Is it time to have a re-think about what’s done with the residential red zone on the east side of Christchurch?

I think it’s fair to say that mayor Phil Mauger thinks so. And so do I.

Phil’s saying today that he wants to see red zone land used for housing as soon as possible. With the first cab off the rank being land on the edge of the area already zoned for it.

This includes land the city council is going to lease to a housing trust so it can provide affordable housing on the east side of town. Ten hectares is already zoned for housing and another 24 hectares is earmarked for trial housing areas.

But, with a total area of about 600-hectares all up, why stop there?

I reckon that, rather than nibble around the edges, we should have a proper technical investigation to find out whether much more of the red zone land could be used.

At a time when we have more and more housing developments chewing up more and more land, shouldn’t we be opening our minds to the possibility that some - if not all - of that red zone land could be a better option?

I think so. But it would require a serious commitment and some serious expenditure. Because it would involve some pretty intense investigative work.

But when you think about when that area was declared a red zone, that was at a time when the land was still moving with all the aftershocks and when it probably just seemed easier to move everyone out and to think about what to do with it afterwards.

The thinking was done and, at that point, it was determined that the last thing to do with that area was to put more houses on it.

Which I think most of us were willing to accept at the time.

But it does seem strange that we are supposed to be behoven forever to decisions made more than a dozen years ago.

When not only time has moved on, but so too has our technical capabilities.

I’m no expert in any of the areas that would need to be factored-in to any decision to have more housing in the red zone, so I’m not demanding that houses be built there tomorrow. But Phil Mauger’s comments have got me thinking.

If we did go ahead with what I’m talking about, there’d be no guarantee that the outcome would be any different to what it was after the quakes. But what’s wrong with opening our minds to the possibility?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It’s taken 46 years and we’ve still managed to stuff up the decision as to where to have a memorial for the 257 people who died in the Mt Erebus air disaster. 

It was 46 years ago today when the Air NZ DC-10, flight TE901, ploughed into the side of Mt Erebus.  

And, yes, nice job making the memorial announcement in time for the anniversary, but Cracroft Reserve in Christchurch is not where it should be. In fact, it shouldn’t be in Christchurch full-stop. It should be in Auckland.  

I’m not the only one who thinks so. I’ll get to that.   

But I will never forget the night of the Erebus crash – if you were around at the time, you probably won’t either. I was 11-and-a-half, and I remember being allowed to stay up late and listen to the 10 o’clock news on the radio.  

I went off to bed afterwards knowing it wasn’t good. And it seemed that everyone knew someone who was either on that plane or knew someone who lost someone close to them on that plane. A mate of dad’s lost his wife.  

Simone Bennett was one of those people affected directly. She lost her father. He was one of the 257 people on board who died – 237 passengers and 20 crew.  

She is furious that the memorial is going to be built in Christchurch. She says she’s furious and disgusted because she lives in Auckland and she can’t believe the memorial is going to be so far away. 

I get that and good on her for calling out the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, because it feels to me like they have just given up on Auckland and gone for the next best location. 

You’ll probably remember the stoush when they wanted to build the memorial at Dove Meyer Robinson Park in Parnell, in Auckland. But there was major push-back on that one.  

The anti-brigade claimed that it would “change the tone of the gardens”. They eventually got their way when the cyclone went through Auckland and made the site at the gardens in Parnell unsafe to build on. 

After that, 50 different sites in the greater Auckland area were looked at but none were considered suitable. Hence, it ending up in Christchurch.  

Not everyone is unhappy with the decision though. Andrew McKeen is president of the Airline Pilots' Association. He’s not only thrilled it’s finally going to happen, he also thinks Christchurch is a good spot for it.  

He’s saying: “Christchurch serves as New Zealand's gateway to Antarctica and was the intended stopover point for TE901's return to Auckland."  

Which it was. I remember someone telling me once about all the airport staff waiting for the plane to land in Christchurch 46 years ago tonight. I get the connection to Antarctica with the Antarctic programme being based in Christchurch. 

But the Air New Zealand headquarters is in Auckland and that’s where the memorial should be. The majority of family members live there too.  

And I’m conscious that there could be someone reading this right now who was affected by Erebus in the most direct way and who may very well think Christchurch is a good choice.  

But I don’t. Simone Bennett, who I mentioned earlier, doesn’t either. But what about you? 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How interested are you in the quality of your drinking water?

For example, would you like to be able to look up your address and get credible, reliable information from an official source about the nitrate levels in the water coming through your taps?

I would. Because I just don’t know whether to believe some of the alarming stuff that’s been coming out of Greenpeace this week about the nitrate situation or not.

Let’s bring in Associate Professor Tim Chambers from the University of Canterbury - who is saying today that it is a government responsibility to provide up-to-date information on nitrates in the water.

He’s been involved in a large study looking into the link between nitrates and premature births, which has compared birth records with nitrate levels in drinking water supplies where these kids have been born.

He can’t say too much about the findings because they’re still being peer-reviewed. But he is saying that we deserve to know more.

He says: “We have advocated for this for a long time. Lots of other countries do this. You can type in your address and it takes you to the supply you’re on and the latest readings.”

I think this would be a brilliant thing to do here. In fact, I think it’s an essential thing to do here with all the noise - and, potentially, exaggeration - that’s coming from Greenpeace.

Or is it an exaggeration? If it is exaggerated, then we deserve better access to information.

Here’s one example of what Greenpeace has been saying this week. It says it’s tested 110 water samples and has found that the Darfield water supply is above the levels that are considered safe for pregnant women.

“Absolutely unacceptable,” is what one of its campaigners is saying about that.

If it’s true, I’d agree. But I heard about someone who had their water tested by an independent lab and it was fine. But their neighbour had Greenpeace test theirs and the levels were through the roof, apparently.

This is why I think the Government and councils are obliged to give us free and open access to data. Because we are at risk of being unnecessarily spooked by scaremongering by the likes of Greenpeace. At the same time, we’re also at risk of being misled by councils telling us that everything’s fine and there’s nothing to see here.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You know how at work you can get people leaving and, instead of hiring new people, they just dish out the work to other people?

Then it gets to the point where the other people look up and realise they’re overworked, overloaded, and burnt out. 

I wonder if that’s how mayors around the country are feeling about the prospect of them not only running their own councils but taking over their local regional council, as well. 

That’s what the Government is proposing, with the ultimate aim of pretty much getting rid of regional councils as we know them. 

Which I think is the wrong way of going about it. I think the Government should instead be focussing on all the other councils we’ve got. We have 67 local authorities in New Zealand. So work on having less city and district councils because that’s where the genuine overlap and duplication happens. 

But the Government sees this as an easier sell. I know that from hearing Local Government Minister Chris Bishop say that people have got no idea what regional councils do, so let’s get rid of them. 

I think it would be very easy for me to fall into the trap of cheering the Government on on this front because —trust me— I’m in no doubt that we have too many local councils. But I’m not cheering on this proposal because, in the long run, I don’t think it’s going to mean much. 

If it was me telling the Government what should happen, I’d be saying unitary authorities are the way to go, which are basically councils that are regional councils and city or district councils all rolled into one. 

Because why does somewhere the size of Timaru, for example, have two councils? The district council and the regional council. It shouldn’t. 

That’s why I think the Government is all a bit backside-about-face on this one and should be focussing on us having less of the smaller councils and keeping the regional councils. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christchurch City Council's been selected to act as a one-stop consenting authority for large-scale supermarket developments. 

Finance Minister Nicola Willis says it's the latest step in the Government plan to make New Zealand attractive for new operators. 

She says developers previously had to navigate up to 66 different councils, processes and responses. 

Willis says the aim is to boost competition in a sector dominated by Foodstuffs and Woolworths by letting new entrants deal with just one authority. 

Business Canterbury CEO Leeann Watson told John MacDonald that the intention of having a one-stop shop regardless of the number of sites you’re operating on is sound. 

She says that they’ve heard from businesses who operate across multiple sites that there’s a real inconsistency across the local authorities, which can be incredibly painful to deal with.  

But, Watson says, whether or not this plan creates the right incentives is still yet to be seen.  

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour Leader Chris Hipkins says he's not clear what the Government's aiming for in its plans to change local government.

It's proposing replacing the country's 11 regional councils with boards made up of local mayors.

Hipkins agrees there's an obvious need for change.

But he told John MacDonald he thinks this looks like an attempt to make councils amalgamate.

Hipkins says if that's what they wanted, they should have told councils to go away and amalgamate.

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This move by the Government to change who is ultimately liable for repairs to defective building work on new houses up to three-storeys high and renovation jobs worth more than $100,000 makes me very nervous.  

At the moment, all parties involved in a project are jointly liable for any defects and repairs.  

Which means, sometimes, if one of them can’t pay or if they’ve all gone under since the work was done, the local council that consented the work ends up carrying the cost to fix things up. 

The Government doesn’t want that falling on ratepayers anymore, so it’s making changes. But I think it runs the risk of homeowners being thrown to the wolves when things go wrong. 

So what’s happening is that if you’re building a new house or getting a decent-sized reno done, you’re going to have to buy a warranty which must include a one-year defect repair period and a 10-year structural warranty. 

Which all sounds great. But as Carl Taylor, who is chief executive of the Combined Building Supplies Co-op says, there aren’t enough warranty providers in New Zealand. There are two connected to the trades and one independent.   

And he’s not so sure about our chance of more options becoming available in New Zealand. 

In theory, the benefit of these changes is that it will mean people responsible for the problems will be the ones who carry the can instead of everyone who worked on the project. And instead of ratepayers if things really go pear-shaped. 

But here’s where I see there being big problems. Let’s say there’s an issue with water tightness and that falls on the builder who did the cladding and the flashings – what if that builder isn’t around anymore? 

If the builder isn’t around anymore, none of the other parties involved in the new build or the reno are going to be liable under these changes, and with the local council no longer the backstop, where does that leave the homeowner? 

It leaves them in the lurch. 

I remember a few months back talking with someone about the experience they had getting a house built and what happened when the builder went under.  

Someone else has been in touch with us today saying that they had a certified builders guarantee for a new build after the quakes, but the scheme went bust and now they have no cover for any of the problems that have emerged.  

How can you make homeowners buy warranties which may not even be worth the paper they’re written on. and, at the same time, limit the backstop options available to them? 

There is no way councils should be completely out of the picture because, even though it costs ratepayers, it’s way better than nothing.  

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I’m with the KiwiSaver providers who are saying we need to go further than just increasing contributions and we need to make them compulsory.

This is after the announcement by the National Party yesterday that one of its election policies next year will be increasing contributions to 12 percent (6 percent from employers and 6 percent from employees) by 2032, to bring us into line with Australia.

KiwiSaver providers are saying today that they’re liking the policy - but the calls are already coming for it to be made compulsory.

Across the Tasman, it’s compulsory for employers to contribute - but not for workers.

National says it’s not in favour of making any contributions compulsory. NZ First is, though.

So does Sam Stubbs, who is managing director of Simplicity.

He’s saying that it has to be compulsory because we have to make sure everybody is saving for their retirement while they're working. And the only way to do that is to make it compulsory. Who can argue with that?

He says: "Those people who aren't saving into KiwiSaver are going to be much worse off later on in life. So if we want to remove inequality in New Zealand, and we don't like inequality in New Zealand, we have to make sure that everybody is saving for their retirement while they're earning.”

Compulsory KiwiSaver contributions are also going to be essential with any changes to the contribution rates, as National is proposing. Because some people who are paying three percent now won‘t want to pay six percent and so they’ll pull out.

And the only way to stop that, is to make it compulsory.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour says the Government shouldn't be celebrating record high prisoner numbers.  

Earlier this week Prime Minister Christopher Luxon declared it was a good thing the prison population was nearing 11 thousand people.  

The Government is also celebrating a reduction by 38 thousand in the number of victims of violent crime since it came into power.  

Labour's Duncan Webb told John MacDonald that while locking people up may provide short term relief, it doesn't last.  

He says they eventually get out and will cause more harm unless they've been rehabilitated. 

National’s Matt Doocey told MacDonald that he disagrees with Webb framing the situation as locking them up, but not fixing anything. 

He says you can actually do both, and there is a duty to ensure there are rehabilitation programmes for incarcerated individuals. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For me, one of the best things to come out of yesterday’s announcement about the Cook Strait ferries has nothing to do with the ferries themselves. 

There’s still a bit of smoke and mirrors about the numbers and what it’s going to end up costing.  

Because what it still comes down to is that the Government poured $671 million down the drain when the Finance Minister pulled the plug on funding for the old ferry project. Which some —Nicola Willis included— thought was too Flash Harry with too many bells and whistles. 

They were, generally, the bells and whistles for the portside infrastructure. That’s where the concerns about the cost blow-outs came from. And that’s the side of it that could still blow out. Nevertheless, Rail Minister Winston Peters says it’s still a better deal. Even though it’s going to mean we get smaller ships, lower spec portside facilities, years later than planned. 

Nevertheless, I really like what he’s saying about the Government getting the experts in to provide advice and guidance from the get-go. And I want to see a lot more of this from the current government and future governments.  

Because one thing that’s always got me about politicians is how they can end up in government and find themselves in Cabinet and be put in charge of things they have absolutely no clue about.  

And politicians being politicians, full of ego and bluster, they plod along faking it and hoping they make it – without asking people who actually know stuff for help.  

We saw this with the last government when Jacinda Ardern invited senior business leaders to give their input into the COVID response planning, but they were left feeling ignored. I remember people like former Air NZ boss Rob Fyfe talking about it and how frustrating it was. 

But if this ferry project is back on track because the Government has actually asked people who know what they’re on about for advice and guidance and has actually listened, then that has to be a good thing.   

And I think politicians need to get out of the way more often and let experts have more of a say on big infrastructure projects, if it means things being done more efficiently and without the kind of cost blowouts that now seem to be par for the course.  

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.