something they disagree with? Have another referendum? No thank you. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Newstalk ZB's voice of football Jason Pine joined Canterbury Mornings live from Vancouver ahead of New Zealand's game against Belgium. The All Whites must win against The Red Devils tomorrow afternoon to secure any change of proceeding to the round-of-32.  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 Nationals solar panel policy, what can be done to make rural roads safer, and if the fast-track process is appropriate for the Pegasus Golf Course. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The idea of having a National Rugby League team based in Christchurch sounds brilliant. Last weekend, when the Warriors were here, the place was teaming with people. Four-thousand of them from out of town. Including a couple of National Rugby League honchos from across the ditch who, no doubt, were eyeing up One NZ Stadium and thinking they’d like a bit of the action here. Which has the Christchurch City Council all excited. Because, apparently, it’s getting involved in trying to get a new NRL team up-and-running here. It would be New Zealand’s second team in the competition, along with the Warriors. The question is, though: Is this something the council should be getting itself involved in? Is it the council’s job? My answer to that is, no. So, what’s happened, is reports have surfaced that the city council is trying to bring two rival groups together to make a joint proposal for a new South Island-based NRL team. It’s all tight-lipped on it. Refusing to say yay or nay. But, as it’s being reported, it’s getting involved because the advice has been that, if a bid for a second NRL team in New Zealand is to be successful, then it needs community backing. A bid just from a privately-owned outfit isn’t enough. And that is why I don’t think the council should have any involvement in this. Because this “community backing” is code for community money. Community underwriting. And I’m not just making that up. Because there’s a new NRL club starting up in Australia next year called the Western Bears. It’s had a truckload of public money poured into it by the Western Australian government, which has poured $85 million into it. Now I’m not saying here that the Christchurch City Council is going to be pouring money into this new South Island NRL team if it eventuates. But I am saying that it’s not the council’s job to be involved in any way, shape or form. Whatever happened to focusing on the basics? What’s more, these two separate groups wanting to bid for an NRL team here - to put it politely - can’t stand each other. Why the council would want to be some sort of peace negotiator, I’ll never know. What it should be doing, is listening to Warriors CEO Cameron George. Who told me last week that, yes, a second New Zealand team would be great. But, first, the NRL itself needs to invest more to grow the game here. He’s the guy I’m listening to. Because he’s known the realities of running an NRL club for the past nine years. David Moffett and Sir Graham Lowe should be listening too. And the Christchurch City Council should be staying well out of it. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour has no plans to change the retirement age. No plan to start means testing the NZ Super pension. Nothing.  Basically, Labour’s plan is for us all to keep sailing into our sunset years with our fingers crossed and the she‘ll be right attitude we’ve clung to for years. And, somehow, we’ll find the money to keep paying to NZ Super pension to anyone and everyone.  I think it;s dreaming. Which is why I’m very interested in what Auckland University economist Susan St John is saying about a middle ground between lifting the retirement age and means-testing the pension.  And, even though I’ve been pushing the idea of means testing for a while now, I’m listening to what she’s saying about this middle ground.   It’s something we’ve done before in New Zealand but, politicians being politicians, they ditched it. Because it wasn’t popular.  The superannuation surcharge, which we had during the 80s and 90s, hit people working beyond the retirement age with a special tax if the money they earned from their jobs went beyond a certain limit.  It got up as high as 25 percent and the politicians got rid of it in 1998 because there was this view that it put people off working beyond the retirement age.  That’s because about a quarter of people over the retirement age had to pay back some or all of their pension.  But, given we have an ageing population and the cost of the NZ Super pension scheme is only going to become even more unaffordable in its current form, then I’m listening to what Susan St John is saying.  Because if means testing the pension is too much for our politicians to stomach and if raising the age of entitlement spooks some of them too, then let’s meet in the middle and bring back the surcharge.  It would be much more straightforward than means testing. Because how you define a person’s means?  Is it just the money they earn over-and-above the pension from their job? Or is it also the money they earn over-and-above the pension from term deposits and other investments?   Does it include any property they own?  With the surcharge or the surtax, it would be very clear.  And just like it was in the 80s and 90s, it would be unpopular. But so what?  As Susan St John says, it would free-up money for those in genuine need.   She’s done the numbers and reckons the surcharge would save us $3 billion, with little or no impact on the majority of low income retirees. Sounds like the perfect middle ground to me.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chris Hipkins says he's not worried by his party's showing in Tuesday night's 1News poll, showing his party down 5 points at 30 percent.  Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, the Leader of the Opposition said polls bounce around, but he's confident in the trends he sees in Labour's internal polling, showing them sitting in the "high thirties".  "I never get particularly obsessed about one individual poll, but you do look at the trends of polls, and trends have been showing Labour's support"  Hipkins was also asked his thoughts on the Opportunity Party's continued rise, what Labour knew about the failed $32 million Immigration NZ IT project, and his thoughts on the New Zealand Initiatives' report on ACC.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There were truckloads of people in Christchurch at the weekend for the Warriors game at One NZ Stadium. How many? 6,000. That’s how many out-of-towners were here during the weekend just gone. And they reckon the economic benefits for the city will be somewhere in the area of $4.7 million. That’s on top of the $13 million that came into the city during the big Super Rugby Super Round weekend back in April. Now, if you’re the government, you’d probably point to that and say this crowd calling today for a new bed tax to help cover tourism costs are barking up the wrong tree. But I think the government needs to wake up to the fact that councils around the country are struggling to keep up and need a bed tax to take the burden off ratepayers. The argument being that visitors should help pay for the infrastructure they use. Which I think is an absolute no-brainer. So what’s happening, is Christchurch is one area pushing for a bed tax to help fund infrastructure and services to support and grow tourism. The way it would work, is IRD would take in a nationwide visitor and accommodation levy and distribute the money back to the areas where it was collected. The tax funds could only be used by councils on tourism spending. With the mayors and tourism leaders pushing for it saying it would ease the burden on ratepayers. And it would be the same rate across the country. That’s why IRD would be involved, so that different places didn’t charge different amounts. It would be a relatively straightforward solution to a major problem facing areas which have to rely on ratepayer money to pay for tourism infrastructure, as well as all the other stuff. The government isn’t overly interested. And I know why. It’s because it’s bought into this weird idea that, if you start charging visitors extra taxes, they won’t bother coming here. Which is such a backward way of looking at it. Because, if you’ve been overseas, you’ll know how in other countries you pretty much pay to breathe. Slight exaggeration, but you know what I mean. And if we think that paying a bit extra for accommodation - through this bed tax - is going to put people off coming here, then we’re not very confident about the place or ourselves, are we? What’s more, this is the government that isn’t interested in a bed tax but, at the same time, increased the visitor levy for people from overseas. The other thing, is whether a bed tax should only apply to visitors from overseas or whether it should apply to New Zealanders travelling around the country, as well. My view is that it should apply to everyone - locals and people from overseas. Because when we go to places such as Queenstown or Twizel or up north somewhere, it’s very unlikely that we have contributed anything towards the key infrastructure that supports the tourism sector. By and large, it’s local ratepayers who pay for that. So, for me, I think we should have a bed tax in New Zealand. And we should all pay it, wherever we’re from. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Selwyn Mayor Lydia Gliddon joined John in the studio for their regular catchup. They discussed the council’s response to the Government’s push for council amalgamation, her district’s efforts to slow drivers down and create safer roads in growing residential areas, and her views on Selwyn residents having to pay full price to tour the new One New Zealand Stadium. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There’s one thing I like about the National Party’s KiwiSaver announcement. And there’s one thing I don’t like.Let’s start with the good bit. Making it compulsory for everyone to have a KiwiSaver account. It’s amazed me how we say in one breath how critical it is for Kiwis to be saving for their retirement and then, in the second breath, tell people they only have to do it if they want. Which is like saying to people, what would you prefer? Getting your hands on every last cent of your pay right now? Or would you prefer to have some of it taken away and locked up in a KiwiSaver account? It’s just like those TV shows where they tell kids they can have one lolly now or two lollies in five minutes. Most of them go for instant gratification. And that’s how a lot of people are with KiwiSaver. But, if it was compulsory, they wouldn’t have a choice.Which is why I’m a big fan of this part of what National announced yesterday. The other bit, though. I’m not keen on. This is where National wants employers to be forced to make KiwiSaver contributions for people working beyond the retirement age. At the moment it’s voluntary. National wants that to change that. And says, if re-elected, it will make it compulsory for employers to continue making KiwiSaver contributions for staff who work past the age of 65.I’m not a fan. For several reasons. For starters, the retirement age is 65. And, until that changes, employers shouldn’t be forced to pay into people’s KiwiSaver if they decide to keep working beyond the retirement age. Another reason I’m not a fan, is that someone over the age of 65 who is still working is not only getting their wages or salary, but they’re also getting the NZ Super pension from the government. And, looking at it from the perspective of employers, if National makes it compulsory for everyone to have a KiwiSaver account - as I think it should - that, on its own, will be an extra cost for businesses and organisations.This from a party that claims to be on the side of businesses. I also see it backfiring on the people themselves who don’t want to stop working at 65. Because employers will be way less inclined to keep them on if they know they’re going to be forced to keep paying into the KiwiSaver accounts of these older workers. Which would be a shame. Because no one can argue that people still have a lot to offer beyond the age of 65.But surely a wage or salary and the NZ Super pension is enough, without forcing employers to throw more money into their KiwiSaver accounts. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nurse Maude has opened their new state-of-the-art hospice in Merivale this week, with its $16m price tag which has been fully funded entirely from the community. Board Chair Jane Cartwright joined Canterbury Mornings after the ribbon was cut and their patients had moved in. She discussed why hospice care is so important not just for those who are nearing the end of their life, but for their loved ones as well. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How much does the number of people on the dole actually impact your life? If you’re like me, it has no impact. I’m asking because Treasury is putting more flies in the government’s ointment this week, telling it that its goal of having 50,000 less people on the dole in four years’ time than there were when it came into office isn’t going to happen. In fact - according to Treasury - instead of having 50,000 less on the dole, the numbers will actually be about 60,000 higher than the government’s target. When it came into office back in 2023, there were 190,000 people getting the jobseeker benefit. The government wants to cut that back to 140,000 by 2030. But Treasury says that’s more likely to be just over 200,000. So, 60,000 over target. Social Development Minister Louise Upston says it’s her job to reduce the number of people relying on welfare. She’s admitting that the target is ambitious. But she says she’s not going to shy away from it, despite what Treasury says. Now, no argument from me that working is way better than being on a benefit. And, despite the clichés about dole bludgers, I reckon most people feel the same. Sure, there are some out there who think life on the dole is what it’s all about. But they’re a minority. I for one, have never seen the unemployment benefit as some sort of lifestyle choice. And I have never encouraged my kids to see it that way, either. That said, thank goodness we have these benefits. Because those of us who aren’t on the dole, are all just a few steps away from it. I’d like to think that, if my job ended today, I would have something else lined up pretty quickly. But I might not. Which is why I never get me all worked up about “dole bludgers”. Some other people, though. They do. These are the people the government is pandering to with this target. Which Treasury, quite clearly, thinks is a pipedream. What we should really be getting worked up about today is that it seems there is going to be a growing need for the unemployment benefit over the next four years. Forget about this arbitrary target of 50,000 less. Spend less time worrying about that and more time worrying about the fact that it looks like unemployment numbers are set to go northwards. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If the device that tells you how many steps you’ve taken could also measure your faith in government departments, what would it be showing after this $33 million debacle at Immigration NZ? Despite the amount of money involved and the number of years it’s taken to come to light, I’m not in the least bit surprised by this. But Immigration Minister Erica Standford is “furious”. Not only that, she’s also saying that she’s lost confidence in the public servants responsible for this failed technology upgrade. A technology upgrade that took seven years and chewed through the cash with nothing to show for it. What’s more, Erica Standford says Immigration NZ used creative accounting practises to hide crucial information from this government and the last government. She says these “creative accounting practises” meant that the project's costs appeared to be below the budget agreed to by Cabinet. One report I’ve seen describes that part of the whole thing as “jaw-dropping”. But I’m not in the least bit surprised.Because I’ve had experience with government departments and I know how these kinds of things get a life of their own. I also know how antse people working in these departments are of the government minister they report to.You put those two things together and what do you get? You get $33 million of taxpayer money going down the gurgler. You get people doing what they can to avoid brassing-off their minister. And it would seem, in this case anyway, hiding information to avoid brassing off their minister. And you get people being sucked into these special projects and some of them pretty much see it as a job for life.I know, because I’ve sat in on meetings and workshops and briefings and wondered whether anyone involved in these projects actually remembers why the government department they work for exists. That’s why I’m not in the least bit surprised by this. And that’s why public service boss Sir Brian Roche - if he is serious about this investigation he’s launching - then he needs to be looking way beyond Immigration NZ. Because who knows where else this is happening? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

One NZ Warriors CEO Cameron George is in town ahead of the Warriors first game under the roof at One NZ Stadium. He joined Canterbury Mornings ahead of a packed week of events in town ahead of the match against The Cowboys, and was asked what he thinks about the prospect of a South Island ever having its own NRL side. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"A slap in the face to all Iranian people." That’s what an Iranian woman living in New Zealand is saying about this peace deal between the United States and Iran. And I can understand why she feels that way. Because she’s saying it’s another case of meet the old boss, same as the old boss. Which raises the question: is this actually a peace deal or is it a out of jail card for Donald Trump? Trump will claim it’s a peace deal. But I don’t believe that for a minute. But it will be enough to keep the president happy. He’ll probably even add it to his list of wars he has ended. Conveniently ignoring the fact that was also the one who started it. But never let reality get in the way of delusion. The benefit for Trump, though, in this whole thing going on way longer than some people thought it would, is that some people will have forgotten why it all started in the first place. Even Trump seemed to forget pretty early on in proceedings. But Mehrdad Soltanifar hasn’t forgotten. She’s an Iranian living in New Zealand and she is gutted by what’s happened. She’s saying today that any deal with the Islamic Republic is unacceptable. She had hoped the conflict would lead to a regime change and she says any agreement with the current “monstrous” regime feels like “a slap in the face” to all Iranian people. But for everyone else who isn’t Iranian, they’ll just be thinking about diesel and petrol prices. But don‘t go thinking it’s going to be back to the old days anytime soon. Just because Donald Trump has told the shipping companies to start their engines and get the oil flowing around the world again, the outfits that own and run the ships won’t be quite so gung-ho. Global shipping company Maersk, which has 700 container ships and operates in more than 130 countries, is saying it’s too early to know how the peace deal will impact logistics and maritime operations in the Middle East. And we know why that is. The risk of mines planted by Iran in the Strait of Hormuz. Just the other day, the International Energy Agency said it could take a minimum of two to three months of mine clearing for things to get back to what they were before the war. Which is why the shipping companies will be telling the commander in chief to cool his jets when he tells them to start their engines. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

CEO of One New Zealand and self-confessed Rugby League tragic Jason Paris joined Canterbury Mornings ahead of a massive weekend of Warriors action in Christchurch. Paris discussed One NZ's longstanding sponsorship of the Warriors, as well as the telco's partnership with Te Kaha, whether his loyalty to the “Wahs” would be tested if the South Island were to secure its own NRL team. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Don’t you think it’s a bit rich of Nicola Willis to be criticising Labour when, last election, she did exactly what she’s accusing Labour of doing? Keeping us in the dark. Every politician is guilty on this front. Which is why I’m right behind the idea being floated by economist Cameron Bagrie today. He’s saying that we need to set-up an independent outfit that would help us decide whether what politicians are promising stacks up financially. But let me take you back to the last election. When National was promising tax cuts and saying they were going to be paid for by taxing rich foreigners buying houses here. The party said it was going to get $740 million from the foreign house buyers and, because of that, we were going to pay less tax. And, pretty much straight away, economists and tax experts were poo pooing the idea. Which had us all wanting National to say who gave it advice that this was going to work, when everyone else seemed to think it wouldn’t. And what was National’s response? Not telling you. I do remember Nicola Willis saying she’d resign if the tax cuts weren’t delivered. But she wouldn’t - and Christopher Luxon wouldn’t - give the type of detail she’s now accusing Labour of hiding from us. Which economist Cameron Bagrie says could all be avoided if we had an independent fiscal watchdog, separate from Treasury. He’s saying today: “We saw this in 2017, 2020, 2023. One side has a crack at the other in regards to making their numbers stack up. We’ve been here before. Not surprising.” It was happening way before 2017. Remember in 2011, when there was a pre-election debate in Christchurch, and John Key trotted out the line, which some people think won him the election. “Show me the money,” he said to Phil Goff, who was the Labour Party leader at the time. Fifteen years on, the only thing we can still rely on are the numbers and costings trotted out by the politicians. Labour’s public transport policy is an example. They say $65 million and we’ll be in bus heaven. I’m not convinced. Maybe I would be if we had this independent outfit Cameron Bagrie is calling for today. Just like we would have had numbers rather than the “just trust us” we got from National at the last election over the foreign buyers tax coviering the cost of you and I paying less PAYE. But we didn’t. We thought it was smoke and mirrors. And that’s what it turned out to be. Just like Labour’s promises and the $18 billion Nicola says isn’t accounted for. If we had more transparency, we wouldn’t have to rely on politicians on one side telling us we can afford whatever they’re promising and politicians on the other side saying no, we can‘t. To give Nicola Willis credit. She has been a fan previously of some sort of way to cost-out party policies. In fact, she wanted to see a publicly-funded outfit that would have done the numbers and worked-out the actual cost of election policies. Or election promises. It had the potential to work-out whether all the talk we get from political parties before an election stacks up. It didn’t happen, though. Because ACT and NZ First wouldn't let it happen. But I think we deserve this kind of transparency. In think an agency separate from Treasury that would tell us exactly how things are on the fiscal front, would be brilliant. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How weird is this? We don’t let people like bus drivers, taxi drivers and truckies drive with alcohol in their systems, but we let everyone else on the road do it. Apart from people under-20. But everyone else, all good. Now I know the difference between your average motorist and professional drivers - especially the likes of bus drivers and taxi drivers - is that they’re responsible for the safety of passengers. But, just like the rest of us, they’re also responsible for the safety of every other road user around them. And I think it’s time to do away with this double standard and it’s time we had have a zero alcohol limit for all drivers. They do it in other countries. So why not here? Because I think this coroner is pushing it uphill saying today that he hopes a case he’s been looking into reminds us of the dangers of drinking and driving. I sense he’s also banging his head against the wall. Because Stephen Burdes is also saying today there’s nothing more he can add to what we already know about the dangers of drinking and driving. So he’s just keeping his fingers crossed that, maybe, this latest example will get through to the muppets who think they’re perfectly fine to drive with a few drinks on board. I don’t like the chance of that happening. Because how many times have we heard about people dying on the roads because of alcohol and  nothing changes? The case the coroner is referring today happened in February 2023. Michael Sadler and Tangiwai Heurea were regulars at a place called Slim’s Bar in Ōpōtiki. And on the 10th of February 2023 they spent nearly eight hours there drinking. They arrived at 5:30pm and left at 1:10am the next morning. That would be their last night at Slim’s Bar. Crashing on the way home after their car left the road on a gentle corner. They weren’t wearing seatbelts. But, more importantly, the driver - Tangiwai Heurea - had a blood alcohol level five times the legal limit. They were discovered dead in their car the next day. You could say that they weren’t the only ones at fault here. Anyone in that bar would have seen how trolleyed they were and could have done something. The person in charge of the bar that night probably has a few questions to answer too. But what it comes down to for me, is that we leave it up to individuals to decide whether they’re ok to drive or not. And that’s what makes it so fraught and dangerous. Fraught and dangerous because of those who think they can handle their grog and they’ve got no problem driving home. Even if they’re a little bit tiddly. Fraught and dangerous too because, even for the responsible types, it’s still a guessing game whether they should be driving or not. And we should not be playing guessing games when it comes to drinking and driving. The best way to remove the guesswork would be to make it easy as and tell people that, even if they have just one drink, they can’t drive. Because, unless we do, people will keep on drinking and driving and dying. And coroners, like the one speaking out today, will keep on banging their heads against the wall. 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 topics from the week, including Labour's public transport policy, the governments LNG levy backdown, and if the correct process was taken to select Labours latest candidate and current police Superintendent, Rakesh Naidoo.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Waimakariri Mayor Dan Gordon joined John MacDonald to discuss the issues that matter to Waimakariri residents. They covered the proposed council amalgamation options the council has put out for feedback, and the strong interest from potential partners to help buy back the Pegasus Golf Course from a developer.  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What do you think needs to happen with public transport? According to some, we need to get more people using it. For all the usual reasons: less cars on the road. Lower emmissions. All of that. Which is why Labour has come up with this election policy which, for those of us in the greater Christchurch area, would mean paying no more than $20-a-week to take as many bus rides and ferry rides as we like. National’s responded with its own idea. But I think they’re both flogging a dead horse. At the bus interchange in Christchurch yesterday, people were saying they liked the sound of Labour’s policy. The same with people using the Diamond Harbour ferry. Bring it on, was their reaction. But no surprises there. Because, you ask anyone if they want to pay less for something and, of course, they’ll say yes. Which is what this policy would mean. At the moment, Christchurch public transport users pay a maximum of $30-a-week. Labour is pledging to take that down to no more than $20-a-week. And, being election year, the government has responded straight away with its own idea. An idea that it, obviously, didn’t think was worth including in the budget a couple of weeks ago. Nevertheless, today we’ve got transport minister Chris Bishop saying the government could take $450 million from its emergency fund to put more buses on during peak periods. His thinking is that, if more taxpayer money is going to go into public transport, then it should be spent on improving services - instead of providing subsidies. But, do you know what I think? I think we could throw as much money as we want at public transport and it wouldn’t make much difference. I think National’s idea is better than Labour’s. But I don't think either of them would achieve much. Not to mention the fact that taking $450 million out of the government’s emergency fund to spend on public transport would be a very risky thing to do. And this is coming from someone who uses public transport at least a couple of times a week. I don’t use buses to get to work. So I’m not on them every day. But, here in Christchurch, buses can be a great way of getting around. But, the thing is, there are two types of people in this world and I don’t see any political party policy changing the way these people behave. The first type are the ones who have probably always used public transport and always will. They’re already taking the bus now and don’t need any encouragement to continue. Yes, they’ll like the idea of paying less. But they’re converts already. Then you’ve got the people who have always seen the bus as the loser cruiser and there’s no way in hell they would start using buses just because it’s cheaper. So that’s why Labour’s idea isn’t going to work. As for Chris Bishop’s idea of dipping into the emergency fund to put more buses on. I don’t see that shifting the dial, either. Because we would need to spend way more than $450 million to have a public transport system that the non-users would even think about using. People would only buy into it if we had services like you have overseas in countries with way more people than us. Trains, trams, buses and ferries that run day and night - pretty much whenever you need them. That would be the gamechanger. But we’re dreaming if we think anything like that is achievable here. So my advice to the politicians is this: don’t think throwing money at public transport is going to get more people using it. It’s not worth the money and effort. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

British actor, comedian and author Alan Davies joined Canterbury Mornings ahead of his first visit to New Zealand in a decade.  He's returning with his new tour, Think Ahead, which he is calling his best show yet. Davies’ Think Ahead tour will come to the Christchurch Town Hall on Wednesday, August 12. Tickets are available on Ticketmaster. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The reassurances from Labour leader Chris Hipkins that the party is no longer the smug, arrogant outfit we all got sick of three years ago are not only starting to sound hollow. They are hollow. Because if any other party had recruited a top cop for its party list without the top cop telling police bosses about it until the very last minute, Hipkins and his crew would be going nuts. And if he wants to deny that, then he’s more arrogant than I’m giving him credit for. But, given it’s not another party and it’s the Labour Party that announced yesterday that Superintendent Rakesh Naidoo was number 13 on its list, it’s not a problem, apparently. In fact, Hipkins is saying that Naidoo has handled the matter with integrity. I’d like to see him say that to Police Commissioner Richard Chambers, who is brassed off that Naidoo waited until last Thursday to tell him that he was intending to stand for Labour. And it wasn’t until Sunday - the day before Labour released its party list - that the commissioner found out that Superintendent Naidoo had actually accepted a list spot. Which is very bad form, because who knows what information Labour’s latest candidate has been privy to? Without anyone in the police having any idea that he’s about to run for Parliament for the Labour Party. Hipkins isn’t commenting on how long the party has been in discussions with the senior police officer, other than saying there had been a couple of conversations over the last few months. But the Police Commissioner didn’t know about it until it was pretty much a done deal, which is not acting with integrity, as Hipkins seems to think it is. Acting with integrity would be having a quiet word with the bosses as soon as you start having those quiet conversations with the Labour Party. Because this isn’t about a cop moving to Australia for a new job. This is about a senior cop signing up to a political party wanting to take down the current government. The current government that this particular officer serves, whether he likes it or not. So no, Chris Hipkins, this hasn’t been handled with integrity. And for you to try and convince us that it has speaks volumes about the arrogance of you and your party. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I think we’d be biting off our nose to spite our face if we turned our back on this overseas company wanting to take over the running of the port of Lyttelton. Because this could be exactly the type of in-road to foreign investment that the government has been banging-on about but hasn’t yet managed to pull off. Tell that to the unions, though. Which are all antse about executives from global port operator DP World being in Christchurch and wanting to do a deal to manage the port here for as long as 30 years. The port company and the port’s owner - Christchurch City Holdings Limited - aren’t saying much. Other than acknowledging speculation over what they describe as “a potential proposal” involving DP World and the port company. But the maritime union isn’t holding back - making all the usual noises. Which you would expect it to make. Saying it would be a terrible move. Not just for Canterbury. But a bad move for the South Island and the whole country. It says profits would head overseas and it must not happen. But before you fall for all the noise, I want you to think about Fremantle, in Australia. Because it is just noise. Saying something should stay locally-run for the sake of it staying locally-run is noise. There’s nothing the unions are saying about this that convinces me that the port company and the council which owns it shouldn’t, at the very least, think about it. You might remember Fremantle from the 1987 Americas Cup. It’s also a major port. A major port which has been operated by the same company that wants to run Lyttelton port for the past 20 years. And we need to be looking at Fremantle before swallowing all the rhetoric regarding this potential deal at Lyttelton. Because, in December last year, the company started work on an $18 million rail connection at the port. To move more freight by rail - from 22 percent to a third of the freight it handles. The company itself paid for this. What’s more, it plans to have spent $1 billion upgrading port infrastructure in Australia by 2028. Which is exactly what it could end up doing here. And, if the port company and Christchurch City Holdings are in fact having these negotiations, then that’s exactly the sort of stuff they should be talking about. They should be saying to DP World, if we agree to let you run Lyttelton port for the next 30 years, we want to see the same infrastructure investment you’re making in Australia. Remembering too that Lyttelton needs to spend as much as $900 million on its expansion work. And, if they did manage to get that kind of commitment as part of any deal, then we’d be on to a winner. Not that I’m drinking all the Kool aid. Because there have been issues in Fremantle since DP World took over 20 years ago. The unions over there have accused it of putting profits ahead of jobs. But those kinds of accusations are made about the Lytelton port company already. The unions in Fremantle aren’t happy about DP World wanting to use more automation. Of course they wouldn't be happy about it. Thing is, though, unions here are going to be concerned about all those things irrespective of who is running the show. So why not have an outfit with the money behind it running the port and investing in the port in a way we can only dream about? LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.