Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Anyone over the age of 50 should be very wary of this plan National has to reduce benefit payments for people on the Jobseeker benefit longer than two years.

I’ll tell you why. But first, here’s what it wants to do to save taxpayers $572 million over four years.

A single person receiving the Jobseeker benefit would get $48 less per week after more than two years. A couple both receiving it who don’t have kids would get $82 less. While a couple with kids would get $24 less. And a sole parent on Jobseeker would also have their benefit cut by $24 a week.

National’s view is that the Jobseeker benefit is there to provide temporary support for people. That it’s a backstop.

Which, broadly, is how I see it too. I have never been on the dole or the Jobseeker benefit. And, when I lost my job at the start of Covid, signing up never actually occurred to me. I just got on with setting myself up as a sole trader to get some money in the door. And I went from there.

But that’s me. Everyone approaches things differently. And not everyone has the confidence or the skills or the wherewithal to create something themselves.

That’s not a criticism of anyone. It’s just a fact.

National, though, sees everyone being the same and having the same opportunities to find work.

Here’s how leader Christopher Luxon put it: “I am not happy to have people sitting out there on welfare when there's a massive opportunity to connect them to work. That is what we want to do.”

Which all sounds great. But here’s the kicker. Bringing me back to my warning that anyone over the age of 50 should be very wary of this idea.

Those of us over 50, like I am, know that if we find ourselves out of work, it’s going to take us way longer to find a job than someone younger than 50.

I’ll give you an example.

Sue’s her name. She has decades of experience in law and engineering.

At 63, she was out of work and putting in half a dozen job applications every day for six months, with no success. And she’s convinced it was because of her age.

In fact, she says: "I got one response. She phoned me up from Australia and asked me over the phone: 'I need to verify your age.' And when she found out what age I was, that was it."

That’s the brutal truth. And I can imagine two years disappearing very quickly for someone over 50 trying to get back into the workforce.

Not to mention someone over 60.

Like Yvonne, who has removed anything in her CV that might give away her age.

She says: “As soon as you start getting into your 50s, even in your late 40s, people start looking at you and wonder why you haven't become a manager.”

And this is why this policy of National’s has unintended consequences written all over it.

I get what its social development spokesperson, Louise Upston, means when she says the Jobseeker Benefit is supposed to provide temporary support for people.

But this idea that anything longer than two years isn’t temporary totally ignores reality. Especially for anyone over the age of 50.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week's Politics Friday Election Special focused on the Waimakariri electorate.

The candidates, Matt Doocey from National, and Dan Rosewarne from Labour, made their pitch about why they want to become the next local MP.

They discussed their backgrounds before getting into politics, and what issues face the electorate including the Woodend bypass and the Pegasus Golf Course, as they made their pitch to get elected in November.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Let kids be kids.

That’s what I thought when I read about a very successful young guy with 12 university degrees, who thinks we need to be pushing Kiwi kids harder from a younger age.

Jamie Beaton is co-founder of Crimson Education, which helps Kiwi students get into the top universities around the world.

Sir John Key is Crimson’s chairman. It’s done very well, with a capital value of $1 billion.

But I don’t like what Jamie Beaton is saying about pushing kids harder.

The way he puts it is that we need to “crank up the intensity” for kids 12 and older.

He thinks we let them cruise through school and we make it too easy for them to get into university. And, instead, we should be bringing up kids the way they do in places like Singapore.

Where kids have to compete to get into university and, from a young age, are very driven.

Jamie Beaton says: “Kids are hustling from 12, 13, 14 to study for these exams, build their leadership skills, launch different projects, do community service, and the incentives actually make the child very motivated.”

Is that really the ideal? I don’t think so.

He goes on: “I would much rather Kiwis be 12, 13 and hustling, motivated, ambitious, trying things, competing and striving, than just going to school and watching the clock hit 3:30 and going off and using TikTok.”

But here’s where I’m at. The world kids live in is stressful enough and what do you think would happen with things like anxiety levels if we went down the route Jamie Beaton is pushing for?

In an age where we’re all talking about adults having work-life balance, why on earth would we want to force our kids from the age of 12 to use every hour God sends them doing this and doing that?

Besides which, the way he’s talking, you would think there are no teenagers in this country out there doing amazing things.

There are truckloads of them. You go to any major school sporting event. Find out more about things like the Young Enterprise Scheme, where school students get to start businesses and learn all sorts of skills.

So the opportunities are there for these kids, if that’s what they want to do. But sometimes, even the really motivated kids find that they have limits and can’t keep pushing themselves.

Which is why this talk about forcing kids from the age of 12 to hustle and compete, get into university and do community service and everything else, is the last thing our young people need.

It is the complete opposite of letting kids be kids.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger says the Council’s feasibility study into a South Island NRL team must remain under wraps due to commercial sensitivity.

Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, Mauger said the numbers cannot be released until the NRL reveals its decision, but insisted ratepayer money is being spent responsibly.

"We can't go out there and start spraying around all the information that we've got together, otherwise our competitors might find out."

"It's just a business thing and we're not wasting ratepayers' money."

The NRL are expected to make their decision on the 20th NRL team before Christmas.

Mauger also discussed his views on the Government's decision to pause amalgamation plans, how the Council is tackling the Airbnb issue in Christchurch, and the incoming independent review into the potential sale of council-owned fibre company Enable.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I’ll tell you who I think came out the winner from last night’s TVNZ leaders' debate.

It was the first of four TVNZ debates and the only one involving just National’s Christopher Luxon and Labour’s Chris Hipkins.

So it was the big chance, for each to them, to convince those of us watching why they should be leading the country after November’s election.

But all I saw was the leaders of two dinosaur parties proving once again that the minor parties are where it’s at this election.

At this election and maybe for good. Remembering that combined support for Labour and National right now is at an all-time low.

These two were carrying on as if we were back in the days of first-past-the-post. When the red corner and the blue corner were pretty much our only options.

Christopher Luxon sticking to his guns over the Opportunity Party. Saying he’d made it clear from the start of the year that he’s not interested in working with them.

And probably no surprises there. Because, when Jack Tame asked him when he had last changed his mind on something, he couldn’t remember. Or didn’t want to say. He just went on about the Government sticking to its programme of work.

To give Hipkins credit, he said his support for a capital gains tax was an example of him changing his mind. Because, previously, he wasn’t a fan. Which I think was the closest he got to looking and sounding like someone living in the MMP era.

Where, if he wants to be Prime Minister, he’s going to have to change his mind on a few things. As is Christopher Luxon.

I suspect Luxon didn’t want to admit to changing his mind because he thought it might come across as a sign of weakness, or something.

But what good is a mind if you can’t change it?

Back to the debate.

While Luxon and Hipkins were banging on, there was a group of about 100 swing voters watching and rating the performance of each leader.

By the end of it, 49 percent of them said Chris Hipkins had won them over and 24 percent said Luxon had.

While 27 percent weren’t swayed either way and remained undecided.

So, on that basis. Chris Hipkins was the obvious winner. With just on half of the undecideds saying they were more likely to vote for him after what they saw last night.

And, when you consider what all the political commentators are saying, I think it’s fair to say that most of them think Hipkins was stronger than Christopher Luxon too.

But I don’t think either of them won.

I think the winner or winners last night were the minor parties. Because neither Chris Hipkins or Christopher Luxon convinced me that the major parties were worth voting for.

Which raises the question: Are these debates involving the leaders of the two so-called major parties still worth it? Do they provide any value to us voters?

On the basis of what I saw last night, I don’t think they do anymore.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you believe National’s promise to put $800 million in next year’s Budget for the Woodend Bypass project, you’ll believe anything.

All up, 11 kilometres of road, north of Christchurch. With four kilometres of the existing highway widened and the rest being the new four-lane bypass diverting traffic away from Woodend township.

National has announced that, if it’s re-elected, there will be $800 million in next year’s Budget so all of that work can begin.

But do you really believe that’s going to kick off next year if National forms the next Government? I don‘t. Because how many times has National made the same commitment? Four times.

The last time was three years ago, ahead of the 2023 election. But it didn’t deliver. And anyone who thinks it’s going to be different this time, is dreaming.

Which is why I think we’d be much better off if we handed-over big infrastructure decisions to an independent outfit like the Infrastructure Commission and left the politicians out of it.

Because, if all we get is promise after promise with nothing to show, why bother?

Although, as National’s Waimakariri MP Matt Doocey would point out, NZTA has already approved $127 million and land has been bought and initial work has been done.

I can just hear Matt Doocey saying, “If that isn’t a sign of commitment, I don’t know what is”.

But, as we know, Governments blow money on infrastructure projects that go nowhere all the time.

Example: the $50 million Labour poured into the Auckland Harbour Bridge bike lane project. All that money and nothing to show for it.

Which is why I don’t share Matt Doocey’s view that the money spent so far on the Woodend project is some sort of guarantee that it’s going to happen.

It’s also why I agree with Labour’s position on the Woodend Bypass and other big projects. Saying it won’t commit to it and that the independent Infrastructure Commission should decide which projects get funding.

Not that Labour has a record of infrastructure delivery to be proud of.

Nevertheless, I agree that politicians need to stop using infrastructure projects like the Woodend Bypass as election sweeteners.

Taking him on his word, that means, if he was in charge, it would be the Infrastructure Commission deciding whether the Woodend Bypass is even needed.

How much better does that sound? Compared to what we have at the moment, where politicians trot out all sorts of pre-election infrastructure promises, but don’t deliver.

Just like the promises time-and-time again to build the bypass at Woodend. Promises that go nowhere.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I want to like the ACT Party’s KiwiSaver policy, but I can’t.

I’ll tell you why shortly.

But, what it wants to do, is to stop charging us tax on our KiwiSaver earnings.

It also wants to do away with the government contribution for people whose employers pay into their KiwiSaver scheme. Which, after a change by the current government, is $260-a-year maximum.

It was $520 or thereabouts. So, it’s half what it used to be. ACT wants to do away with it altogether.

And, in exchange, not tax us for the money we earn.

An example leader David Seymour gives, to demonstrate how much better off we would be, is a 20-year-old builder earning $60,000-a-year.

David Seymour says that builder would be nearly $210,000 better off by the time they turn 65 under ACT’s policy.

And, when you hear that, it’s very easy to think it all sounds about right, so why wouldn’t you?

Because I know that I would most likely be better off long-term under Seymour’s plan. Because the $260-a-year from the government doesn’t make a huge difference for me.

And not paying tax on my KiwiSaver earnings would be brilliant.

But, if I think beyond my own situation, I can see there would be plenty of people who wouldn't be better off.

A few examples: the person on a low income who doesn’t and will never have a big KiwiSaver balance. A woman who leaves the workforce to have a family and whose KiwiSaver balance suffers, as a result. And the people who, for whatever reason, don’t get into KiwiSaver until later in the piece.

They’re the people who benefit most from the government contributions.

Tell that to David Seymour, though, who is saying: “Other parties want to force your money into KiwiSaver, then tax you. ACT says it should be your choice. But, if you save for the future, we will let you get the full benefit of compounding returns instead of taxing you every step of the way.”

Which sounds great, if you’re one of those people David Seymour is talking about.

In a roundabout way, I’m one of them. I know that I would be better off under this policy. But I also know a lot of other people wouldn’t. That’s why I don’t like it.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How do you feel about 16 and 17-year-olds voting?

I’m all for it. Labour leader Chris Hipkins is, too.

Although, I’d go further than what he’s talking about.

He’s announced that, if Labour forms the next government, it will allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in local body elections.

But, if you’re going to do that, why not let them vote in general elections too?

Make It 16, the group that’s been campaigning for youth voting rights, is pretty pleased with Labour. It says allowing young people to vote would strengthen democracy.

And I couldn’t agree more.

The reason Labour isn’t going as far as I think it should, is because changing the voting age for general elections can only happen if it’s supported by 75 percent of the MPs in Parliament.

But it should happen.

Especially, when you consider the Supreme Court ruling back in 2022 which said that not letting 16 and 17-year-olds vote in New Zealand breaches the Bill of Rights.

But, for whatever reason, some people think 16 and 17-year-olds couldn’t possibly be trusted with this burden of responsibility that is voting. Very serious business. Not for kids.

They’re probably the same people who think 16 and 17-year-olds who commit crimes should face the same consequences as older criminals.

Because you hear that all the time, don't you? When a 16-year-old does something like ram-raiding a shop or stealing a car, people bang on about them being old enough to know that what they did was wrong and how they made the decision to do whatever they did.

But then, if we talk about voting, suddenly 16-year-olds have got no idea. Not capable of making decisions on their own, too young, no life experience blah blah blah.

The thing is, if we give young people voting rights, it will only be the ones interested enough to vote who will vote.

And, dare I say it, I think some of these younger people would be way more informed than some of us older voters.

Because, potentially, the younger you are, the more likely you are to support candidates who are prepared to take the long view and not just dish out lollies for gullible voters.

In my experience, the 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds of today are so much more advanced in their ability to think more broadly about the world around them, than I ever was at their age.

Which is where I think the problem lies in terms of convincing a lot of us that someone who is 16 has the capacity to choose who to vote for.

Because, naturally, we think back to what we were like when we were their age. And a lot of us probably think we wouldn’t have had a clue back then and assume the teenagers of today are no different.

But they are very different. And that’s why I have no problem with them voting.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The first Politics Friday Election Special focused on Christchurch Central.

The candidates, Dale Stephens from National, and George Hampton from Labour, made their pitch about why they want to become the next Christchurch Central MP.

They discussed what can be done with the Airbnb's in the CBD, the cost of living, homelessness in the city, and how to revive Cathedral Square.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When you vote in November’s election, are you going to be voting for a party or are you going to be voting for a coalition?

According to Harry Mowbray, father of the Mowbray billionaires, you should be voting for the coalition you want running the place.

As he puts it on the website he’s set up, there’s an opportunity in this year’s election to change the make-up of Parliament and have a centre-right coalition governing the country for what he calls “the foreseeable future”.

But he says that can only happen if people vote strategically. He says MMP has come of age and, instead of voting for individual parties, we need to vote for the coalition we want.

You’re not going to get me involved in this strategic voting nonsense. Because that’s what it is. I’ll explain why.

But the obvious example of strategic voting that fits Harry Mowbray’s interests would be people voting to get the National/ACT/NZ First coalition back in government.

A so-called strategic vote would be voting for National in your electorate and voting ACT or NZ First with your party vote. And then, if National got more electorate seats than their party vote result entitled them to, they’d have more MPs and there’d be the overhang.

Where there are more than the standard 120 MPs in Parliament.

But, as Sir John Key pointed out at the National Party campaign launch, that could mean people from minor parties that no one’s ever heard of ending up in government.

And senior MPs such as Nicola Willis and Gerry Brownlee being out of Parliament, because they’re list-only.

The thing that puts me off this so-called strategic voting is that it’s not strategic at all, for several reasons.

For it to be strategic, all voters wanting a similar outcome would have to be in tune with each other.

For example: you might want a centre-right coalition back in government. But do you want it to be National-led or not?

Or would you rather see NZ First or ACT have more sway?

The other reason you won’t get me voting strategically to try and get a particular coalition is that, with MMP, voting is just the start.

We get the results and then the horse trading begins. You imagine someone thinking they were voting strategically back in 2017, wanting a National/NZ First coalition.

The numbers on the night made it look as if they were going to get what they voted for. But then Winston Peters announced he was going with Labour. There’s your strategic vote wasted.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.