It seems to me that the Christchurch City Council has really got it in for the Arts Centre.

For starters, when the Arts Centre asked for $20 million in council support over the next 10 years, the council said “yeah, nah” and gave it just under $6 million instead.

Now, it wants to sting the Arts Centre $18,000 for increasing the number of food trucks operating there.

The council says the charge is for “added stress” on its transport network that will be caused by the extra food trucks rolling into town, which is out-and-out nonsense as far as I’m concerned.

And the council needs to be told to pull its head in and stop trying to punish the Arts Centre for doing exactly what the council wants to happen, which is attract more people to the central city.

It’s especially bad when you consider how hypocritical all this is – I’ll get to that in a second. But here’s what’s happened:

The Arts Centre decided that, since the council wasn’t going to give it the extra funding it says it needs, it started to think about how it could generate some extra income itself. And it decided to get more food trucks on site, the idea being that it would bring more people into the Arts Centre and get people spending more. A win-win, you would think.

So good on the Arts Centre for not sitting around whinging and getting on with the job itself of trying to bring in some extra money.

Of course, if it wanted to have more food trucks it needed to get resource consent. So it went to the council, wanting consent to have up to 33 food trucks there. The council wasn’t fussed with that and so, between them, they agreed it would be cool to have up to 25 food trucks.

So compromise reached: more food trucks, more people, more money spent. Brilliant.

Until the council got back in touch and told the Arts Centre that, because there’d be more food trucks rolling into town, that would put “added stress” on its transport network. And because of that added stress, it would be billing the Arts Centre $18,000.

But here’s what makes it even worse. Here’s where the hypocrisy comes into it.

Do you remember a couple of years ago —nearly three years ago now it was— and the Destiny Church was running those anti-vax protests in the centre of town? They called themselves the Freedom and Rights Coalition and they had those protest marches in November and December 2021, and January and February 2022.

They got quite feral at times. And the problem the city council had with them was that it wasn’t notified beforehand. Which other protest organisers do, apparently.

And so, because of that, the council hit the Freedom and Rights Coalition and the Destiny Church with a $50,000 bill for doing traffic management during these protests.

Which is fine, but, at the last minute, the council backed down and told this outfit to forget about the $50,000 bill and ripped up the invoices.

And this is what really riles me about what the council’s doing to the Arts Centre. It wants to charge the Arts Centre $18,000 for showing some initiative and trying to get more people going there and spending more with more food trucks. The council’s quite happy to effectively fine an outfit for doing something positive, when it’s the same outfit that told the Freedom and Rights Coalition that they didn't have to pay their $50,000 bill.

The hypocrisy is staggering. And the council needs to get on the phone to the Arts Centre, apologise for its hypocrisy, give it credit for trying to get more going on in the centre of town, and tell it to forget about paying this stupid bill.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

With nearly every Comanchero gang member in this country facing criminal charges, is this the beginning of the end for this Australian outfit’s New Zealand operation?

They set-up shop here six years ago and have been helped enormously by Australia’s 501 deportation programme, but it’s not as if the gang’s been operating here just to give these guys something to do once they get off the plane from Sydney.

Have no doubt, the Comancheros are here because they see it as a great place to make money. If they didn’t, they wouldn't be investing so much into their operation.

It’s not a club. It’s a business. The question now, though, is whether the fall-out from this three-year operation by the police is going to make it too difficult for the Comancheros to do business here.

When it comes to a start-up business, the Comancheros have wasted no time getting their share of the drug trade here. Especially, when you consider that they didn’t arrive en masse - it was a small, but influential group that arrived here first when the 501 deportations started.

But, in just six years, they’ve more than given the other gangs a run for their money. One report I saw this morning said the Comancheros had created a “radical shift in the criminal underworld”.

Nothing demonstrates that more than what the police are saying about the gang getting this former US marine into the country last year to give gang members training in combat drills and military tactics.

So there they were —allegedly, of course— these gang members all dressed up in combat-style clothing with full face and body paint. Camouflage and everything.

They were, apparently, using plastic bullets and real firearms in this training. The police are describing what went on as military-style camps. The purpose of them was to make sure the gang had the capability to take on wars and continue doing their hits.

So they’ve rounded up next to every member in the country and thrown charges at them relating to importing and selling drugs, running what they’re saying was a pretty elaborate money laundering scheme, and running these military training camps run by a former US marine.

Now there’s no doubt the Police have done a brilliant job.

It’s taken them three years and, as we know, these kinds of operations are dangerous. They are dangerous, painstaking and they take time, so congratulations to the Police. But I reckon they’re going to have to keep the foot on the pedal if they think this is going to have a long-lasting impact on the Comancheros.

In fact, I don’t think —long-term— that this is going to change much when it comes to this particular gang.

And the reason I say that is because the Comancheros aren’t just some hokey kiwi gang. And let’s be honest, compared to the Comancheros, our other gangs are pretty hokey.

But what the Comancheros have over all the other gangs here, are two things: money —and lots of it— and international connections. Head office is in Australia, where they’ve been causing strife for decades, and their international drug network is said to be second-to-none. If you can put it that way.

So this sting by the police, while it’s absolutely brilliant, I think it is just going to be a blip for the Comancheros, and I don’t think this is the beginning of the end for them here in New Zealand.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nothing brings out the redneck in me as much as a judge handing out a concurrent prison sentence.

You know the situation. A person’s found guilty on, say, two charges —let’s say they get two-year sentences for each— but they don’t go to prison for two years plus two years (four years), instead, they serve the sentences concurrently. Meaning they’re serving both sentences at the same time.

It’s something the Government is turning its attention to with these tougher sentencing laws it’s cracking on with, but I don’t think it’s going far enough.

It’s introducing legislation to deliver the tougher sentences it promised prior to the election. Paul Goldsmith, the Justice Minister, says the changes are going to mean criminals will “face real consequences for crime and victims are prioritised”, saying there has been a trend in recent years where courts have handed-out fewer and shorter prison sentences.

Stupidly, he’s saying that the legislation changes will help ensure there will be 20,000 fewer victims of crime within five years and that serious repeat offending by young people will be down by 15 percent.

I say stupidly because the Government has no idea whether that will happen or not. It might be its target. But, anyway, they’re a couple of outcomes the Government thinks we will see as a result of these tougher sentences.

And it’s all the stuff that people have been talking about and the politicians have been banging-on about for a while: the legislation is going to put limits on sentencing discounts judges can apply.

It’s going to mean harsher penalties for anyone involved in crimes against sole-charge workers or at places where people live and work. So that’s your dairies, where the family lives out the back or upstairs.

Young people who commit crimes over and over again can forget about sentence discounts because of their age or because they say “sorry”.

But the one that I’m most interested in, is what the new legislation is going to do about concurrent sentencing. Which I think is a good start, but I also think the Government should be doing more, going further on this one.

As it stands at the moment, through this new legislation, the Government is going to encourage judges to hand out cumulative sentences for crimes committed by people on bail, in custody or on parole - instead of concurrent sentences.

So if they’re in custody and commit a crime in prison, that’ll get added to the time they’re already serving. If they’re on bail and commit more than one crime and they’re sent back to prison, they’ll serve time for each crime. Not concurrently. The same if they’re on parole.

And, as far as I’m concerned, these are all good things. I don't necessarily think that this will stop these people from re-offending, because I’ve never bought the argument that tougher sentences stop people from offending.

Because, most of the time, their heads aren’t screwed on properly, anyway. And thinking about the punishment they might get if they’re caught is probably the last thing they’re thinking about at the time.

But these changes are great for victims of crime and their sense of justice. But, as I said earlier, I don’t think the Government is going far enough.

I think we need to pretty much do away with concurrent sentences for all crimes. For all criminals. Because how can anyone think it is fair and reasonable to send someone away for the least amount of time?

Which is what happens when someone serves their sentences concurrently. They’ve done multiple crimes, they’ve been found guilty on each of them, there is a punishment for each crime, but —in real terms— they are punished as if they’ve only committed one crime.

And I reckon that if the Government was really serious, it would be doing away with concurrent sentences altogether.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Christchurch City Council has learned nothing from the cathedral debacle.

Because it’s now going to spend $19.5 million over the next four years, so that work can start on repairing and restoring the old provincial chambers building in the centre of town.

$19.5 million. Nearly twice as much ratepayer money as what was going to go into the cathedral. To get things started on a repair job which is expected to cost around $200 million.

I get it. It's got history. It's very relevant in terms of the history of Canterbury. It’s a beautiful building. No arguments from me on those fronts.

But, as far as I’m concerned, the council shouldn't be pouring money into what could turn out to be a rinse and repeat of the cathedral debacle.

The building itself dates back to 1858 and is the only purpose-built provincial government building that still exists in New Zealand.

It was originally built to be the headquarters of what was known back then as the Canterbury Provincial Government. But when the provincial government was disestablished in 1876, it was used as offices for various government departments.

Eventually, the Christchurch City Council became responsible for it. Pre-earthquakes, it was a popular spot for weddings and functions. But that all came to a stop and it’s just sat there since 2011.

But in the Council’s new 10-year plan, it’s going to spend $500,000 in the next 12 months; $4.5 million the year after that; another $4.5 million the year after that; and $10 million the year after that.

So, over four years, that’s $19.5 million. And the purpose of that spend is so that work can start. So that work can start on something that’s expected to cost 10-times that.

When is the council going to learn not to throw millions of dollars at something that has next to zero certainty of getting finished?

Because $19.5 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the money that’s going to be needed. Somewhere in the ballpark of another $180 million is going to be needed.

But, just like happened with the cathedral, money’s going to be chipped-in here and chipped-in there on some sort of wing and a prayer that the rest of it will come from somewhere.

Now, to be fair, there’s possibly a greater likelihood of the Government helping out on this one. But it won’t be to the tune of $180 million.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis justified the Government’s decision not to bail-out the cathedral reinstatement because it considered the cathedral not to be owned by the public and that its public use was limited because it is a private, religious space.

You might also recall her saying a few weeks back that the Canterbury Museum redevelopment - which is also underway and also short of all the money needed - might be more likely to get government support because it is a place used by the general public.

Nevertheless, here we go again, with the city council pouring ratepayer money into a project that could very well end up lingering. Just like the cathedral.

It's especially bad when you consider how tight it was with funding for the Arts Centre. Which is actually up and running and open for business. And is actually making a contribution to the city economically.

The Arts Centre wanted $20 million in council support over the next 10 years. But it only got $6 million.

And instead, the Council’s going to pour $19.5 million into getting repairs underway on the old provincial chambers building with what, seems to be, no idea where the rest of the money is going to come from.

It is a ludicrous and irresponsible way to spend ratepayer money.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I’m glad I’m not working in the health system. Not that I’d be much use if I was, I’ve never been that great with blood.

But the reason I’m glad I’m not a doctor or a nurse or a GP or a specialist, is the big stick that’s being pointed at all those people by the Government with its new targets.

If I was starting a shift on a ward somewhere right now, I’d be thinking ‘here we go again’. Another government treating health as if it’s a factory. And only doing it to look good for the people on the sidelines, not the ones in there doing the doing.

And it’s not just this government, governments have done it for years. Tinkering with waiting lists. Promising big spend-ups but not delivering. Labour’s done it, National’s done it, now the coalition’s doing it.

And the reason they do it is because they think we are sucked-in by all this serious-face, performance indicator stuff. When all it does is set us up for disappointment and makes the people who do all the amazing work in our health system feel like they’re nothing more than political puppets.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for trying to do things better. And I’m all for trying to be as successful as you can be in something, but knowing what's expected of you and how it’s going to be measured is just part of it.

The ones demanding the performance also need to ask the ones responsible for delivery what they need to make it happen. Something the doctors and nurses and GPs and specialists aren’t being asked by this government and haven’t been asked by any government – all they’re told is ‘do better, do better’.

And today they’re being told that 90 percent of cancer patients have to start getting treatment within a month; that 95 percent of kids have to be fully immunised by the time they’re two; that 95 percent of people who turn up to an emergency department have to be treated, discharged or transferred somewhere else within six hours; and that 95 percent of people can’t be left waiting longer than four months for elective surgery.

Which all sounds brilliant. It all looks good on paper, but there’s no more money coming to make it happen.

But Health Minister Shane Reti seems to think that’s not going to be too much of a problem. The likes of the nurses union, though, disagrees - saying the health system is just being set-up for failure. Again. And I agree.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is not the first time I’ve said this, but we are the people’s republic of pushovers, aren’t we? The way we give overseas visitors free ACC cover.

Even more so when you consider the news that ACC wants to increase its levies by two or three times the rate of inflation over the next three years because it's taking longer and costing more for people to recover from their injuries.

It's got a massive hole in its budget and your levies are going up, mine are going up, but your mate from the States who comes here and hurts themselves doing something gets free cover. And it has to stop.

Especially, when you consider that there are only two countries that do the same for us: Australia and the UK.

But, you know, the argument against making people from overseas pay their way more will probably be similar to the argument against increasing the international visitor levy. That, if you make tourists pay for their own treatment if they injure themselves, they won’t come here. Which is just nonsense.

ACC Minister Matt Doocey is trotting-out the Government’s usual line about expecting ACC to “look at existing costs within the scheme to ensure that any levy increase is absolutely justified before final decisions are made.

“The Government's expectation has been made clear to ACC that it must deliver greater value for the funds it receives. I am monitoring this very closely and will be ensuring ACC is improving its financial performance."

Which ACC is already doing. It’s been cutting staff numbers. Back in May, it announced plans to cut more than 300 jobs – about 10 percent of its workforce.

So ACC is already doing the cost-cutting the Government wants, but it also wants to charge more in levies.

And my view is that if those of us who live here in New Zealand are going to have to pay more, then we should have a re-think about how generous we are when it comes to people who don’t live here.

And I think we need to back ourselves and make visitors pay their way more.

The two approaches I think we could use are either effectively charging non-residents at the door when they need treatment. So they break a leg, head to the emergency department and, once they’ve got the plaster on and they’re ready to leave, they get the credit card out. Or we make it mandatory for anyone visiting New Zealand to have travel insurance. Because it isn’t at the moment.

If you’ve been overseas yourself, I bet you haven’t gone without travel insurance. That’s because we kind of expect or assume, don’t we, that if we need medical care while we’re away, it’s not going to be on the house. Unless it’s Australia or the UK that we’re visiting.

When I went to the UK three months ago, I still took out travel insurance. But I know that if I had had an accident while I was there, my insurance company would have made me take as much free stuff as possible before paying for anything.

And the same for people coming here from overseas. If they’ve got travel insurance, do you think their insurers will say “we'll pay for everything”? Of course not. They’ll say, ‘take the free stuff then come back to us if you need more’.

And that free stuff is what you and I pay for. And what ACC wants us to pay even more for.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If someone is 10 years old, they aren't legally allowed to smoke. They aren’t legally allowed to drink alcohol, and they’re not really allowed to have their own Facebook page, but they can be held criminally responsible for violent crimes such as murder or manslaughter.

And the new Chief Children’s Commissioner, Dr Claire Achmad, says that’s crazy and wants the minimum age of criminal responsibility to be raised from 10 to 14.

And my head agrees with her, but my heart doesn’t.

So the Children's Commissioner is saying today that, when a child commits a crime, it means they are struggling and they should be helped —not punished— and she wants to see changes in how we deal with these kids.

A surprising thing is the Prime Minister’s response to this call for change, but I’ll get to that.

It’s not as if the Chief Children’s commissioner is a lone voice in all of this. Last year, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child said New Zealand should raise the age of criminality to 14.

It said that our approach focuses too much on the offence and not the fact that these offenders are young kids and, because they’re kids, they should be treated differently.

The year before that —in 2022— the then children’s commissioner called for the age to be lifted to, at least, 14, but preferably 15 or 16.

So this has been building momentum.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith doesn’t appear to be in favour of any change - saying that special provisions are made for criminal kids. The Prime Minister's door seems to be slightly ajar, not completely closed, to the idea.

He said yesterday that the Government would need to have “a proper consideration; a proper discussion” before making any moves to change the minimum age.

He went on to say: “We have real challenges in serious youth offending. Again, it comes down to quite a relatively small group, but certainly the age of some of those young offenders have got younger and younger over time.”

And he said while raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility isn't a priority right now, “we’re open for doing whatever it takes, and we’re open for considering lots of new, bold, brave ideas”.

Maybe the “bold and brave” part of that would be taking on the risk of a public backlash. Because there’s no shortage of people who think, whatever someone’s age, they should face the full consequences of their actions.

And I know that, if one of these ratbags we’re talking about was to commit a serious crime that affected me, I’d want the book thrown at them.

Maybe I’m underestimating myself there. And this is what I’m getting at when I say my heart tells me that the age of criminality shouldn’t be raised from 10 to 14.

Whereas my head tells me that what the Chief Children’s Commissioner is saying today makes perfect sense.

Why would you take something like the old ‘lock ‘em up and throw away the key’ approach when you’re dealing with someone so young and someone, you would like to think, has a greater chance of being rehabilitated and changing their ways than someone older?

In my head, it makes perfect sense not to lump 10-year-olds in with older crims and treat them the same.

That’s what the Chief Children’s Commissioner is saying today, and she says there’s evidence to prove that we’re doing things wrong.

Dr Achmad says it’s out-of-step with what science tells us about brain development in young people and it’s out-of-step with New Zealand’s international obligations and duties under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

She says: “When a child criminally offends, it means that they are struggling; that their needs aren’t being met in one or more ways.”

She says we can still hold these kids to account without punishing them.

As I say, I’m torn. Because what she’s saying makes sense. But, in my heart of hearts, I can’t agree with what she’s calling for.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John MacDonald was joined by Chris Hipkins for their regular catchup.

Labour's leader is siding with the Prime Minister in being open to exploring a social media ban for kids.

Australia's Government's examining banning under-16 year olds from using sites like Instagram, Facebook, and X.

Christopher Luxon has said he's looking into the policy.

Chris Hipkins told John MacDonald that he's on the same page, but this shouldn't be seen as a silver bullet as kids ultimately find ways around such things.

He says there also needs to be a good focus on educating kids to be safe online.

Hipkins also says the electricity sector needs more regulation as two central North Island mills have given final confirmation they'll close.

Winstone Pulp is blaming high energy prices for shutting down its Ohakune mills, with the loss of 230 jobs.

Chris Hipkins says the new Government's done away with a consumer advocacy group for electricity users, but intervention is needed.

He says there's clear evidence the market is failing because people are paying too much and electricity company profits are making far too big a profit – evidence the Government should do more.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.