We can safely say that someone who rides their motorbike at 110 kph in a 50 kph area is a threat.

We can also safely say that someone who rides their motorbike at 110 kph in a 50 kph area and runs a red light is a danger.

We can also safely say that someone who rides their motorbike at 110 kph in a 50 kph area, runs a red light and kills two pedestrians is a menace.

This is a real-life story. And, upfront, I’m going to say that the person responsible is someone who should never be allowed to ride a motorbike or drive a car again. But under current laws, he can. And he is going to be allowed to.

The person I’m talking about is Mark Kimber. And, in July 2022, he was doing exactly what I’ve just described. On Friday, he was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison for the manslaughter of Karen and Geoffrey Boucher. And when he gets out of prison, his licence will be taken off him for three years.

The Bouchers had been out for dinner at a restaurant in Bethlehem, about 8 kilometres from Tauranga, and were crossing the road when they were killed by this guy. Both of them died at the scene.

But here’s where it gets worse. If it could.

Before the crash, he had 11 prior convictions for bad driving. These included careless driving, speeding, drink-driving, dangerous driving, failing to stop and driving while suspended. He also had 70 driving infringements on his record.

What’s more, in the time between the fatal crash and his appearance in court, he was done for speeding twice.

Which tells me that this guy has proven that he will never change and he should never be allowed to have a driver’s licence again.

Tell that to the sentencing judge, though. Who seemed to think that this guy's childhood needed to be taken into account when she was sentencing him for the manslaughter of this innocent couple.

I’m not going to get too bogged down on that side of it. Because it’s the fact that this judge thinks losing his licence for three years is a tough enough penalty.

At the moment, someone in New Zealand can lose their licence indefinitely and can only get it back if they've proved that they've done something about their drinking or drug-taking.

But I don‘t think this guy should ever be allowed to drive again. Because he has shown time and time again that he doesn't give a stuff about anyone else on the road.

If anything, it’s the two speeding offences he committed between the time of the crash and his day in court that ram it home for me.

When someone kills two people like this guy did, you would think that they might be a bit more cautious on the road.

Especially, knowing that're going to be hauled through the court for it.

But Mark Kimber didn’t take his foot of the pedal. And it’s my view that people like him need to be kept off our roads for good. And, instead of “indefinite disqualification” being the strongest punishment we hand out to repeat offenders like him, we should be taking their driver’s licences off them for good.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Not as straightforward as it sounds.

That’s pretty much the message coming through loud and clear in this new report which says importing liquified natural gas to make up for our dwindling local supplies is do-able. But.

You’ll remember how, last year, when we had factories closing and people paying through the nose for their electricity, talk turned to what could be done, especially given we are at-risk of not having the gas needed to generate power.

So the Government brought up the idea of importing liquified natural gas.

Fast-forward a few months and four of the big companies have put their heads together, looking into the practicalities of importing gas. The outcome is this report out today effectively saying we could do it, but there are a few things to think about.

The main ones being the price tag and how long it would take to get it happening.

First up, the cost. Up to $1 billion. That’s to get the infrastructure needed so that we can bring the gas in and store it.

It could be done cheaper, but the gas would be 25% more expensive.

Secondly, if we’re up for that kind of spend, it wouldn’t be an overnight fix. It would be about four years before we started to see the benefits.

Another main point in this report is that we could spend the money and wait for it all to come online, but there could be years when we don’t even need the extra gas.

That’s because power generation in New Zealand uses a combination of hydro, gas, and wind.

And in the years when we have plenty of rain and the hydro lakes are full, for example, we might not need to import gas.

So we could go down the route of spending all this money over the next four years —setting ourselves up— and the demand for gas that we might have now not being the same down the track.

But that’s a bit like pouring money into a fire alarm and sprinkler system and not using it, you know it's there and give it gives you security.

That’s how I see this gas importation business – it would be a back-up. And so-what if it wasn’t needed all the time?

The question facing us now is what do we do now that we have a better idea about the complexities and the cost?

Paul Goodeve, chief executive of the Clarus energy company, thinks we need to ask ourselves whether it’s worth doing without getting obsessed about the cost.

Because as I said earlier, it could be done cheaper —at around $200 million— but that would mean the gas would be 25% more expensive.

I’m no doubt that we have to bite the bullet and press go, and press go on the expensive option.

Because if you or I, or the Greens or whoever, think that this is nuts and we shouldn’t be importing gas and we should all have solar panels on the roof, that’s la-la land.

If you listen to the likes of Greenpeace, they’ll say that importing gas shouldn’t even be an option and we should be going full-bore with solar and wind power generation.

Again, la-la land. Because the reality is, we need a mix of generation options.

And even though it looks like importing liquified gas might not be as straightforward as we might have thought when the government started talking about it last year, what are the alternatives?

Crossing our fingers and hoping for the best? No thanks.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Do you think the Government and councils would be “morally bankrupt” if they stopped paying people out when their properties are so flood-damaged that they can’t live there anymore?

And would you feel the same about people living in areas at risk of flooding being forced to pay more for flood schemes and sea walls because they’re the ones who benefit most?

That’s what a panel of experts is recommending to the Government. But a climate policy expert is saying that would be, you guessed it, “morally bankrupt”. And I agree.

What’s more, I think this approach would let councils off the hook for allowing places to be built in crazy, at-risk locations.

What’s happened, is an independent reference group set up by the Ministry for the Environment has come up with a list of recommendations to help the Government work on some climate adaptation legislation.

Adaptation being what you do when something like climate change and sea-level rise threatens to take-out an area.

This group is made up of economists, people from the banking and insurance sectors, local government and iwi. So a wide range of people. And if I there’s an overarching theme to their advice, it would be this: “You’re on your own buddy.”

And instead of looking to the councils and governments for hand-outs and direction, people should have to decide for themselves if they’re going to stay living where they are.

And if their properties get flooded and there’s no way they can keep on living there, then they shouldn't expect their local council or Wellington to buy them out.

Talk about hardcore. Talk about morally bankrupt.

This group of experts isn’t stopping there, either. It’s also saying that, if you live in an area where there is a risk of flooding and things like sea walls and flood schemes are needed, then you and your neighbours should pay more for those things because you’re the ones who benefit the most.

So, if we apply that to some of the things that have happened here in Canterbury, that would mean people in the Flockton Basin area in Christchurch, paying more for the privilege of living somewhere that used to flood at the drop of a hat.

Remember that? And how the council poured truckloads of money into a pumping system that stopped the water overflowing in the Dudley Creek area and flooding the streets and houses?

The Christchurch City Council spent $49 million on a flood mitigation scheme in Flockton Basin. Elsewhere in town, it spent about $70 million to deal with flooding issues along the Heathcote River. That included buying-out people's houses. Some friends of mine had their place bought out as part of that scheme.

But under these recommendations to the Government, the people in Flockton Basin would be expected to pay more than the rest of us because they’re the ones who are benefiting directly from their streets and houses not flooding anymore.

Also under these recommendations, my mates wouldn’t have their house bought out by the council – even though they can’t live there anymore because it keeps flooding

I would hate to see us take this approach. Which is why agree with climate policy expert, Emeritus Professor Jonathan Boston from Victoria University, who is saying today that leaving people high and not necessarily dry like this would be “morally bankrupt”.

He says: "One of the core responsibilities of any government is to protect its citizens and to deal with natural disasters and so on. That is above almost anything else."

He’s also criticising this group’s recommendation that any changes be phased-in within the next 20 years, saying that the risks and impacts of climate change are going to continue evolving beyond this 20-year deadline.

He says to put an end-date on it is "Morally bankrupt and highly undesirable".

And, as I say, it would let councils off-the-hook. Because for me, if a council gives consent for something to built somewhere, then that same council needs to carry the can if it turns out that that something is somewhere it shouldn’t be.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.