Sometimes I think the Prime Minister runs her Cabinet like those cowboys who set themselves up as building companies after the Christchurch earthquakes. 
I remember one of them started work on a house and the first thing they did was fix up the damaged wall linings before jacking up the piles and fixing the foundations. 
The idea behind that was to keep all the workers busy. The fact that fixing split gib wasn’t a priority and definitely not the thing to be doing before trying to get the house level didn’t matter – it was all about keeping people busy. 
And time and time again, that’s how the Prime Minister appears to be running things. 
There are many examples. Getting rid of health boards and restructuring the health system during a pandemic. Not a priority. 
Seizing all the water infrastructure assets from 67 local councils because one of them stuffed things up a few years ago. Not a priority. 
Merging two public media companies when both seem to be running ok. Not a priority.  
The latest one came yesterday when the Government announced it wants to set-up a buy-back scheme for empty bottles. 
When I first heard about it, I thought, ‘nice idea’, and it reminded me of when I was a kid. 
But the more I thought about it, the more I realised that it just seemed to be another one of those things the Prime Minister does to keep Cabinet Ministers busy. Just like someone running a crew of tradies. 
I mean, after a week of the Government being goaded by anyone and everyone to admit there is a “cost-of-living crisis” – which National has been talking about at length since Christopher Luxon’s State of the Nation speech – is a bottle buy-back scheme really what the country needs to hear about from the Government? 
I’m happy for you to correct me, but I suspect it’s the last thing people are interested in hearing. And that’s why I think the Government has shown yet again that its priorities are way out of touch with reality. 
Don’t think for a minute that I’m anti recycling. I’m not. And, as I say, when I first heard about this scheme, I thought it was a good thing. Because anything that means fewer recyclables going into landfills has to be good. 
But is it a priority for the Government? Is it really a priority? I don’t think it is.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by Labour's Megan Woods and National's Gerry Brownlee.  
MacDonald pressed the question as to whether there was a cost of living crisis in New Zealand, if our sanctions against Russia were enough of a statement to Putin and if there is a plan for our Omicron response given what is happening in Victoria at the moment with a new strain on the rise. 
He also sought their reaction to last night's One News Kantar political poll results. 
LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I was reading something in the news this morning and I realised it was another one of those stories that don’t explicitly say it, but they imply that I should be outraged. 
It was a piece online about the AJ Hackett company - the outfit that began here in New Zealand with a bungy jump in Queenstown and has since gone global with operations all over the show. 
One of the countries it operates in is Russia, and the gist of the story I saw this morning is that the company intends to keep operating there. 
The headline said: “AJ Hackett International plans to keep operations in Russia”. But what it was actually saying was: “AJ Hackett International not pulling out of Russia”. See what I mean? 
Now since Vladimir Putin began his appalling invasion of Ukraine - and it is appalling - we’ve seen company after company falling over themselves to show solidarity with Ukraine. And to do that, they’ve been shutting the doors on their operations in Russia. 
New Zealand company Mainfreight did it this week. Joining the likes of Coca-Cola, Apple, Netflix, Shell, Visa, Mastercard, KPMG…one list I saw had 124 companies on it. All the big names. All pulling out of Russia. 
Mainfreight didn’t get a mention on this list, by the way - not that I was expecting to see it. 
But back to the story I saw this morning about AJ Hackett Bungy, saying it had no plans to pull out of Russia, which got me thinking whether shutting up shop in Russia is just becoming the “done thing”, as opposed to being the “right thing”. 
I think companies are doing it largely because it’s become the “done thing”. But is it the right thing? 
The reason I say that is because how many of these companies have thought about the impact their decisions are having on the citizens of Russia? The people who work for them and who depend on them for a living. 
All of these people had nothing to do with the decision to invade Ukraine. Some of them will be supporting it, some of them will be opposed to it. 
But they’re not the villain here. But they’re the ones who stand to lose the most from these companies pulling out. 
And so that’s why I wasn’t appalled when I read that AJ Hackett plans to keep operating in Russia. Because, without wanting to sound too cynical, I think some of these outfits pulling out are doing it to protect their brand as much as anything. 
That’s how things work these days. Brands, companies, businesses - whatever you want to call them - are terrified of being associated with anything that could harm their reputations. 
And so you can see why they’re pulling out of Russia in their droves. 
That’s brand association. Just like sponsors pulling out of TV shows or radio shows if things get a bit controversial. Brand association. You don’t want to be associated with negative stuff, just the positive stuff. 
It has become just as important - if not more important - than brand awareness. 
And that’s why we need to ask: Are these companies pulling out of Russia doing it because they don’t see much of a market in Russia anymore? 
Or are they doing it because, down the track, they don’t want to be labelled ‘the outfit that stuck with Putin.’ 
Well, with 150-odd million people in Russia, there’s still a market there. So that’s not the reason. 
The reason they’re doing it, is that they don’t want to be seen to be supporting Putin by sticking around. They’re doing it for themselves. They’re certainly not doing it for the Russian people. 
This headline in the New York Times puts it brilliantly. “Putin’s getting sanctioned but Russia’s getting cancelled”. 
Another way of putting it is Putin’s getting punished, but the Russian people are paying the penalty.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Prime Minister either has her head in the sand, or she is completely out of touch with what life is like for most New Zealanders. 
I’m not giving her the benefit of the doubt. I think her head is well and truly in the sand. 
And I’m starting to get really brassed off about it. This ongoing state of denial when it comes to the cost of living in this country. 
National Party leader Christopher Luxon called it the “cost-of-living crisis” in his state of the nation speech the other day – and it’s what you and I are living with on a daily basis, aren’t we? 
And when I saw that the Prime Minister still can’t bring herself to acknowledge it and say “yes, we are in a crisis situation”, that a lot of New Zealanders are really struggling at the moment, I was dismayed.    
You would think, wouldn’t you, that the leader of the Labour Party – of all people – wouldn’t shy away from the fact that more and more people are moving onto struggle street here in New Zealand. 
Petrol either side of $3 a litre (depending where you are and where you get your petrol), grocery bills through the roof, food banks unable to keep-up with demand. 
But maybe it’s all ideology and no idea with the Labour Party these days. Because that’s the impression I’m getting from the Prime Minister at the moment.  
And, I tell you what, she needs to get her head out of the sand quick smart because – at a time like this – the last thing we need is a government playing politics which, most of the time, is all about denying the bad stuff and rabbiting on about the positive stuff. 
It’s not like we haven’t seen it before, though. Let me take you back to 2016, when John Key was Prime Minister. 
Back then, Key – and everyone else in the National-led government – were falling over themselves to avoid admitting there was any sort of housing crisis. Remember that? 
I remember Key denying it. I remember Bill English denying it. I remember Steven Joyce denying it. I remember all of them denying it – for years. 
The closest that National-led government ever came to admitting there was a crisis, was saying that housing affordability was a “challenge”.  
And, at the time, Labour ripped into them for being in la-la land and not admitting that housing affordability and supply was a major, major problem. 
Which is all a bit rich now, isn’t it, with this Labour government doing exactly what it criticised National for doing back in 2016. 
Six years ago, John Key was saying housing affordability was “a challenge” and refusing to say there was a housing crisis.  
Today, Jacinda Ardern is saying she’s “hugely concerned” about petrol prices but refusing to acknowledge the existence of a cost-of-living crisis. 
Well, it’s not just fuel prices that are hugely concerning. The price of cheese is hugely concerning. The price of cauliflower is hugely concerning. The price of electricity is hugely concerning. The price of renting is hugely concerning. 
The Prime Minister cannot continue to pretend that this doesn't add up to a cost-of-living crisis.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I’m going to start with a disclaimer. 
Because you know when someone rings me up and says something and I ask them how they know that or what proof they have? Well, on this one, I have no technical proof. 
Nevertheless, I reckon it’s pretty safe to say that most people isolating at home at the moment don’t have Covid. 
And they’re only isolating because someone they live with has it. 
So, they’re stuck at home for 10 days, some of them probably driving each other mad, for no good reason other than they “might” catch something. Which is ludicrous, isn’t it? 
And I hope that sometime this week, the Government comes to its senses and also realises that it’s ludicrous and makes some significant changes. 
Apparently, it’s considering advice from experts on this. My advice would be cut the isolation period for household contacts in half – make it five days. 
That’s what they’re now doing in England. They made the change late last month. 
In fact, over there they’ve gone the whole hog and there is no legal requirement for people to self-isolate – whether they’ve got Covid or just a household contact. 
But they are encouraging people with Covid and household contacts to self-isolate for five days. And only stay at home longer than that, if they test positive.  
Now with the current Omicron outbreak here, I don’t think we’re ready to ditch self-isolation outright – particularly for people who have it. 
But I do think requiring people to isolate for 10 days just because they live with someone who has Covid, well it’s just stupid. 
When you think about it, it’s actually the complete opposite of a lockdown. Last year and the year before, we were all locked down to keep us separated from people with Covid. 
Now, we’re being told to lock ourselves up for 10 days with someone who has Covid. 
Unless, of course, you’re a healthcare worker, because the Government has just announced that even if you’ve got Covid, you can still go to work after six days. 
Which has politics written all over it, doesn’t it? Because hospitals struggling to cope because too many staff are stuck at home, is the last thing the Government wants to be trying to defend, isn’t it?  
So that’s why it’s now saying that healthcare workers are off the hook in terms of isolating for 10 days. 
Well, if it’s good enough for nurses, why isn’t it good enough for everyone else? 
I bet if we had Chris Hipkins on the show this morning and we asked him about this, he’d rabbit on about calculated risk and the different environment we’re living in now that it’s the Omicron variant we’re dealing with. 
And I’d ask him, “well why can’t we make the same rules for everyone else?” 
And he’d say: "ummmm, arrghhhh, ummmm..." 
It makes no sense to be locking people up for 10 days. Especially when they don’t have Covid. 
The disruption it is causing is significant and unnecessary. Schools are struggling – because it’s not just the kids isolating, it’s the teachers too. 
Businesses are struggling. I went past a place yesterday that had a sign up saying it was closed because too many staff were in isolation.  
And I bet most of them are isolating for 10 days not because they have Covid, but because they live with someone who has it. 
It’s absolute nuts, and that’s why I think it can’t go on. If people are going to be expected to isolate because someone in the house has Covid, then make it sensible, and cut it down to five days.  
Ten days is way too long.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you go to the supermarket today, don’t waste your time asking to see the manager or the owner.  
Because they’ll be tucked away in the office upstairs, poring through the Commerce Commission’s final report on the way supermarkets are run here in New Zealand. 
After more than a year of working on it, the Commission has just released its recommendations on how supermarkets could be made to be more competitive so that we pay less for our groceries. 
They are just recommendations, and it will be up to the Government to decide whether it wants to implement any of them. 
Some of the things the Commerce Commission has looked into include: 
- The level of competition between supermarkets. 
- What supermarkets charge and how they set their prices. 
- Which supermarkets do we buy our groceries from and who supplies those supermarkets? 
- How supermarkets deal with their suppliers (the outfits that make the products, the farmers etc). 
- The level of competition between suppliers. 
- The levels of service, product ranges and the quality of groceries. 
The review itself is something Labour promised before the last election. It also promised a review of fuel prices. Don’t laugh. 
When Jacinda Ardern made the pre-election promise to look into the way supermarkets operate, she said: “We want to ensure the cost of living in New Zealand is fair”. 
Yesterday, she pushed back on National Party leader Christopher Luxon’s claim that we have a “cost of living crisis” here in New Zealand. 
So, I’m not sure what that says about the Prime Minister’s appetite for taking on some or any of the Commerce Commission’s final recommendations. 
They follow draft recommendations the Commission put out in July last year. Back then, it said the main problem was the lack of competition – with just two companies having control over the market: Foodstuffs (which owns Pak n Save, New World and Four Square) and Woolworths New Zealand (which owns Countdown). 
It said these two companies avoid competing with each other in price and seem to be making a lot more profits than supermarket companies around the world. 
My reading of that, at the time, was that the Commerce Commission thought the supermarket chains were working with each other so they could get away with charging customers as much as possible. 
And it appears that that is still the view of the Commerce Commission.  
It’s saying again today that competition isn’t working for consumers and has proposed a number of changes to increase competition which, it thinks, will end up with us paying less at the supermarket check-out.  
Remember, they're only recommendations – it’s going to be up to the Government whether it does anything. 
The Commerce Commission wants more competition – real competition. It says more land should be made available for other supermarket operators to set up shop. So, it’s telling the supermarkets they’re not to hold on to land just so a competitor can’t set up across the road. 
It says we need a mandatory code of conduct for supermarkets, to make sure they’re fair and reasonable when they deal with suppliers. In layperson’s terms, the Commission's telling supermarkets to stop bullying suppliers to drop their prices and not sign contracts with other retailers. 
It also thinks supermarkets need to be more upfront with their pricing and promotional activities, and easy-to-understand loyalty programs. 
So, if implemented, will these recommendations make any difference? 
I think more supermarket companies operating here would definitely make a difference. I also think a code of conduct to try and stop the supermarket companies from being bullying their suppliers is a must-have. 
Or will this just be like the Government's fuel price review, and will we still be paying through the nose at the supermarket check-out in a year’s time?

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National Party leader Christopher Luxon says we have a cost-of-living crisis on our hands 
I’ll bet 95 percent of us didn’t need his State of the Nation speech yesterday to tell us that. Of course, we do! 
When you’re standing at the supermarket humming and harring over whether you should buy mince or not – because it’s close to $10 a tray – you know you’ve got a cost-of-living crisis. 
The same when you’re looking at paying $7 for a cauliflower. Or somewhere around $3 a litre for petrol. Cost-of-living crisis. 
And, if we can, we just have to suck it up, don’t we? Well, Christopher Luxon thinks the answer is to have us all pay less tax. 
He says inflation is at a 30-year high as costs for necessities such as food, petrol and housing all increase. He says “the average Kiwi family” – whatever that is – is worse off than they were 12 months ago. 
He thinks the current Labour government needs to do something about it, by reducing taxes. And if it doesn’t, National will – if it becomes the government at next year’s election. 
Now, I don’t think tax cuts are the answer. Simply for the reason that I think the consequences far outweigh the benefits.  
Here’s what I mean. If you earn say $70,000 a year, you’d pay about $1,000 less tax a year if Christopher Luxon got his way. So, you’d have about $20 more in your pocket each week. 
What’s that? A block of cheese and a cauliflower? It’s peanuts, really. And when you compare that to the government’s reduced tax take, its reduced revenue, I don’t think it’s worth it. 
At a time when so many of us are banging on about the failure to invest properly in our health system – particularly hospitals and the people needed to run them – why would you want to reduce the amount of money the Government has available to it? 
You wouldn’t. And if you did, would an extra block of cheese and a cauliflower really make the trade worthwhile? No way. 
And that’s why I think National’s talk about tax cuts is not only predictable, but also way too simplistic. 
Of course, Finance Minister Grant Robertson has been quick to poo-poo the idea. He says Luxon is still in the same "fiscal Bermuda Triangle” that National has been in for a while.  
But he’s also going on about higher-wage jobs being the answer. Well, of course, that would be an answer – but I’ve always found that talk about a high-wage economy from politicians a bit pie-in-the-sky, because 97 percent of all businesses in New Zealand are small-to-medium size.  
So, politicians have next to zero influence over what those small outfits can afford to pay their staff. 
And that’s why tax cuts are probably seen as the next best thing, when it comes to putting more money in peoples’ pockets. 
I heard a couple of finance people talking about this. One was a tax expert. The other was an economist. And, to be honest with you, my eyes glazed over a bit. 
Because, just like Christopher Luxon’s speech yesterday, when these experts talk about the cost of living – it always feels about 10-times removed from what it’s really all about. 
Even when you hear the inflation rate is 5.9 percent – a 30 year high. It’s just another number, isn’t it. 
Where it really hits home, is when you’re pushing the trolley around the supermarket wondering why everything seems so expensive. Asking yourself why mince is $10 a pop when it was always the go-to cheap option. When the letter from the power company comes in the mail saying the prices are going up. And when your local councillors sit around the table hiking up your rates bill. 
That’s the reality behind the numbers, the experts and the politicians. 
A cost-of-living crisis means asking yourself ‘am I going forward, treading water or going backwards?’  
And realising that, while you’d like to think you’re at least treading water – you’re probably actually going backwards.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel about the current delay with consents from the Council, and what they are doing to try and fix the problem. 
They also discussed the protesters in Cranmer Square, and John asked the Mayor how she saw any resolution coming to end the protest.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It was really interesting listening this morning to the lawyer who has written to the Prime Minister asking her to scrap the vaccine passes by today. And, if she doesn’t, he’s going to go to the High Court to try and make it happen. Matthew Hague is his name. 
He’s the lawyer who went to court challenging the legality of the vaccine mandates for Defence and Police. 
A week ago, the judge who heard the case ruled in his favour. So he’s on a bit of a roll and, today, it’s the vaccine pass that’s in his sights. 
And I tell you what, if he does end up going to court over this - and I’m picking that’s what will happen - and if I was the judge considering the case, then based on what I heard this morning, I’d rule in his favour. I’d support his case for doing away with the vaccine passes. 
I know a radio interview is nowhere near as detailed as a legal submission, but the gist of his argument is that the purpose of the vaccine pass system is to prevent the spread and transmission of Covid. 
But, the vaccine itself has been found to be less effective against the transmission of Omicron. It still reduces the severity of symptoms, but it doesn’t stop you getting it. 
So he’s saying that if the vaccine doesn’t stop you getting Omicron, then there is no need or justification for the vaccine pass - which only exists to try and stop the spread and transmission of Covid. 
And he’s bang on there, isn’t he? Not to mention the fact that most of us who are eligible to be vaccinated, are vaccinated. 
Another thing, which he didn’t mention when he was on with Mike Hosking this morning, is the truckloads of vaccinated people - myself included - who are more than happy to go to places like the shopping malls (Riccarton, Northlands, Hornby, Eastgate…you name them); we’re more than happy to go there even though it means being in the same place as unvaccinated people. 
So if we’re happy to go to the mall without a vaccine pass to get in, that means we’re happy to go anywhere without a vaccine pass, doesn’t it? 
You may have heard me say the other day that I’d been into a real estate office to pick up a key for someone, and when I walked in they wanted to see my vaccine pass. It took me by surprise to be honest and I just put it down to being another case of people interpreting the rules in their own way. 
Because it’s become a sea of inconsistency out there with the vaccine passes, hasn’t it? 
So if I take the legal argument that vaccine passes only exist to prevent the spread of Covid, but the vaccine itself doesn’t stop us getting Omicron, then I’m convinced and I think the vaccine pass has done its thing and it’s time to move on. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Yesterday it was Wellington. Today, it has to be Cranmer Square, in Christchurch. 
Because just as the police were mopping things up outside Parliament last night, we had the spokesperson for the anti-mandate occupation at Cranmer Square saying some of the Wellington crew are going to be heading down here now. 
“I think we are going to be bigger than Wellington”, is what Ashleigh Thian said to a reporter last night. Which, by the way, is possibly a whole lot of hot air - but whether some of the loons involved in that appalling occupation of Parliament’s Grounds are heading here or not, what happened yesterday is full justification for the police going down to Cranmer Square and shutting that thing down too. 
Can I take you back a couple of weeks, to when Police Commissioner Andrew Coster was interviewed on TVNZ’s Q&A programme. 
At that point, he was saying that if police wanted to shut down the occupation at Parliament, it would require a level of force that would be confronting and unacceptable to most New Zealanders. 
He talked about “Policing by Consent”. Which means the police force working with the consent of the communities it serves - and balancing law enforcement with keeping the peace. 
He said he thought two of the low points in New Zealand’s policing history were the Springbok Tour protests and the Bastion Point protest - and he didn’t think New Zealanders wanted to see the police go back to that style of law enforcement. 
He said the way the police dealt with the Springbok Tour protests, for example, led to a long-term loss of trust and confidence in the police. And he said the same thing could happen if the police used force to shut down the Wellington occupation. 
Well, as far as I’m concerned, what happened yesterday in Wellington had the opposite effect. 
Seeing that sea of police officers stamping their authority - as they should’ve done when this whole thing started - actually enhanced my trust and confidence in the police. And seeing what some of those despicable people were doing: did you see that video of a car being reversed at speed towards a line of officers? And throwing rocks and stuff. It was just appalling. 
I know some people yesterday were comparing it to 1981, but I see it completely differently. In 1981, the cops were at every protest, trying to shut them down from the start. With truncheons. 
The occupiers at Parliament were tolerated for three weeks - an absurd amount of time. And they got away with a lot more than any Springbok Tour protester got away with. 
So don’t give me this “dark day for New Zealand” talk that I heard a few people banging on about yesterday. 
It wasn’t a dark day. It was a day of hope. It was a day that gave me a little bit more confidence that doing the right thing and following the rules is still worth it, is still recognised and that we do still have a Police “force”. 
But it can’t stop in Wellington. 
The Cranmer Square occupation needs to be shut down because, just like in Wellington, these occupiers are breaking the rules that most of us abide by, they are causing a huge amount of stress for the people living in the area, and now, they’re openly encouraging other people to come to Christchurch and join in. 
“I think we are going to be bigger than Wellington now.” That’s what the Cranmer Square spokesperson said last night. 
So, before there is even a chance of that happening, the police need to show that they’ve learnt from Wellington, and they need to move in and kick these people out.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.