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.

Labour leader and former Covid-19 Minister Chris Hipkins thinks phase two of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 response is a platform for conspiracy theorists, and he is non-committal about turning-up to give evidence.

The most committed I’ve heard him so far is saying that he’s working on some written responses. But if that turns out to be the extent of his involvement, then he can forget about being prime minister again.

Because let me remind you of a couple of things.

While it was the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who, generally, fronted the Government’s Covid response. It was Hipkins —as Covid Minister— who drove it behind the scenes.

Secondly, if it was good enough for former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to front up in person to the UK’s Covid inquiry, then it is more than good enough for Chris Hipkins to front up in person to our inquiry.

In December 2023, Boris Johnson spent two days being grilled by the committee of MPs, which had the job of looking into how his government handled the pandemic.

This is the guy who told people they had to isolate at home and then had parties at 10 Downing Street.

This is the guy who disappeared to his country house when Covid was running rampant.

This is the guy who, somehow, lost 5,000 WhatsApp messages from his phone, which couldn’t be used as evidence at the inquiry.

This is the same guy who told the UK inquiry that he was the victim of not being properly informed about the seriousness of Covid.

Boris Johnson is the guy who is widely considered to have cocked-up the response in Britain but who, despite all that, fronted-up to take questions and take the heat over two days.

And it wasn’t pleasant for him. He was grilled. But say what you like about Boris Johnson, at least he fronted up.

From what I’ve seen, at no point did Boris Johnson dismiss the inquiry in Britain as a platform for conspiracy theorists.

At no point did Boris Johnson bang-on about the Covid inquiry in Britain creating an opportunity for theatrics from conspiracy theorists.

And, at no point, did Boris Johnson hide behind written responses and weasel words.

But that is exactly what Chris Hipkins is doing.

He says he wants to be “cooperative” but “I don’t want to see a whole lot of theatrics. I’m very interested in engaging with them on how we can capture the lessons”.

To be fair, Hipkins probably does have a point about the time period covered by phase two of the inquiry and how it, conveniently, leaves out the time NZ First was in coalition with Labour, but he needs to get over that.

Just like he needs to get over the fact that, yes, there will be no shortage of conspiracy theorists turning up at the inquiry.

But so what? It’s a free world. And we can decide for ourselves how much credence we want to give them.

But Chris Hipkins shouldn’t be free to decide for himself whether he fronts up in person at the Covid inquiry, or not.

He was Covid Minister and he has to front.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chris Hipkins is doubling down on saying the Covid Response Inquiry's terms seems to provide a platform for conspiracy views.

The Labour leader also said the second phase —that began this week— excludes looking at any decisions made when NZ First was in Government.

Hipkins told John MacDonald opinions from the likes of Brian Tamaki and Liz Gunn deserve to be heard but shouldn't overshadow submission on other experiences.

He says if the Government's genuine in wanting all voices heard, it's important for it not to be dominated by a few people.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Isn’t it funny how the Government likes to talk about government support needing to be based on need, but seems to forget about all that when it comes to those nice middle-class people.

Of which I am one. I’m not claiming to be nice, but I am what you would call middle-class.

Which makes me fully qualified to ask why a family bringing in $229,000 a year should get taxpayer support to pay for their kids’ early childhood education.

It also makes me highly qualified to answer that question, and to say that a family earning that amount of money doesn’t need or deserve that level of taxpayer support.

The Government has expanded its FamilyBoost scheme, which is all about letting parents claim back some of the money they pay early childhood centres. The Government’s done it because not as many people were taking advantage of the scheme as it had expected and which Finance Minister Nicola Willis had budgeted for.

Before yesterday’s announcement, families earning up to $180,000 a year were eligible to claim back 25% of their early childhood fees.

Now families earning as much as $229,000 will be able to claim back 40% of their early childhood fees and I find it impossible to see how that can be justified.

Granted, I’m looking at this through the eyes of someone who had kids going through the early childhood system 15-to-20 years ago. I’m also looking at it through the eyes of someone in Canterbury as opposed to somewhere like Auckland.

Nevertheless, I still don’t see why or how the Government thinks a couple earning that amount of money —way more than 200k a year— needs financial support.

I saw some parents on the news last night at the centre in Wellington where Nicola Willis turned up to make the announcement yesterday, and they were all for it. But, of course they would be.

I can say that because I know how, when you’ve got pre-school kids, you’re still getting over the hit it has on the finances.

You might be down to one parent working – that’s if there are two of you. You’ve possibly got a decent-sized mortgage. Or you’re paying rent. So, of course, you’re going to think you need a leg-up wherever you can get it.

But what parents of very young kids don’t tend to think about is that it doesn’t get any cheaper. In fact, it gets more expensive the older the kids get.

Which brings me my other criticism of this expansion of the FamilyBoost scheme: what about the parents of older kids?

What about the parents who have got kids at high school and have to come up with money for all sorts of things, such as uniforms, sports trips, music trips, laptops. You name it.

Not that I’m saying that every parent with kids at the high school stage deserve the kind of carte-blanche handout the Government’s giving parents who have got kids going to pre-school.

But it highlights further how expanding the FamilyBoost scheme just doesn’t make sense.

And I think the opposition parties can be accused of tiptoeing around the issue. Especially Labour, which is banging on about the Government’s changes yesterday to the FamilyBoost programme being “desperate”.

Megan Woods is Labour’s acting finance spokesperson and she’s saying today that the Government is scrambling to help families dealing with the cost-of-living crisis.

She’s saying: "If Nicola Willis truly understood the cost-of-living crisis, then she'd have acted a long time ago."

But what Megan Woods should be doing is ripping into the Government for thinking that families earning just on $230,000-a-year need government support to pay for their kids to go to pre-school.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government wants to free-up the laws relating to citizens' arrests. But should this include letting retail staff detain children and young people caught shoplifting?

The Chief Children’s Commissioner, Dr Claire Achmad, is saying today that it shouldn’t. And I agree with her. But not for the same reason.

She says allowing shop owners and shop staff to detain young people would contravene the right of children to be free from violence.

She says that right applies to kids anywhere and everywhere - including in shops and retail outlets. Even when they’re nicking stuff.

Dr Achmad says shop staff have every right to ask for stolen stuff to be handed over. But it wouldn’t be fair on the young offenders if the people in the shops also had the right to detain them. And I agree with her. But not for the same reason.

Overall, I’m 50/50 on this idea of citizens arrests.

At the moment, there are limitations on when and where they can be done. But the Government wants to loosen those limitations. And isn’t ruling out loosening them to the point where shopkeepers could detain kids stealing stuff.

When I say I’m 50/50, I’m all for security guards getting stronger powers to detain people. Providing they get the right training. But as for the rest of us. Forget about it. As for shopkeepers arresting young people. Forget about it. Because it’s got danger written all over it.

Danger from over-enthusiastic vigilantes going overboard. And danger for the people taking these young crims on.

Which is why I don’t want to see people in shops being given the green light to arrest or detain kids and young people stealing their stuff.

That's where I differ from the Chief Children's Commissioner. She's opposed because of the kids' right to be protected from violence. I'm opposed because of the danger to retailers who, collectively, lose about $2.5 billion every year through retail crime.

I detest shoplifting just as much as the next person. But if we give shop owners and shop workers the power to make citizens arrests of kids and young people caught stealing their stuff any time, any place - what do you think will happen?

It would mean unfair pressure being placed on, often young, retail workers to intervene and put themselves at risk.

I know some retailers would tell their staff either not to intervene or only do so if they felt confident enough to.

But there would also be some employers who would see a law change as a licence to require their staff to intervene. And, as we’ve seen countless times, just because someone is 11, 12 or 13, it doesn’t make them any less of a risk or less or a danger.

There are kids who carry weapons. There are kids who have no regard for other people and who are quite prepared to use these weapons.

Do we really want shop staff being given the powers to take these kids on and to try and arrest them? Of course we don’t.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I didn’t do any study after I left school —no university, no polytech— so I’ve never had a student loan. I know about debt though, thanks to the mortgage.

And I reckon it would be very easy for me, as someone who has never had to pay off a student loan but who knows what it’s like to have the responsibilities of a mortgage, to dismiss what a former IRD prosecutor is saying today.

A former IRD prosecutor who says we need to go a bit easy on New Zealanders living overseas who are way behind in their student loan payments and are too scared to set foot here because they think they’ll be arrested at the border.

Dave Ananth is a tax barrister who has done work for IRD in the past. He says it’s crazy that, at a time when we want and need skilled people working here, we are so hardcore with these people that they’re just not coming back.

Because they’re too scared to come back.

And I agree with him. Which kind of surprises me because I’m normally big on people not shying away from responsibilities and all that.

But when you consider some real-life examples, I reckon it’s very easy to appreciate the argument for change.

Dave Ananth is saying it’s all very well going overseas, but that doesn’t mean people walk into well-paying jobs. The grass doesn’t always turn out to be greener.

So what he’s calling for IRD to be lenient enough so that these Kiwis aren’t scared of coming back. He says a bit of leeway would go a long way.

One approach he thinks could work is IRD talking to these people and seeing if they could apply for some grace on the basis of hardship. Or agree to letting them come back, pay a few hundred dollars for a start and see how it goes.

And I don’t see anything wrong with that. Because what would you rather have? These people stuck overseas owing all this money? Or would you rather they were here making a genuine contribution to the country?

It’s a no-brainer. As this tax lawyer says, if nothing changes, it probably means some of these people never setting foot in New Zealand because they could potentially be arrested.

Kiwis who have expertise in the likes of engineering and technology. There are medical people he says would be here if they didn’t have the threat of arrest hanging over them.

And he’s giving some real-life examples to back up his argument. Such as a New Zealander living in Australia whose loan has blown-out to $170,000, mostly because of interest.

Back in 2014, this guy completed his pilot training but couldn’t find any flying work here, so he went over to Australia and worked as a commercial pilot for six years.

Things got tricky for him when Covid hit, there was no more flying for him, and he had to take a low-paying job in a storage warehouse. Which meant he got way behind in his loan payments.

Then there’s the case of a woman living in the United States. Her debt has blown-out to $70,000 —$55,000 of that from interest— and she isn’t coming home to see her sick mother because she’s terrified she’s going to be arrested at the border.

As she says: "I've been petrified something's going to happen to my mum and she's going to pass away and I'm not even going to be able to go there."

I was talking to someone this morning who said they went overseas for just a year, and it cost them $1,000.

So there is no shortage of stories that show how this system just isn’t doing anyone any favours. It’s not doing the people with the student loans living overseas any favours and it’s not doing the rest of us any favours.

Because these people have the skills and expertise we are crying out for.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.