Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Mining is on the way back. That’s the message today from Regional Development and Resources Minister Shane Jones who is on the West coast to announce the Government's proposal to double mining exports (which are already worth $1 billion) by allowing mining in some conservation areas - not just for coal, but other minerals too. The Government says one of the big selling points is the number of jobs it would create. About 2,000 new jobs it reckons. And not just on the Coast, either. Because the Government thinks there are opportunities here in Canterbury too, as well as Marlborough. Not that the protesters, who are going to be all over this today, are buying that. They don’t want a bar of it. Which is the challenge we’re always going to have with something like this, isn’t it? Cover your ears, no-no-no, not interested, mining is bad, blah blah blah. But I tell you what, I’m willing to hear the Government out on this one. It’s not like Shane Jones is going to be telling us that it’s all-go from tomorrow, that he'll be sending the trucks in at dawn. What he is saying is let’s have a look at this and see if we can make it work. Let’s investigate what we’ve got under the ground and work out if we can make a go of it. And he’ll get no opposition from me on that. Not that a few protesters will be an issue for this particular minister. Shane Jones being Shane Jones, he’ll probably be right up for a bit of korero with the anti-mining crew. He might even trot out that line he used recently when he said (quote): “If there is a mining opportunity and it's impeded by a blind frog, then goodbye, Freddie.” So, what this is all about today isn’t just coal and gold. It’s about all the other minerals under the ground on the Coast, in Canterbury and in Marlborough, that the Government reckons could be a goldmine for the New Zealand economy. But, of course, what today will inevitably lead to is a battle of ideologies. It’s probably underway already, actually, which doesn’t help anyone. And it’s something I’ve seen before. I remember in 1999 and 2000 when I was working as a journalist and spending a lot of my time on the West Coast reporting on the stoush over the then-Labour government’s move to end native logging on Crown-owned land. The people on the Coast went berserk because they saw jobs and businesses going at the expense of Labour’s ideology which said taking trees away was bad. Which also put a lot of the locals up against the environmental crowd, who thought no tree should be touched. What kind of got lost in that row was the fact that the trees weren’t being felled with chainsaws, they were being pulled out of the ground using helicopters in a way designed to let new trees grow and to allow the forests to keep regenerating. But Helen Clark and Michael Cullen got their way and the native logging on Crown land came to a halt. What I learned from that experience is how limiting ideologies can be and I hope we don’t repeat the same mistake this time around. Because I say ‘let’s take a look, let’s see if we can get a slice of the minerals pie that Shane Jones is talking about’. Because who wants to be saying coulda, woulda, shoulda in a few years time about another billion dollars in earnings for our mining sector? I don’t. Do you? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

So, it looks like the Government is going to ditch the First Home Buyers Scheme which gives people up to $10,000 to help get them into their first home. All up, it costs the Government $60 million a year. It seems that money’s going to go into social housing instead. And it’s tick, tick, tick from me. That’s because, even though I think there is a place for government involvement in helping people get ahead in life, buying assets is not one of them. I was talking to someone who was saying that the First Home Buyers Scheme can be one of the only bits of government help some people get - over and above the usual public services. That would be aside from the pension, too, of course. And that’s government with a small g. This person wasn’t talking about the current government. They were about the government, in general. Or taxpayer support, to put it another way. But what I say to that is, just because you might never be on ACC, or you might never be on the unemployment benefit, or you might never need a sickness benefit, that doesn’t mean you're owed anything. And you’re certainly not owed anything to help you buy your first home. But, of course, there will be people who will be outraged that the scheme is going. Yes, they’ll be unhappy. And that’s because home ownership has come to be seen as something of a basic human right. When it’s not. Having a roof over your head is a basic human right. Owning that roof, isn’t. Interestingly, it was a National government in the 1950s which had the thinking that living in a state house should only be for people who needed it, and not for everyone. So, what it did is it set an income limit and told all the so-called middle-class people that they could forget about getting a state house and started championing home ownership, instead, saying that was what New Zealand aspired to. And so, it did a couple of things. It said to state house tenants that if they wanted to buy the house they were in, they could. And it increased the availability of what were known as state-advanced loans to help people get into their first homes. Which meant, within a very short time, 34% of all home loans were from the state. And, of course, what happened was demand outstripped supply and the real estate merry-go-’round got going. Over the years, it wasn't just National that fuelled this obsession with home ownership. The Labour government that came in after National in 1959 allowed low-income families to have their Family Benefit paid in advance, to help them get a deposit together for a house. Fast-forward to 1984, and things changed a bit under David Lange’s Labour government. It deregulated the banking sector which brought more competition into banking, stopped the scheme that allowed people to put their Family Benefit towards a deposit, and started introducing market rental rates for state houses. And, by that time, the horse had well-and-truly bolted and home ownership was the be-all and end-all for a lot of people. As it still is today. But even though we have a relatively long history of governments helping people out financially if they want to buy a home —to varying degrees, certainly— it’s not a reason to keep doing it. And the obsession with home ownership certainly isn’t a reason to keep giving taxpayer money to people to buy houses. And good on the Government —or National anyway— for being true to its word and, in relation to this anyway - being true to its word and basing its housing support on need. Because no one needs to buy a house. They might want to, but they don’t need to. Unlike someone on the bones of their backside and on the edge of society, who does actually have a need. They need a roof over their head. And, if the Government is sitting there trying to work out the best way to spend $60 million - then, as far as I’m concerned, that $60 million has to go towards addressing people’s needs. Not subsidising their wants. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy...

John MacDonald was joined this morning by Chris Hipkins for their regular catchup. Labour's leader is warning the Government it shouldn't can a grant for first home buyers. An inquiry led by former PM Sir Bill English has found Kainga Ora needs to find significant savings to be financially viable. The Housing Minister says every programme the state housing provider runs will be checked for cost value. Chris Bishop won't rule out dropping first home buyer grants. Chris Hipkins told John MacDonald that it would be the wrong move. He says the scheme is a modest contribution to people being able to buy a first home and is not a big chunk of money in the budget process. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What an absolute shambles Kāinga Ora sounds like. But, let’s be honest, even though the Government is making noises about what a shocker this investigation and report by Sir Bill English is - it’s probably quietly quite pleased with it, don't you think? And, for me, the key thing it all comes down to is how involved a government, of any persuasion, should be in providing housing for people who need help to get a roof over their head. Is it the Government’s job to be a developer and a landlord? Or just a landlord? And I think the smoke signals from Wellington are very clear in that, as far as the current government is concerned, if it could get out of building state houses it would, and it would just focus on being the owner and the landlord. Which is why I say I reckon it’ll be quietly pleased with what Sir Bill English has delivered in the report he’s written on his investigation into our state housing provider. But I think we’ll be heading down the wrong track completely if we think the best or only way to get out of the Kāinga Ora shambles is to do the old outsourcing trick. That’s not to say that Kāinga Ora is a poster child for state or public housing. It’s not. As Sir Bill has highlighted, it’s a shambles. Or as Sir Bill’s report said —echoed by the Housing Minister Chris Bishop yesterday— Kāinga Ora is not financially viable nor socially viable. Here are some numbers which show how dire things are on the financial front. Kāinga Ora is staring down the barrel of a $700 million annual deficit. Its debt level has gone through the roof. In 2018, it had $2.7 billion in debt. By 2023, that had increased to $12.3 billion in June 2023. And it’s now forecast to get up to $23 billion within four years. Apparently, it has had easy access to debt but has done a completely cruddy job of keeping checks on things with “insufficient focus on fiscal discipline, and low levels of accountability leading to growing annual losses.” What’s more, Kāinga Ora says it needs $21.4 billion in cash from the Government over the next four years, which the Housing Minister says equates to about $4,000 for every New Zealander. So, if Kāinga Ora was your business, you would have been shut down by the bank long before now. Sir Bill English’s report also has harsh things to say about how Kāinga Ora has expanded from being a state landlord to a developer and running schemes to help first-home buyers. And fair enough too, because that is nuts. I bet that wasn’t what Michael Joseph Savage had in mind when he opened New Zealand’s first state house in Wellington in 1937. David and Mary McGregor were the first people to live in that house. As well as Prime Minister Savage, 300 other people were at the opening ceremony, and they all trudged through the house in dirty shoes and eventually had to be asked to leave by the McGregors. And sightseers were still turning days after that, having a nosey through the windows. Today, there isn’t the same level of fascination with state houses. But interest in the shambles Kāinga Ora has become will be going through the roof after this report that came out yesterday. One of the real shockers for me, is this finding that the Board —so the people right at the top of the organisation— didn’t seem to be all that concerned about the money side of things. Chris Bishop said yesterday it was evident that the Board had been acting more as an advisor to management instead of governing the place and telling management what to do and what not to do. Example: Bill English found that in the papers prepared for the May 2023 Board meeting, there was no Statement of Financial Position. Chris Bishop sys the Board just assumed new lending of several billion dollars from the Government would be approved and didn’t even think about what they’d do if the Government said “no”. Again, I’ll compare it to the private sector and say that if the Board of a company acted that way, they’d be out on their ears. And they’d probably...

Heath Franklin will return to Christchurch in June as ‘Chopper’ in his latest comedy tour on June 7. John MacDonald spoke to Heath about his career as Chopper, what it was like to meet the man himself - which turned out to be rather underwhelming, and why he walked away from a career in law to become a comedian. LISTEN ABOVE. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Shock horror from the OCD today. Shock. Horror. It's saying that New Zealand has one of the highest rates of homelessness in the developed world. All right, that's what it's saying. But if you dig a little deeper, you find that our definition of homelessness is broader than most other countries, and I think we're a bit quick to classify someone as being homeless here. I'm not saying it's a low bar, but I do think the definition is broader than it should be. We include refugees and asylum seekers looking for temporary accommodation. We include victims of domestic violence. And people living in housing that isn't really up to scratch, as well as rough sleepers. And what I'm keen to find out today is: what someone's situation has to be for you to consider them to be homeless. This is at the same time as we have people begging in Richmond in Christchurch saying in the news at the weekend. You might have seen this. They do actually have somewhere to live, but they're struggling to pay for food and power. And so they hit the streets and ask other people for money, which we could all say we struggle to pay the bills to varying degrees, of course. But not all of us sat down the street asking for money. Even your old woke mate here doesn't take kindly to people asking me for money on the street. As for the way we define homelessness: It's a little bit like the way we define obesity. You know, once upon a time, obese people were obese. These days, it seems we're all being told that we're obese. Even the slim-jims. “Oh, no, you're obese. Really? Yeah. You're obese.” And I think that's where we've got to with the way we define the homelessness here in New Zealand. Well, I get the argument that if you don't have somewhere regular to put your head down at night, maybe you're doing a few nights at one person's place and a few nights atsomeone else's place. If you're living like that, you can probably say you don't have a regular place to live. But can you say you're homeless? In my in my old school, ‘you're only homeless if you sleep in a sleeping bag on Colombo St.’ way of thinking, I don't think you can. In my view of the world: if you’ve got a roof over your head, you are not homeless. Because you think of example, you think of all those people in Canterbury. Right now, who have had a relationship break up, for example? Controversial to say? Most likely they're men. So think of someone in that situation. They've had a relationship break up and the start of out having a few nights here and a few nights there, maybe on someone's couch or on a pull-out bed in their lounge. And then bingo, a year down the track they look up and realise they're still doing the same thing. They're still on people's couches, different couches, different nights of the week. Would you consider them homeless? I wouldn't. And what about the guy back in November last year? Remember this? There was all this excitement about this homeless guy in Petone putting a $5 bet on the Melbourne Cup and winning just over 100,000 bucks. Remember that? Homeless man turns $5. Bet $5 bet into $106,000 - was one of the headlines. And we all thought, oh, brilliant, couldn't think of a better winner. Well, I did anyway. And then, when you started reading all these stories, you found out that he'd been living in a garage for nine months. That he had a TAB account. He was at the Workman's club watching the race and he realised how much he'd won when he went out to the beer garden for a cigarette and had to keep refreshing his TAB account on his phone to make sure he wasn't dreaming when he saw how much he'd won. Now I'm not saying just because someone's homeless they shouldn't be allowed to place a bet on the Melbourne Cup. I'm not saying that just because someone's homeless, they shouldn't be going to a bar for a drink. I'm not saying just because someone's homeless, they shouldn't be blowing money on cigarettes. Or that they shouldn't have a smartphone. But what I am saying...

If you talk to anyone who has been a manager and you ask them what’s the best thing about being a manager and what’s the worst, the answer will be the same for both. The people. I know, because I’ve been a manager before, and I know exactly how brilliant it can be when things are going great with your people. But, when they’re not, it can be a nightmare. And a new report out today from the Human Rights Commission and KPMG shows just how much of a nightmare it can be when those problems are caused by bullies. They’ve actually put a price tag on it. Which has prompted someone who says they were bullied out of a job —and who is something of an anti-bullying campaigner— to say today that they think bullying is part of New Zealand’s culture. And I agree. We like to think we’re a bunch of good sorts, but if you start to think about it for even just a minute or two, you start to realise that we are deluded on that front. And that bullying happens everywhere. Now it’s no coincidence that this report has come out today, because it’s Pink Shirt Day which is one of those annual awareness things. But, when it comes down to it, do you think everyone turning up to work and school in pink shirts and maybe having a morning tea together is going to change anything? Good on you if you are getting involved in all of this today, but I think it almost trivialises bullying. Because there will be no shortage of people today who are being bullied —in workplaces, for example— who will see people in the office running around in pink shirts and they will just know that, come Monday, it will all be back to normal. And the bullies will be back to normal transmission, and nothing will have changed. So, this report by the Human Rights Commission and KPMG says bullying in the workplace collectively costs employers $1.5 billion every year. They’ve worked it out by measuring things like people taking more time off work because of bullying, people not performing at their best because of what’s going on, higher staff turnover, and the time it takes to deal with complaints about bullying. Anti-bullying campaigner James Hilford says he was bullied out of a job and says it's rife everywhere. When I first heard what he was saying, I thought ‘oh here we go’. But then I thought about it, and he’s right. When we’re out driving, we’re bullies. Parents, at times, bully their kids. The All Blacks, we bully them endlessly. Social media. Whatsapp groups. I’d go as far as saying that we even bully ourselves. That’s how ingrained it is. You’ve got your passive aggressive types, they’re bullies. Then you’ve got the people who don’t even try to hide their bullying behaviour. I remember working somewhere once —and I wasn’t the manager— and they had a thing up on the wall recording how much money everyone was bringing into the business. That was bullying. They probably thought it was about driving performance. But it wasn’t. It was bullying. It was shaming the people who weren’t bringing-in as much revenue as some of the others. This isn’t to say, by the way, that things haven’t changed. Things have changed in terms of bullying, at least, being talked about, which is a start. But I reckon that might be as good as it gets. And we can have Pink Shirt Days until we’re blue in the face. But with bullying so ingrained in pretty much everything we do —so ingrained in our culture— I think we’re stuck with it. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John MacDonald was joined by National's Vanessa Weenink and Labour’s Duncan Webb this week for Politics Friday. They discussed the bullying culture in New Zealand, is it rife in workplaces? And does it come from the top, given the environment in Parliament? Will the Government's charter schools really be the answer to our education issues? Is the South Island being ignored when it comes to roading infrastructure? LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Things are really packing a sad at Christchurch City Holdings Limited - the commercial outfit that looks after the city’s assets such as the airport, Orion electricity, and the port company. There are others as well, but the big ones are a 75% stake in Christchurch Airport, 89% of the Orion electricity distribution company, and 100% ownership of the Lyttelton Port Company. Four directors —including the chairperson— quit suddenly yesterday, saying the relationship between CCHL and the council has broken down because the politicians are sticking their noses into things they know nothing about. And those resignations were effective immediately. So, the organisation that is responsible for $6 billion of public assets in Christchurch has no chairperson and only half the number of people that normally sit around the board table. There are four left. Two independent directors and two city councillors who represent the council. So, a real hissy fit, if you want to call it that. But I’m not surprised, and I don’t blame these people for quitting, especially when you consider why CCHL exists. It was set-up in 1993, so more than 30 years ago. And the reason it came about in the first place was to create what CCHL itself describes as “an independent non-political buffer between the Council and the companies it owns”. As it says on its website, it ensures that a commercial approach is taken to managing the Council’s companies. So, what that essentially means is Christchurch City Holdings exists to make sure that there is no political interference in the running of the council’s commercial operations, and that the companies are left to do whatever they think needs to be done to make a profit and return a dividend to the council. But those good intentions appear to have become just weasel words, especially when you consider what Abby Foote —who, as of yesterday, is the former chair of the board— says in her resignation letter. Which I'll get to. But just so you know what’s behind the four board resignations, you might remember how late last year CCHL wanted to take a long-term view and look into ways it could reduce some of the debt it’s carrying. Which some interpreted as code for selling-off some of the assets to pay down some debt. I see Abbie Foote, in her letter to the mayor, pushes back a bit on that. But I think that’s definitely what we should be doing, whether they were thinking that or not. We need to sell some of these assets because it’s crazy how much debt CCHL is carrying. It’s a truckload of debt. $2.3 billion. So CCHL wanted to clear some of that debt. But a majority of city councillors felt differently and decided just before Christmas that, instead of paying off debt —instead of even thinking about selling any of these assets— it told CCHL to forget about that and just deliver higher dividends. Essentially, to make more money. And that is what led to what happened yesterday. With Abby Foote —speaking on behalf of herself and the other three directors who have quit— saying there has been a breakdown in the relationship between CCHL’s board —and its management— and the council. And here’s one of several stingers in the letter she wrote yesterday to the mayor. She says recent decisions by city councillors in terms of the direction CCHL should be heading have “caused us to lose confidence in Council’s ability to responsibly own core strategic infrastructure”. Now I would like to think that this is something that can be fixed, but I don’t think it can. Not with this current council, anyway. The council, by the way, that voted yesterday in favour of looking further into spending ratepayer money buying or leasing the earthquake-damaged Dux de Lux pub, for goodness sake. And the question I’ve got in my head is this. Knowing how politicians can’t keep their noses out of anything, even when most of them don’t have a business bone in their body, and even when there are structures in place like we have here with an...

First we had roads of significance. Now we have roads of insignificance. And top of the list is Brougham Street, in Christchurch, with this decision by the Government to pull the plug on a $90 million upgrade of what would have to be one of the most congested and dangerous roads in the city. Because, up until yesterday, it was all-go. It was due to be underway by the end of the year and would have meant there’d be an overbridge for pedestrians and cyclists, lanes for car-pooling and buses and motorbikes, and a shared pedestrian-cycle path. And I don’t think anyone here would disagree that it’s desperately needed. Because even though, technically, it’s a road more often than not it’s a car park, isn’t it? Not that that’s a concern for the Government. You know, the government that likes to bang on about getting people moving, doing away with stupid speed limits, lifting productivity, but, at the same time, decides it’s a yeah-nah for Brougham Street. Not surprisingly, there is a lot of anger. And justifiably so. There are a few city councillors, for example, saying today that it just shows that the Government has forgotten about the South Island and is giving higher priority to North Island roads. Now, normally, I’m not one that buys into that whole North versus South thing. But, when it comes to this one, I agree. If the Government hasn’t forgotten about us, then it’s certainly turned its back on us with this decision which seems to have taken people completely by surprise. I see Labour MP Megan Woods is saying it’s a “slap in the face” for Christchurch. She’s particularly concerned about the kids going to-and-from Addington Primary School. Because, as part of the upgrade, there would have been an overbridge to get them across the road safely. She’s saying it’s not a luxury to ask for a safe crossing to get primary-aged children across a major state highway with trucks barrelling down it. And she’s right. Because Brougham Street is part of State Highway 76 and it’s a key link for freight going to-and-from the port at Lyttelton. That’s why there are so many trucks on it, let alone the cars. Guess how many vehicles go up and down Brougham Street on your average day? 45,000. That includes 4,500 freight vehicles and trucks. There is a crossing the Addington Primary School kids can use but parents are saying it’s frightening, given the volume of traffic, especially with all the trucks. So, the overbridge would have been a game changer in terms of pedestrian safety. Now, though, the kids are going to have to keep crossing the road, which the principal at Addington Primary is “hugely disappointed” by. Donna Bilas says it’s only going to get worse, and more dangerous, with increased housing density and more kids on the roll. And she’s spot-on. Another thing about this decision by the Government that people are commenting on is that, even though the upgrade itself isn’t happening this year —as it was supposed to be— it's still going to be spending $20 million on work behind the scenes to get the upgrade to what’s called “pre-implementation” stage. NZTA says it’s doing that so the upgrade can be “delivery ready” in the future “subject to affordability”. So, there you go. That’s what a $20 million sop sounds like. Because do you really think the Brougham Street upgrade is going to go anywhere anytime soon? Of course, it’s not. Which is why I agree with Megan Woods that it’s a slap in the face for Christchurch. Why I agree with the principal at Addington Primary that it’s hugely disappointing. And why I agree with a cycling advocate in the news today who is saying that the Government is focused on Auckland-centric policies at the expense of the South Island. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

People are getting very excited - not in a good way - this plan in Auckland to start charging people 24-hours-a-day, seven days a week to park their cars in the CBD. Apparently, mayor Wayne Brown isn’t even happy about it. But I don’t know why. I think it’s a great idea and I think we should be doing it in Christchurch. Now, when I say I think it’s great, I’m not saying I love paying money to park. Who does? But I think we’re getting to the point where we can’t avoid doing what Auckland is doing. And I’ll tell you why. For starters, in Christchurch, have you seen the never-ending line of people with their hands out to the council for money? Example - In the news today, we’ve got the people behind the restoration of the jetty at Governor's Bay wanting more money from the council. This is all part of the Long-Term Plan process, where councils put their budget together for the next ten years. So, today it’s the jetty people. Who else have we got wanting more money from the Council? There’s Orana Park... the Arts Centre... they’re just a couple who have turned up at the council in the past week pleading their cases for more money. Now, I could be wrong. But, I bet no one has turned up so far - and I bet no one is going to turn up at the hearings this week, either - begging the council to charge more for anything. There’s no shortage of people telling the council not to charge them 13 percent more in their rates bill. And there’s no shortage of people who think they deserve to get their hands on more council money. But, they’re all dreaming if they think more money can go out the door without more money coming in the door. This is not just a Christchurch thing. The same thing’s going on at councils everywhere. And if you want more money from the council and you don’t want to pay higher rates, then the only solution is for the council to look at ways it can get more money in the pot. One way it could do that is to follow the lead of Auckland and start charging parking fees 24-hours-a-day, seven days a week. I think Auckland Transport is being refreshingly real. And I think instead of criticising them for it, we should be doing the same thing here. So, what would be the downsides? There’d be a few. I’ll admit that. For example, if you have an apartment in town and, instead of spending $100,000 more to get your own private car park, you’ve got a place with no car park - you’d be impacted. Because there are plenty of people living in apartments in the central city who don’t have their own car parks and park out on the street overnight instead. Doesn’t cost a thing at the moment. If we did what Auckland is doing, though, they’d have to pay. But they would have other options - Monthly rentals at some of the car parking buildings are pretty reasonable. I've heard of someone paying about $180 per month. What’s that? About $6 a day. That’s for the whole 24 hours. Some people will say, too, that if they had to pay for parking at nighttime - for example - businesses would be badly affected. I don’t buy that, because I have never made a decision whether to go to a particular restaurant or bar, or a movie, or concert, based on what it might cost me to park. If someone wants to take their car into the CBD, they will pay. Whatever day and whatever time. Trust me. Yes, there would be a lot of noise about it, but that would die away and we’d have more money coming into the council coffers so that, when all these people turn up asking for money, they’d have a much more realistic chance of getting what they want. More money has to come in the door before more can go out. It’s simple. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I could be wrong. But I reckon most of us wouldn’t have done what Transpower wanted us to do to try and avoid power cuts. I could be wrong. You may have dutifully done what Transpower wanted you to do. Which was to use as little power as possible by not charging your phone and not having heaters and lights on in rooms you’re not using between 7am and 9am today. But I reckon most people would’ve either forgotten, or just thought everybody else would be doing it so they wouldn’t need to. And why’s that, do you think? Well, it’s because New Zealand is not what ACT leader David Seymour says we’re becoming with things like this warning about power cuts. He’s saying that it’s all “third world stuff”. But, I think that’s overboard. Because, if we were Third World, we would have heard that warning from Transpower last night and every one of us would’ve done exactly what they wanted us to do. Because, if we were Third World, power cuts would be a regular thing. So, as per, I think David Seymour is exaggerating, a little. As it turned out, there weren’t any power cuts. But, listening to the head of Transpower on Newstalk ZB, we were cutting things a bit fine. I won’t get into megawatt this and megawatt that - for two reasons. One: I’d be running the risk of sounding like I’m pretending to know what I’m talking about. When I don’t. So I’ll put it out there right now - I am not an electricity expert. The other reason I won’t start throwing around megawatts is because I think your eyes would glaze over faster than mine. When all we need to worry about, is that this early in the year they’re talking about power cuts and telling us not to put our phones on charge. And, even though I think David Seymour’s talk about us being Third World is nonsense, don’t think for a minute that I think this is good enough. It’s not. Because here we are just over a week into May and already we’re being told that to save power to prevent blackouts. When I heard the head of Transpower saying that this weather is unseasonably cold, I questioned that a little bit. But, I’ve looked up some of the stats, and it is a bit older than usual. Nevertheless, I don’t think that’s enough of an excuse. Because the real excuse for what’s happened, is that we have continually turned a blind eye when it comes to investing and maintaining our electricity infrastructure. Back in February, Transpower announced a plan to spend $400 million to strengthen the nationwide electricity system. Or the grid, as it’s known. They also want to spend another $100 million upgrading the Cook Strait Cable. Don't get too excited. Because, even though they announced it in February, they’re now doing the whole consultation thing with people in the energy sector. So that’ll take yonks. And, I don't know about you, but I reckon that spending $400 million strengthening the national grid and $100 million upgrading the Cook Strait Cable sounds like chicken feed. Especially, when you consider how electricity usage is expected to go through the roof over the next few years. Transpower reckons that by 2050, electricity demand or usage will have increased by 70 percent, compared to what it is now. Which is why I think Transpower is just tinkering at the edges with this $500 million it wants to spend on the grid and the cable upgrade. We are going to have to spend truckloads more than that if we are going to remotely cope with a 70 percent increase in demand for electricity. But we won’t, of course. Going by how we’ve done things up until now. Which is to under-invest and hope for the best. To under-invest and then, when things look like they might go pear-shaped, to go into panic mode and to tell us not to charge our phones and to turn the heaters and lights off. So even though I disagree with David Seymour’s view that the threat of power cuts this morning is Third World, what I will say is that it’s third rate. And we must do better. Otherwise, we will start to look a bit Third World...

John MacDonald was joined by Labour’s Megan Wood and National’s Matt Doocey to break down this week in Politics Friday. This morning’s situation with the power grid sparked a lot of chatter, are we really in a third world state as David Seymour claims? Megan Woods revealed that support for the families impacted by the mosque attack will be cut this afternoon, is this really the time? LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

David Seymour is a muppet. I bet that’s what the Prime Minister was thinking yesterday when reporters were asking him if he agreed with Seymour’s view that sushi is “woke”. The ACT leader and the Associate Education Minister made the claim about sushi after he’d announced that the Government is revamping the school lunches programme by getting back to the basics, like sandwiches and fruit, and saving about $100 million in the process. So out with the butter chicken and the hot meals, and in with the sandwiches and a piece of fruit, and I think the Government is making a big mistake. And I’ll tell you why. I think it’s making a big mistake because I’m listening to what the people who really know a thing or two about this are saying. The people at the coalface. The principals and the teachers. I saw one principal on the news last night saying it might have been useful if David Seymour had spoken to them first about what was and wasn’t working before making these changes. Another —Lianne Webb, Principal of Aorere College in Papatoetoe— says, for some students the lunch is their only meal of the day. Which kind of stops me in my tracks because I’m as old school and I tend to think that if I grew up eating luncheon roll sandwiches for lunch when I was at school, why can’t other kids? But then, on the other hand, if these lunches are the only meals some kids are getting then a sandwich and an apple at lunchtime isn’t going to cut it, is it? And I think what this all comes down to, is whether it is the job of the Government to feed kids full-stop, or just provide them with something to eat at lunchtime when they’re at school - or pre-school as well. Because that’s another change the Government is making. They’re also including some early childhood centres in the programme. So, is it a school lunch programme? Or is it a ‘make sure these kids at least get something to eat’ programme? And, in my mind, even though I’m old school and even though a hot meal might seem over the top to most of us, I think we have to listen to what the schools are saying and accept that this is more than just feeding kids at lunchtime. As for the woke sushi thing, that all started with a social media post by the ACT Party which said the Government will be doing more with less money to feed kids fruit and sandwiches, not "woke food like quinoa and sushi.” And Seymour repeated it when he was talking to journalists at Parliament. And, of course, what happened next was they all chased down the Prime Minister to see if he agreed with Seymour that sushi is woke. Christopher Luxon tried to fob them off, but it was obvious that he thought Seymour had been a muppet. Eventually, though, he gave in and told the reporters that he doesn’t think sushi and quinoa are woke. But what David Seymour is missing, when he says that the school lunch programme will be delivering the type of lunch that 75% of kids get from home, is that they’re the ones who go home after school and do have an after-school snack and do have an evening meal. The other kids don't, necessarily. And I think that’s it’s appalling the Government is turning its back on these kids - just to save a lousy $107 million. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How about this? I found myself agreeing this morning with someone who has been described as a racist dinosaur. To a point. This lefty wokester, that some people seem to think I am, actually agrees with this Kings Council lawyer who disagrees with tikanga Māori being compulsory for students doing a law degree at university from next year. I agree with someone who has been described as (quote) “a racist dinosaur who should quietly go and die in a corner”. How about that? But to a point. That’s the key bit. Gary Judd is his name. Or Gary Judd KC to be precise. And what he’s done, is he’s made a formal complaint to the Government’s Regulations Review Committee over this new requirement that’s due to come into force next year. Now, for the purposes of this discussion, the general understanding of tikanga Māori is that it’s the way of doing things within Māori society. So, it’s about principles, processes, procedures, and traditional knowledge. The customary rules which govern Māori life. Broadly, it’s what’s known as customary law. Law based on customs. As opposed to common law. Gary Judd KC says tikanga actually has nothing to do with Common Law. And Winston Peters is an instant fan, saying that forcing law students to study tikanga Māori is just what he calls "woke indoctrination". He says: “Law students should not be force-fed this kind of woke indoctrination from some culture warrior’s slanted version of what tikanga means.” Which is kind of what Gary Judd KC is saying too. Although, the complaint he’s made to the Government’s Regulations Review Committee seems to be focussed on tikanga being what he calls “a belief system” and not what he calls a "proper law subject". And because he sees it as being a belief system, he doesn’t think it’s relevant to be a compulsory element of a law degree. And I agree with him. On the compulsory bit. But I think any law student worth their salt would be an idiot to think they can ignore tikanga. Which is why I think it should be voluntary, not compulsory. And I say that because I think tikanga Māori is something of a horse that has already bolted. What I’m getting at there, is that Māori principles, processes, procedures, and traditional knowledge can’t be ignored. You might be someone who wants to ignore them. But if you’re happy living under a rock, then good luck to you. But if someone reckons they’re going to make a good fist of being a lawyer in New Zealand in the 21st century, then they can forget about landing a job at any of the big law firms if they don’t understand Māori customary law. They can forget about getting involved in environmental law. They can certainly forget about becoming an in-house lawyer at any of the government departments, or local councils. They can forget about getting involved in criminal law. That’s because Māori customary law —or tikanga— has become so entwined in our legal system. If you want a recent and very local example, here it is: Peter Ellis who was convicted for offences at the old Civic Creche, in Christchurch. In 2019, the Supreme Court allowed him to appeal his convictions but he died a few months later. Nevertheless, his sexual offending convictions were quashed after he died, because the Supreme Court considered his appeal —even though he was no longer alive— based on tikanga. Normally, a person's legal proceedings die with them. But Ellis' lawyers argued that tikanga, the customary rules which govern Māori life, was part of New Zealand's common law. Under tikanga, Ellis had the right to clear his name or re-establish his mana, even after he died. The Crown did not oppose the argument, agreeing that tikanga had a place in New Zealand law, and his name was cleared. Even though he wasn't alive to see it happen. So that’s why I think anyone wanting to be a lawyer should study tikanga Māori. But only if they want to. And I agree with Gary Judd KC who says it shouldn't be compulsory. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy...

Labour Leader Chris Hipkins joined John MacDonald for their regular catchup on Canterbury Mornings. The compulsory inclusion of tikanga Māori in law studies has ignited debate. Does Hipkins feel it has a place in our legal system? Should its study be compulsory? He was quick to make an assessment of the Government’s plan for a 'mega-prison' out at Waikeria and voice his views on Mark Mitchell being out of his depth. And finally, will he confirm what Carmel Sepuloni was up to whilst on leave? LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Don’t go thinking that I’m soft on crime or pro-criminal or anything like that. But I think this idea the Government’s got of having a mega prison as part of its investment in the Corrections Service, I think it’s an idea that sucks. What it’s doing is it’s reviving a plan to build a mega-prison in Waikato with an 810-bed extension of Waikeria Prison. Which means, all up, there will be 1,865 beds. At the moment, the prison can hold 455 inmates. In two years’ time, according to the Government, there will be another 1,400 prisoners there. The announcement itself yesterday was a bit of a shambles with the Prime Minister and the Corrections Minister both unable to clarify how much of the increased Corrections investment had already been announced by the previous government. But the main thing for me is this idea of a mega prison. As soon as I heard it yesterday, I thought of a caller we had the other week when we were talking about the Three Strikes legislation making a comeback. I remember this guy saying the answer to fixing the crime problem lies in El Salvador. And what he was talking about there was this new mega-prison they’ve built over there which sounds like a complete nightmare. There are 12,000 prisoners there. It’s got space for 40,000. The inmates aren’t allowed to have any visitors and there are no rehabilitation programmes of any sort. Essentially, if you’re a ‘lock ‘em up and throw away the key’ type, then you would love it. Not that Mark Mitchell and Christopher Luxon are talking about anything like that, of course. But I thought of that call about El Salvador when I heard them making their announcement yesterday. And even though our mega prison isn’t going to be anything like that hellhole prison in El Salvador, I don’t think it’s going to make us any safer from crime. Even though that’s what the Corrections Minister Mark Mitchell was going on about yesterday when he put out a media release with this headline: “$1.9 billion investment to keep New Zealand safe from crime”. Nonsense. It’s not going to keep us safer from crime at all. Especially this mega-prison. That’s just going to be a disaster waiting to happen. And I’ll tell you why. If you’re not familiar with Waikeria Prison, it is 16 kilometres south of Te Awamutu. So, I think we can safely say that it’s in the wops. And, right now, it can hold between 400 and 500 inmates. But you know as much as I know that, at your local prison, it’s not just local crims locked up there. Crims from all around the country are locked up at prisons all over the country. And by the time Waikeria becomes this mega-prison in two years’ time —and there’s 18-hundred crims inside— what that will mean is more prisoners further away from the people who keep them connected with the outside world. Because all 1800 of them won’t be from Te Awamutu. There’ll be 1800 bad eggs from all over the country. And most of them will have to kiss goodbye to the prospect of any visits from those people who keep them connected with the outside world - their families. Now you imagine someone isolated from their families —because of the practicalities of them living miles apart and the impracticalities of travelling to somewhere 16 kilometres south of Te Awamutu— who are they going to turn to? Easy. Their fellow prisoners. And what we’ll have is a mega-prison turning offenders into hardened criminals. I guarantee that’s what will happen. We won’t be safer from crime at all, as the Government wants us to believe. We’ll be worse off. But, you know, the politicians will be able to say they’ve delivered on all their tough-on-crime posturing. But that’ll be about it. If they were really serious about trying to reduce crime —or, in particular, increase the chances of someone not re-offending after they’ve been on the inside— they wouldn’t be building a mega-prison. If they were serious, they’d be building more, smaller prisons all around the country. Because, if they did that, we’d be...

It’s time to get nervous. Very nervous. I’m talking here about the Government’s big water announcement. It’s starting with Auckland but, right around the country, changes are on the way. Auckland is first cab off the rank because it already has an outfit separate from Auckland Council’s other operations running drinking water supply. That’s Watercare. But, once it gets the laws it needs, the Government is going to be rolling this out everywhere. And council controlled organisations - or CCOs - will do the same thing as Watercare. And the gist is that if you have a separate outfit running water, it can borrow money specifically for water. It is ringfenced. It isn’t money that disappears into the big black hole of the council coffers. It’s National’s arms-length alternative to 3 Waters. The reason I say it’s time to get nervous, is that Local Government Minister Simeon Brown was on Newstalk ZB this morning likening the Government’s water reforms to what a previous National government did with the electricity sector back in the day. For some reason, I can still remember Max Bradford standing at the lectern promising us that his power reforms were going to mean cheaper electricity for everyone. Cheaper electricity for everyone. And we all know what happened there. Which is why, when I saw Simeon Brown, and the Prime Minister and Auckland mayor Wayne Brown on the news last night banging-on about this new deal meaning lower water bill increases, it took me right back to the cheaper electricity promise. And the only reason they can promise lower increases now, is because this new thing the Government’s bringing-in is going to enable them to borrow more money specifically for water infrastructure and to take longer to pay it off. So maybe ratepayers might be slightly better off now. But not in the long run. The immediate increase in their water rates has gone from 25.8 percent to 7.2 percent under the Government’s new model, which will mean more borrowing to pay for water infrastructure and services. Which will probably be attractive to some people. For a couple of reasons. One: we are so shortsighted, aren’t we, that we only care what we’re paying right now? The other reason some people will like this, is that councils don't tend to invest properly in water infrastructure because it’s pretty much out-of-sight, out-of-mind. So ratepayer money gets spent instead on flashier stuff. The Government’s thinking is that, by allowing councils to borrow more specifically for water infrastructure and pay it back over a longer period of time, then money will get spent fixing the pipes and keeping them up-to-scratch before they start to fall apart. Either way, it will mean ratepayers burdened with more debt for longer. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Come Together tribute series continues in Christchurch this week, with a group of superstar Kiwi musicians performing The Joshua Tree. Milan Borich, lead singer of the band Pluto, joined John MacDonald on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings to talk about the show, his favourite U2 song of all time, and the intimidation of paying tribute to a band like U2 and those 'hero notes'. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.