John MacDonald: Message to OT: don't promise what you can't deliver

This is a moral dilemma and, maybe, an over-reaction at the same time.   

At Wellsford, the local Head Hunters chapter had a charity motorbike ride. They raised $2,500 and decided to donate the money to the local volunteer fire brigade - which is raising funds to buy an all-terrain vehicle. 

They reckon that one of these things would be a very handy addition to their kit. Because, if they’re dealing with an emergency off the beaten track, an all-terrain vehicle would be perfect.  

So, the gang has the event, gets on the blower to the fire brigade, and says they’d like to give them the money because, you know, they provide a great service to the community. No argument with that. 

Where the argument has started, though, is when the fire brigade has gone on social media and made a shout out to the gang guys for their brilliant gesture. 

“We are very grateful for the $2,500 donation,” they said in the post. “And we thank all those involved for their efforts.” 

The fire brigade goes on to say: “We provide our service to all those in our community and we are very grateful to have that support returned. Our supportive community is what helps us continue to do what we do.” 

Now the key bit there is where they say, “we provide our service to all those in our community”. Which is them saying, ‘if gang members are in strife and need our help - we’ll be there’. You might not like that - but it’s true. 

The mistake the volunteer brigade made was going on social media and telling people about it. Because all that did was get the people who love to get outraged about stuff, outraged. 

‘These guys are crims. You shouldn’t be taking money from crims. Don’t be sucked in by these clowns. Give the money back. Give the money back’. And guess what? They’re being told to give the money back.     

Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) has stepped-in and is saying: "We will be working with the brigade to assist them with next steps”.  

Which is code for, ‘we’ll be giving those Wellsford muppets a blimmin’ good talking to and, if they don't hand the money back, we’ll be banging some heads together.”  

The Minister of Internal Affairs, Brooke van Velden, has got involved as well, saying she doesn’t support volunteer fire brigades accepting donations from people associated with organised crime gangs. 

“New Zealanders deserve to be safe and secure, but violent gangs are a scourge on our communities,” she says. 

And she’ll get no argument from me on that last bit. Violent gangs are a scourge. The drug trade. The violence. The intimidation. The murders. But what if —now and then— they actually do some good? 

You can’t argue that raising $2,500 and giving it to the local volunteer fire brigade isn’t doing good, can you? But it seems to be a real closed shop. Whenever gangs do anything charitable, people always seem to write it off as just a PR exercise. 

And yes, this donation to the volunteer fire brigade is another PR exercise. Of course it is. But is it really that bad that the fire brigade and the community shouldn’t benefit from it in some way?  

Do you really think the volunteer firefighters are going to give some sort of preferential treatment to the gang or turn a blind eye to some of its other activities because it donated money raised in a legitimate fundraising event? Of course they’re not. 

But where it gets really interesting, is that the Head Hunters have a trust which you can find on the New Zealand Charities Register. 

The trust’s name is “That Was Then, This Is Now” and, according to the charities register, it exists to re-integrate and rehabilitate people coming out of prison, providing them with education and social services. 

I understand it was set-up in 2001 and, around 2016/2017, it was removed from the charities register after the charities board found it wasn’t doing exactly what it was set-up to do. But the gang challenged that, and the High Court decided it could go back on the charities register. And I’ve done a search, and it’s definitely there. 

So, if it’s good enough for the Head Hunters’ trust to be listed as a registered charity, doesn’t that make it good enough for the Wellsford Volunteer Fire Brigade to hold on to the money it received from the gang’s fundraising motorbike ride? 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

David Seymour was talking a load of old nonsense yesterday, wasn’t he, when he announced the tax changes for landlords?

Now let me make it clear, right from the start, I am not anti-landlord. Because imagine where we’d be if we didn’t have people willing to take risks, buy properties, and make them available for other people to live in.

So we need landlords. Good ones, anyway.

But the ACT leader and Associate Finance Minister was pushing it uphill when I saw him on the news last night telling us that tax relief for landlords is a win-win for the landlords and renters.

This year landlords will be able to claim 80 percent of their mortgage interest costs. Next year, 100 percent. And they’re going to pass those savings on to the people renting their properties. Yeah right.

“Landlords,” David Seymour said, “have been hit with a double whammy of rising mortgage interest rates and increasing interest deductibility limitations during a cost-of-living crisis.”

Hearts across the country would have been bleeding, I’m sure.

He was right, though, when he said: “These costs are inevitably passed on to tenants.”

But does he really expect us to believe that any savings will also be passed on to tenants? Of course, they won’t. And I’ll tell you why.

Remember last year when we were all piling into Labour for its no GST on fruit and veggies policy? And how we were saying it was daft because, after about five minutes, we’d have no idea whether we were paying less for the broccoli and apples or not.

It’s exactly the same with these tax changes for landlords. For example, if you’re renting a place, you’ve got no idea what size mortgage the landlord has on the place, which means you have no idea how much interest they’re paying.

You don’t know what their insurance costs are…you know pretty much next to nothing.

So how on earth are you going to know how much better off the landlord is once they can deduct mortgage costs and pay less tax? The answer is - you’re not.

And that’s just one factor as to why this change isn’t going to be the win for renters that David Seymour and the Government say it’s going to be

In fact, I heard Property Federation president Sue Harrison say as much. She said a lot of factors influence rent prices and there’s no one simple answer. Which is what David Seymour was trying to sell to us yesterday. That tax deductaility for landlords is the simple answer.

Another reason why these changes aren’t the great news for renters the Government says they are, is that people are renting like it’s going out of fashion. Demand is through the roof.

Remember those numbers from Stats NZ last week, which showed a big upswing in the number of active rental bonds. Which was the clearest evidence yet that more places are being rented out. And the experts are saying one of the big reasons for that is migration.

Christchurch and Auckland are where rent prices are going up the fastest. You pretty much can’t get anywhere for less than $500 a week here.

That’s because the market dictates everything. Truckloads more people are coming here. And more and more people already living here are renting, because they can’t afford to buy a house anymore.

So boom times for landlords.

And I know if I owned a rental property - which I don’t - but if I did, I’d sure as hell be wanting to maximise my investment. Why wouldn’t I? What’s more, it’d be making hay while the sun shines.

Which is yet another reason why we’re not going to see rent prices go down because of these tax changes. When you run a business of any sort, you make what you can - while you can. And being a landlord is a business.

For most people it’s a side hustle. For a few, it’s how they make their living. But it’s a business. And, when you’re in business, you do what you can to get ahead - just in case things go a bit pear-shaped in the future.

So why on earth would you charge your customers less, just because you might be paying a little less tax? Well, the answer to that, is you wouldn’t.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government says it wants to see less people living in emergency accommodation in motels. My response to that: who doesn’t? 

It also says it might pay landlords to take on tenants currently living in motels. My response to that: you’re dreaming. 

And I’m not just saying that. I’ve got official numbers to back it up. Numbers that have come to light since the announcement yesterday by Social Development Minister Louise Upston and Housing Minister Chris Bishop. 

Aside from the motel stuff, the Government’s overall aim is to end large-scale emergency housing. Of which motels are a part. And it’s talking about “bold and radical steps”. 

It wants more checks and balances before the emergency housing tap gets turned on for people, and it’s telling people that the tap isn’t going to just stay on forever - as it has done in recent times. Certainly under the previous government. 

So, what’s going to happen, is when someone applies for emergency accommodation, the Ministry of Social Development is going to ask a few more questions. It’s not just going to say ‘yes’ straightaway. 

Because it’s fair to say, isn’t it, that even though there are people in genuine need of emergency housing, there are others who do no favours for themselves. 

They might have treated rentals the same way rock stars used to treat hotel rooms.  

Or they haven’t bothered paying their bills.  

And the Government isn’t going to automatically give people emergency housing grants for seven to 21 days - as they do now. Instead, they’re going to give people grants to cover between one and four days while they look into people's circumstances. 

So that’s all good stuff. Because, as Chris Bishop says, emergency housing is costing the taxpayer about $350 million a year. And, over the past five years, $1.5 billion has been spent.  

And yes, if there’s a genuine need - go for it. But if people are only after emergency housing because they’ve been a pain in the backside elsewhere and been kicked out, or haven’t been bothered paying their bills, then, of course, they should go to the back of the queue.  

But as for this pipedream that private landlords could be part of the solution if a few sweeteners are put in front of them. Things like a 90-day notice period and paying landlords a bit of extra money if they take on emergency housing tenants. They aren't going to make one bit of difference. 

Because, since the Government made this announcement yesterday afternoon, some data from Stats NZ has come out that shows a big upswing in the number of active rental bonds. 

Which is clear evidence that more places are being rented out. And the experts are saying one of the big reasons for that is migration.     

Kelvin Davidson is chief property economist at CoreLogic NZ, and he’s saying today that the increased demand for rentals is pushing rent prices up - with Christchurch and Auckland the areas where rents are going up the fastest. 

So, do you really think that a landlord who is being overwhelmed by people wanting to rent their place out and, because of that demand, can charge more, is going to be enticed by a few extra bucks from the Government to take on emergency housing tenants? 

Of course they’re not. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The only problem I’ve got with the sentence handed-out yesterday to Christchurch man David Benbow for murdering his childhood friend, Michael McGrath, is the fact that he’s going to be eligible for parole. 

It’s going to be a while away. Because he’s been sent away for 17 years before he can be considered for parole. But I don’t think he should be eligible at all. 

And why’s that, do you reckon? 

Well, if you saw or heard any of the media coverage of yesterday’s sentencing, it would have been impossible for you not to have been moved by the victim impact statement read to the court by Michael McGrath’s mother, Adrienne McGrath. 

I’ll share a couple of things from her statement with you. In particular, what she had to say about the fact that her son’s body has never been found. 

“I find it hard to believe that Michael will never come home again. I worry about him being out there on his own… think about how cold and lonely he must be.” 

And who wouldn’t feel the same? If you saw or heard Adrienne giving that statement, you’ll know how emotional she was reading it out to the court.  

And that’s the reason why I don’t think David Benbow should ever be eligible for parole because, not only has he denied Michael McGrath’s family and his partner of a life with the man they love, he’s also denied them the opportunity to say a proper farewell. 

How many times do you hear police in cases like this saying that their main focus is getting the murder victim home to their family. And, in most cases, they achieve that. 

In other cases, they don’t. And, in this case anyway —and others too— they don’t get someone home to their family, because the person responsible refuses to say where the body of their victim is or what they did with it. 

Which, when you think about it, must be like adding salt to the worst kind of wound.  

And that is why we saw Michael McGrath’s brother, Simon, outside court yesterday saying that he thinks parole shouldn’t be available to murderers, like David Benbow, who don’t admit where the bodies of their victims are. 

And I’m with Simon McGrath on this one.  

Of course, David Benbow is still saying that he’s an innocent man. That he didn’t murder Michael McGrath. But then he would say that, wouldn’t he? 

But, after two trials, he was eventually found guilty and yesterday he was sentenced. And he can claim otherwise as much as he likes, but he is a murderer - and if there is an ounce of decency in him - he will admit what he did with his old friend’s body. 

The obvious argument against a ‘no body, no parole’ approach to sentencing murderers, is ‘what if someone is actually innocent?’. 

Because, if someone’s innocent, they’re not going to be able to tell you where a body is, are they? Because, if they’re innocent, they’ll have no idea. 

And so, if the rules were ‘no body, no parole’, then it would be extremely unfair on innocent people. That would be the argument. Because if they couldn’t help police find the victim, they’d be punished for it. 

But I don’t think that’s a strong enough argument. Because, if a person truly believes they’re innocent, they’ll use their time in prison to work on their appeals. And, down the track, if it’s found that they are actually innocent - then the issue of parole won’t even be up for discussion. 

So I think it’s a no-brainer. 

Prior to last year’s last election, Paul Goldsmith - who is now Justice Minister - didn’t go as far as saying it was a no-brainer, but he did say that, if National got into government, he’d be open to the idea. 

And Labour’s Ginny Anderson, who used to be the Justice Minister - also said before last year’s election that she was open to it as well. 

So there seems to be at least a little bit of interest politically. But where do you stand? 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's a push to introduce a no body, no parole law to New Zealand. 

Former prison guard David Benbow has been sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years, for the murder of Michael McGrath. 

McGrath's body has never been found since he went missing in 2017. 

His brother, Simon, told John MacDonald that a no body, no parole law is needed, and offenders should only get parole if they co-operate with police. 

He says given the magnitude of the crime, concealment of a body is enough to warrant such a law being introduced. 

All Australian states have no body, no parole laws, with New South Wales the last to introduce it, in 2022. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We must be the number one country in the world for deferred maintenance.

Some of us do it with our own house. And we’ve certainly done it with Premier House.

To the point where Christopher Luxon won’t even live there - even though it’s the Prime Minister’s official residence.

We’ve learnt over the weekend that, to bring the place up to scratch, would cost about $30 million. But, in times like these, is that something you’d want taxpayer money poured into?

My answer to that question is ‘yes’!

The heritage people say Premier House property dates back to 1843 and it is of national significance. It was 1865 when it was bought by the Crown to be used as the Prime Minister’s residence when Wellington became the capital city.

There was some significant expansion of the place during the 1870s but the builders don’t appear to have been back since then.

Slight exaggeration there. But it’s a can that’s been kicked down the road many times and so, now, we’ve got our current Prime Minister saying he’d like to live there, but can’t live there because it needs significant maintenance work.

The Prime Minister, of course, is instead living in his own apartment in Wellington. Which was all over the news on Friday when it was discovered that he’d been claiming a $52,000 annual allowance for living at his own place.

But, by fish 'n' chip time on Friday, he’d had a re-think on that and - after going-on all day that he was fully entitled to it - he announced that he’d be paying back what he’s claimed so far and wouldn’t be claiming any more of it.

Which, of course, was the right thing to do. I know he was entitled. But it was wrong.

So that one’s sorted out. But we’ve still got the matter of what to do with Premier House and whether we keep kicking this particular can down the road or whether we bite the bullet and spend the money.

For me, it’s a no-brainer. We have to spend the money. Because, if we don’t get out of this oily rag mentality that seems to be taking over everywhere - we’ll be selling Premier House as is, where is.

In the scheme of things, $30 million is chicken feed. And, yes I know that if the Government did agree to press on with the maintenance and renovation work needed, it could end up costing more than that.

But, if we’re going to get all embarrassed about our leaders flying around the world in clapped-out air force planes, then we should be just as embarrassed about having an official Prime Minister’s residence that the Prime Minister won’t even live in.

More to the point, we should be embarrassed about a rundown prime minister’s residence that the Prime Minister himself won’t even live in, but where visiting dignitaries stay and where other guests are entertained. The Australia and New Zealand cricket teams were there last week.

Now I know buildings don’t feed kids going to school hungry. And I know buildings don’t make it cheaper to go to the dentist. Things that are also in the news today.

And I know $30 million could pay for a truckload of medical procedures and hip replacements. I get all that.

But are any of those reasons not to spend money on Premier House? I don’t think they are.

Because we will always be short of money for all the things we want to do. Which is why Premier House is in the state it’s in now. Because, for too long, politicians have been terrified of any backlash.

And so they’ve all sat on their hands and done nothing - or the bare minimum, anyway - and now they’re sitting on a real conundrum because we’ve allowed it to get so rundown that we are now faced with the question - do we spend $30 million or not?

I say it’s a no-brainer. Spend the $30 million and get the official residence of our country’s Prime Minister up to scratch. And do it ASAP because, we can wait as long as we like, but it will never get cheaper.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We’re about one month away from the halfway mark in the current term of the Christchurch City Council and its latest residents survey is a shocker. 

For starters, people do seem to be very happy with things like libraries, recreation services, rubbish collection. All that stuff. People, generally, are also pretty happy with things like the reliability of the water supply.  

83% of people are happy with that. 

Where things go pear-shaped, though, is the stuff to do with the elected councillors and the decisions they make. I’ll run you through some of the results but, what we have to ask ourselves, is whether this is just one hopeless council or whether they’re all the same. 

And, as much as I’m not surprised by these results, I don’t think it’s just a Christchurch Council thing. I think all councils are basket cases to varying degrees.  

And I’m talking about elected councillors here. I’m not having a go at the people who work at the council.     

So, Mayor Phil Mauger and his team have been sitting around that council table together now for nearly 18 months. So they’re nearly halfway to the next election. 

And going by these results, they are failing to deliver.  

If you look at the results on the council website, there’s a summary page and all the stuff about the elected council’s performance is right down the bottom of the page. 

You might strain your eyes a bit reading it —because it’s in pretty small font— but here are the key numbers. According to this latest residents satisfaction survey just 16% of people think the Christchurch City Council makes wise spending decisions; 18 % think the council provides value for money; and only 21% think the council operates in an open and transparent way. 

Compared to last year’s survey, that’s a 1% increase in the number of people who think the council makes wise spending decisions. 

A 2% decrease in the number of people who think the council provides value for money. 

And a 1% drop in the number of people who think the council operates in an open and transparent way. 

Now I know the movement in percentages is small. But, when you’re talking about approval results of around 20% or less, then that’s pretty dismal. Remembering too, that building trust and confidence was right up there on the to-do list for this current council. 

The thing is, though, is the public’s lack of faith in the mayor and the councillors just a Christchurch thing? Or is it indicative of what’s happening everywhere? 

I think it’s local government in general. Because I’ve had a look around at some of the results other councils have got from their public satisfaction surveys, and they’re not great either. 

Just yesterday, there was a report saying there is “profound concern” in Queenstown and Wanaka at the way the Queenstown Lakes District Council is performing. 

Eighty percent of people aren’t happy with the council, in general. And 81% aren’t happy with the way councillors are doing their job. It’s the fifth year in a row that satisfaction with the local council has dropped. 

Another example of how broken the local government model is. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Surprised but not surprised. That’s what I’ve been saying to people who have asked me how I feel about the closure of Newshub. 

They announced it yesterday and they’re doing the two-week consultation thing. But we all know that’s not going to change anything. 

I see even the New Zealand boss of Warner Brothers Discovery —which owns Newshub— is saying people shouldn't get their hopes up that anything other than a complete shutdown by the middle of the year is likely. 

So, it’s an HR box-ticking exercise for the company and, possibly, something not that many of the staff at Newshub will bother about because finding another job will be their main priority now, won’t it? 

Because apparently up to 350 jobs will go, about 200 of them from the news operation.  

And while I have a huge amount of compassion for the people at Newshub. And, while I know that what was announced yesterday could happen to any of us. Not just in media, either. And while I’m not in any way being dismissive of what’s happening and what our Newshub colleagues are going through, we need to remember that this has been a long time coming. 

Almost right from the start. Because, it seemed to me, that the objective behind TV3 in the first place was to just stick it up the state-run broadcaster. 

The idea behind TV3 was to break the reliance we had on state-run television. But that lofty goal wasn’t enough on its own and TV3 struggled from the start to make significant headway against TVNZ. 

And, wouldn’t you know it, come the middle of this year, we’ll be back where we were before November 1989 here in New Zealand: pretty much reliant on the state-owned broadcaster for our TV news. 

But, despite what everyone else seems to be saying, I don’t think it’s the disaster they’re making it out to be. Yes, it’s a personal disaster for our Newshub colleagues, don’t get me wrong. 

But, in the nearly 35 years since TV3 began, we have become much more discerning in how we digest our news. 

What I’m getting at there, is that pretty much all of us are Doubting Thomas’s these days, aren’t we? And we don’t just swallow or believe everything we see on the six o’clock news anymore. 

Which is why I think that what’s happening with Newshub isn’t going to mean boom times for TVNZ. Because, chances are, if you watch Newshub, you do it because you think it's better than One News. 

And, chances are, if you prefer Newshub it’s because —rightly or wrongly— you think that TVNZ is just a government propaganda machine. 

Which is why some people are saying that losing Newshub and leaving it to TVNZ is going to be a huge step backwards in terms of media scrutiny and democracy.  

That, if the only TV news service in the country is state-owned, then all we’re going to get is government propaganda and less scrutiny than we have now. 

But I don’t agree with that. Because A. we don’t just believe everything we’re told anymore. And B. we get our news in all sorts of different ways these days. 

Back in 1989, when TV3 started, online news wasn’t a thing. Social media wasn’t a thing. We didn’t have 24-hour news and talk radio everywhere in the country, to the extent we do now. 

So, because of all those things, I’m not concerned about One News being the only TV news service left standing.  

Funnily enough, and maybe it’s just out of habit, that’s the one I watch regularly most nights.  

But, when it comes to political scrutiny and analysis, Newshub beats One News hands-down and TVNZ is going to have to up its game big time on that front. 

And it is dreaming if it thinks a truckload of people are going to start watching its news bulletins just because there’s nothing else on at six o’clock. 

If TVNZ doesn’t up its game, people will go elsewhere. Because they can. They couldn’t back in 1989. But they can in 2024. And that’s why I’m not going to be joining the chorus predicting doomsday for democracy. 

If I want to watch the state-run news service, I will. If I don’t, I won’t.  

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christchurch Airport is stopping any further work on the Tarras Airport project, the pipedream it’s had to build an airport 400 kilometres away in central Otago.

400 kilometres from the city it serves. And 400 kilometres from its majority owner - the Christchurch City Council. The council owns 75 percent. The Government owns 25 percent.

And it seems the project will only go further, if the airport company can get more people behind it and get more public and private money to pay for it.

Which is never going to happen. But that’s what it has told its parent company Christchurch City Holdings Limited which, in turn, told councillors about it last night.

But I think it should go the whole hog now, and pull the plug on it completely.

A few years back the airport company bought 750 hectares of land in the Tarras area but it wasn’t until media got a whiff of it that it announced - or was forced to announce - its plan to set-up another airport to service Queenstown and Wanaka.

The idea being that the Christchurch Airport company would get a slice of the action from that market. It also said it was doing it because it claimed that Queenstown and Wanaka airports are at capacity and so a third airport is needed in the area.

Not that the other airports agreed.

Queenstown Airport chief executive Glen Sowry says Christchurch Airport has been spending tens of millions of dollars pushing a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

What he’s getting at there, is the claim that Christchurch Airport has made all along, that Queenstown is running out of space, with no room to expand.

That’s an argument for the airports to have. Because, let’s be real, these are two businesses wanting greater market share.

But for me, it comes down to a couple of things.

For starters - here we are in Christchurch, with a council that says we’re in a climate emergency, but it has seemed quite happy for its airport company to spend a truckload of money on a new airport 400 kilometres away.

And the other reason why I’ve never been a supporter is that it’s an airport that the people living there don’t want. An airport that the local tourism sector down there doesn’t want because the area just can’t sustain massive increases in visitor numbers. And an airport that doesn’t even seem to be needed.

So why would you?

From the images I’ve seen, it would look like a giant Westfield Mall dumped on a lifestyle block. It would be large-scale, capable of handling widebody long-haul jets from Asia and beyond, night and day.

But, hallelujah, Christchurch Airport seems to be waking up to the fact that, while it might have the land, while it might have the big ideas, while it might have the bombastic confidence, there is one thing it doesn’t have. And without it - this thing goes nowhere.

When you’ve brassed-off the people living in Tarras and the tourism operators doing business down there - not to mention the other airports you’re apparently coming to the rescue of - you don't have social licence.

In its simplest form, social licence is public acceptance of a commercial activity. And, from what I can see, there is next-to-no public acceptance of what Christchurch Airport is proposing for Tarras.

And that is why this thing is coming to a halt. And that is why I think Christchurch Airport just needs to lick its wounds and, instead of all this nonsense it’s talking about taking time to build stakeholder alignment and find more money from the public and private sectors, it should be pulling the plug completely.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Following the news today that Christchurch Airport will pause plans for the Tarras Airport until it can get more public and private money, John MacDonald spoke to Queenstown Airport CEO Glen Sowry about his reaction. Is this just patch protection? Or has the right decision been made?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.