There are two ways you could look at the Government's fuel relief package. On one hand, you could say it shouldn't have bothered at all. On the other, you could say it should have bothered, but not the way it's doing it. Either way, it's got it wrong in my book.

But, despite what I might think, about 150,000 families with kids on low to middle incomes are going to be getting $50 a week in tax credits to help them deal with increased fuel costs due to the Iran war.

But these 150,000 families are families that the Government has no idea whether they actually need this support or not. It's just assuming they do. For example, what about those families that bike everywhere? What about the families who homeschool the kids? They don't need to drive far in the mornings and afternoons, do they? What about families who can't even afford to run a car? Why should they get another $50 a week to pay for fuel that they don't even buy?

And then we get to those who aren't getting anything. Nothing in the package announced yesterday for beneficiaries, no relief for retired people, nothing for students. And most importantly, there is no help for the sectors and the industries that rely on diesel to supply us with food and other essentials. Which, if the Government was going to do anything, that's where it should be focused on.

The Government should be thinking about the wider consequences of higher fuel prices, however long they continue. And, instead of paying a few bucks to people on the lower pay grades, what it should be doing is providing support or interventions for the likes of food manufacturers, the transport industry, the logistics people, all of those.

Because all of those groups are paying higher fuel prices, paying way more for the diesel, but they don't suck them up like your average motorist does. They pass them on.

And all it's going to mean is your low and middle income families will be compensated for, apparently, spending more on fuel - but they'll be paying more for the bread and the fruit and the veggies.

Which is why I've come to the conclusion that, if this is the best approach the Government can come up with, it shouldn't be bothering at all.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Even though the New Zealand government is making the fuel situation sound a bit more urgent than it had been up until now, sounding slightly a bit more antsy than it was, I bet it still isn't enough to satisfy the head of the International Energy Agency.

Fatih Birol is blasting governments around the world, not just ours, for not being as upfront as they should be about the economic carnage from the Iran war.

The International Energy Agency essentially works with countries around the world in the energy sector and, when there are supply disruptions like we have at the moment, gives advice on solutions. It's also in charge of deciding whether to dip into energy reserves to keep supplies going.

Fatih Birol is saying today that the fuel crisis is worse than the combined impacts of the three biggest energy shocks in modern history. And he says that we would be better prepared if we fully understood the magnitude of the economic impacts.

He doesn't think we are because he says our politicians are sugarcoating the situation and says he's had to come out and say what he's saying today because he doesn't think people fully understand the economic consequences of Iran shutting down the Strait of Hormuz.

And he's laying the blame at the feet of politicians who he says should be making people aware that this isn't going to end when the war ends.

Politicians should be making people aware that there are going to be consequences for some time to come. He says households need to be better informed about the magnitude of the challenge we are facing.

“I think they'd be better prepared if they understood what we are facing and what we are dealing with.”

Tell that to politicians though, eh? Especially politicians like the ones here who want to get elected later on this year.

I get it that the last thing government politicians, especially, want in an election year is to say that things are going to be pear-shaped for some time yet.

Because voters don't want to hear that. But I think in the medium to long term, I reckon the Government would have far more credibility if it did do what the head of the International Energy Agency wants it to do and be as upfront as humanly possible.

Because you think about it, all we're hearing from the Government is how much fuel supplies we've got. We're not hearing anything from the Government about what this is going to mean beyond that.

If our politicians had the guts, they'd be telling us right now.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This fuel situation is starting to feel like herding cats.

You’ve got the government, on one hand, going on about seven weeks supply. Don’t panic, keep calm and carry on.

The government is also talking about this rescue package for low-to-middle income earners.

Then you’ve got the hoarders filling up drums and jerry cans with petrol and diesel. I met one on the weekend.

He was doing the drums and the cans but he was also using the fuel tank in his boat for storage. He was a tradie and said all the farming mates he was out with are doing the same.

And now we’ve got businesses deciding to take their own course of action, and some are either putting their prices up or adding fuel surcharges.

One in Christchurch has just announced that, unless customers go to them, they’re going to have to pay an extra $5 while the fuel prices remain high because of the situation in the middle east.

It’s even offering free finance options for people with a community services card.

Didi, the rideshare outfit similar to Uber which operates in Auckland and Wellington, is also introducing a fuel surcharge from Wednesday. Charging passengers 5 cents per kilometre.

Which raises the question: is this reasonable, given we’re all in this boat together?

My view is that a specific surcharge is much more reasonable than a random increase in prices.

There’s a pie shop in the nelson area that has just announced that the prices of its pies are going up 50 cents.

The owner of the shop says the increase is happening immediately, and she’s doing it because the fuel prices have increased her costs by 20 percent.

She says she has no option.

The thing is, though, how do customers know her costs have gone up 20 percent? How does the bakery owner know that charging 50 cents more for a pie is what’s needed to cover that increase?

And more to the point, when this is all over and the fuel prices are down again, are the pies going to be 50 cents cheaper? I bet they won’t be.

Which is why I think a temporary surcharge is a fairer way of doing it.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I reckon the Government is going about this fuel price rescue package the wrong way. It seems to think it's doing the right thing picking low-to-middle income earners who, it assumes, are struggling to pay the higher fuel prices.

Of course, someone on the minimum wage, for example, is going to be harder hit by $3.30, $3.40, $3.50 a litre than someone earning $100K.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis says the people the Government wants to help are the working New Zealanders who have little option each day but to get in the car and drive to work. It wants to avoid a blanket cut to the fuel tax and it doesn't want to invent a new scheme of income assistance from scratch.

As the Minister puts it, she wants something that doesn't involve any paperwork. Which sounds like tax credits to me. But I think the Government needs to lift its sights and think a little bit more strategically about this.

It should be thinking about the wider consequences of higher fuel prices, however long they continue. And, instead of paying a few bucks to people on the lower pay grades, what it should be doing is providing support or providing interventions for the likes of food growers, food manufacturers, the transport and logistics sectors. Because all of those groups, they're paying higher fuel prices. But they don't just suck them up like your average motorist does. They pass them on, don't they?

Which means the low-to-middle income people being compensated for spending more on diesel and petrol for their vehicles will still be paying more for their bread and their fruit and their veggies. Any savings will just be cancelled-out by costs passed on to them from the food processors or producers, the manufacturers, the transport sector and the farmers at the supermarket checkout.

Maybe the Government's trying to avoid the type of criticism that would inevitably come its way if it did what I think it should be doing. Because there would be no shortage of people saying it was just looking after its people and the fat cat farmers and the corporate food manufacturers.

Can't you hear it? But all the Government would have to say to quieten-down those people is that, if it didn‘t, they’d be paying more anyway.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Zealand's economy wasn't doing as well as we thought, even before war broke out in the Middle East.

Latest Stats NZ data shows GDP rose just 0.2% in the December quarter – well under the Reserve Bank forecast of 0.5%.

Inflation hit 3.1% in the quarter, above the central Bank's forecast of 2.7%.

The Herald's Liam Dann told John MacDonald if the Iran conflict continues, we could be at risk of "stagflation" – a combination of high inflation and low growth seen in the 1970s.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

While I don't like the idea of us being dragged into the AUKUS military alliance with Australia, the UK, and the US, I think what the government's doing creating something along the lines of an ANZAC defence force - I think it makes a truckload of sense.

The plan is that by 2035 there'll be an integrated, combat capable Australia New Zealand defence force. Combat capable is the particularly interesting bit.

I don't know about you, but I was a little bit surprised when I heard about this plan. Although it does seem that it's been on the cards for a while now, especially when you consider some of the new kit that the Government's buying for the New Zealand Defence Force and how it matches what Australia's got.

As for AUKUS, Defence Minister Judith Collins was asked whether this will align us with it. And she said it won't. But the proof of course will be in the pudding. And it's probably easy in some ways for Judith to say that given that her political career is finishing up.

Nevertheless, in principle, I think it's a no brainer. As Judith said this morning, we're a very small country in terms of population, but our defence force has got to spread itself very thinly over a very wide area. Here, throughout the Pacific and the Antarctic region.

She says effectively joining forces with Australia is a much more clever way of making the most of our defence resources and making the most of Australia's defence resources.

So no argument from me. But I'm not convinced about us being able to do this without being dragged into the AUKUS alliance in some way, shape, or form. And I'm picking that former Prime Minister Helen Clark will be thinking along the same lines. Because last year, when there was speculation or discussion that the Government might be thinking about signing New Zealand up as some sort of second tier member of AUKUS, she said we shouldn't be touching it with a barge pole.

According to Helen Clark, if you’re an ally, you can get dragged into all sorts of things that you shouldn't be dragged into or don't want to be dragged into.

Although I think we're seeing that allies are learning to say no to each other a bit more often. Which is why Donald Trump's nose is out of joint.

But if we go on what Judith Collins is saying, and I'm prepared to, the New Zealand Defence Force will still think for itself and will still be in charge of its own people. She says, "We'll make our own sovereign decisions. These are our people in our uniforms." And here's what I think is the most reassuring part. Judith Collins says "If the Australians were doing something we weren't happy with, we'll pull our people out," noting that Australia would be free to do the same.

So the way I see it, this is nothing more than a common-sense approach for a tiny country which has let its defence force run on the smell of an oily rag for far too long. We're playing catch up now, sure, but we are dreaming if we think we can do it all on our own.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There’s no doubt the Government has failed us on food prices.

But then, it was always going to. In fact, any politician who says they’re going to bring food prices down is dreaming.

This election year, if you hear any of them saying they’re going to get on top of the costs of living and you’ll be paying less at the supermarket if you vote for them, just block your ears.

Tell them to go and talk to some other mug because you know it’s impossible and they’ll never do it.

And this is not me having a go at any particular political party or any particular political ideology.

Remember last election, we had Labour trying to push the idea of no GSTon fruit and veggies?

Grant Robertson had always been against it but, obviously, realised Labour was pushing it uphill, and he just went along with it because he thought there might be enough clowns who would fall for it.

I didn’t. I saw it for what it was. Because prices for things still go up whether or not there are taxes.

That was Labour‘s big idea last election and we’re yet to see anything meaningful from them this time around. That’s because politicians can do very little when it comes to food prices.

If you’ve been at the supermarket and thought the price of mince is a bit steep, you’d be right.

In the past year, mince has gone up 23.2 percent. The largest increase on record.

Fruit and vegetable prices are up too, by nearly 10 percent.

Now, granted, there have been some decreases month-on-month, but that doesn’t change the fact that, compared to this time last year, we are paying way more for food.

Nicola Willis talked a big game on food prices. She was going to crack down on the supermarkets. She was going to bring prices down.

She hauled the Fonterra boss into her office to talk about the price of butter. It was all grand gestures with very little to show for it.

But that’s not Nicola Willis’ fault. Just like she wouldn’t be able to take the credit if prices went down.

And it’s not Nicola Willis’ fault or the fault of anyone in the current government because, when it comes down to it, politicians don’t and can’t bring food prices down.

If you want to point the finger at anyone, point it at the people who believe politicians when they say they can.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour Leader Chris Hipkins doesn't want people to read too much into him considering his political future as ripples spread from personal allegations made by his ex-wife.

Jade Paul posted claims on a private Facebook page on Sunday that are now deleted, none of Paul's allegations related to unlawful conduct.

Hipkins says it wasn't a long deliberation, saying that he recognises the political spotlight can mean loved ones pay a significant price.

"I still love my job and I am absolutely committed to it."

Speaking about the since-deleted post, The Leader of the Opposition said he denies the allegations and is not commenting further on them at this stage.

"I'm putting my children first, and I'm not going to get into a public debate with my ex-wife about the breakup of our marriage."

He also spoke to John MacDonald about the Governments position on potentially aiding the United States in the Strait of Hormuz, and the rise of fuel and food prices in New Zealand.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.