We were all standing up and cheering the Christchurch City Council three years ago, when it flipped the bird at the Government over housing intensification. Because there was no way we were going to agree to three, three-story houses being built on one section.

But I’ve changed my thinking.

Eventually, the city council kind-of pulled its head in. But it’s still dragging the chain a bit and wants more time before agreeing to what the Government wants.

But one city councillor, at least, thinks we should stop dragging the chain, that we should get with the programme and allow this intensification to happen. And I agree with him. I think he’s making a very good point.

Maybe it’s because my stance on intensification has eased since 2022, when the council told the Government in no uncertain terms that it wasn’t interested in having three, three-story houses on one section.

And I think Christchurch city councillor Andrei Moore is making a very good argument in favour of greater housing density. Saying that, if we don’t let it happen, more and more houses will be built in places like Rolleston and Prebbleton. Which are not in Christchurch, they’re in the Selwyn District, and that will mean more and more people travelling into the city every day, using Christchurch’s roading infrastructure and not paying a bean towards it. Because they don't live in Christchurch city - they live in Selwyn.

And he’s saying we should stop kicking the can down the road and just get on with it. Instead of spending another year resisting it, we need to accept that greater housing density is here whether we like it or not.

He says: “It’s high time we wake up and deal with the reality of city growth.”

And I couldn’t agree more. And yes, that does mean that my stance on intensification has changed, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

The plan originally was to let developments with three, three-storey properties to be built on one section pretty much anywhere. But it was modified a bit.

Modified to restrict this level of intensification to the central city, around shopping centres and what's described as "walkable distances" from core public transport routes.

Which is still pretty carte blanche when you think about shopping malls and areas on core public transport routes.

As far as shopping malls go, we’ve got the likes of the Hub Hornby, Riccarton Mall, Bush Inn, the Tannery, Barrington Mall, Tower Junction, Eastgate Mall, Merivale Mall, Northlands Mall, Fendalton Mall, the Palms, Homebase, and the Colombo.

Which means intensification getting the green light in Hornby, Riccarton, Opawa, Barrington, Linwood, Merivale all the way up to Northlands, Fendalton, Shirley, Sydenham and Beckenham.

And, if that’s how it has to be, then I’m with Andrei Moore and I agree with him that we need to bite the bullet and get on with it.

Because A: we’ve got a housing affordability problem in this country, and the quarter-acre section is a thing of the past.

So, if you want your kids to be able to afford to buy their own place, it’s not going to be somewhere with a big backyard. So we need more apartments and townhouses - the places you get with greater housing density.

And B: population growth is real. The numbers aren’t massive, but they’re real and expected to continue in the upwards direction.

The city’s population is around 396,000. Last year it was 1.2% up on the year before. Over the last five years, population growth in Christchurch has averaged 1.3% annually.

Before the quakes, it was declining. There was an especially large jump in 2023, when the population in Christchurch city increased by 2.7%.

And city councillors pushing back on greater housing density in Christchurch are ignoring the obvious. That, yes, backyards are great. Yes, Christchurch is supposed to be the garden city. And yes, the people against intensification are most likely to be the people who can be bothered to vote.

But, if they put all that aside, they'd see that their colleague Andrei Moore is being realistic. And I agree with him that it’s time for Christchurch to stop pushing back on greater housing intensification.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Prime Minister has lived up to his talk of being a great negotiator, saying “thanks but no thanks” to Team New Zealand.

Because a great negotiator is always prepared to walk away if the negotiations aren’t going their way, and that’s what the Government has done. Telling Grant Dalton and Team NZ that putting $75 million of taxpayer money into hosting the next America’s Cup would be a nice-to-have, not a must-have.

I think the Government has done the right thing and the wrong thing.

It’s done the wrong thing because no one can argue that the economic spinoff from hosting something like the America's Cup is huge.

Everyone’s talking about Barcelona getting truckloads out of hosting the event. Although, they did have the option of hosting it again but decided not to. So maybe the benefits are being talked up a bit.

But either way, there are economic benefits that come from hosting something like the America's Cup and, because of that, the Government’s done the wrong thing turning its back on it

But my overriding feeling is that it’s done the right thing because we just can’t afford it.

Whether we will ever be able to afford it, who knows? But it highlights how we really need to get our act together when it comes to attracting big events here.

And we won’t do that, unless we all stop competing with each other.

When I say “we”, I’m talking about Christchurch and Wellington and Auckland and Dunedin. Everywhere.

At the moment, all cities and towns compete with each other to get big events. In Christchurch, when the stadium is open, we’ll be trying to get concerts away from Dunedin and get them happening here instead.

At the moment, we have ChristchurchNZ in Christchurch, DunedinNZ in Dunedin, WellingtonNZ in Wellington, and Auckland Unlimited in Auckland, all doing the same thing —not to mention all the other agencies around the country— all fighting it out to get events to their areas.

And I think this is crazy. Because what’s happening is we have all these different agencies taking a very parochial view of the world.

ChristchurchNZ, for example, only goes into bat for Christchurch - or Canterbury. When what all of these agencies should doing is working together on a joint approach.

Not only because it would mean they weren’t all chasing the same thing, it would also mean more money to spend on getting these events here. And it’s not just money to get events here, it’s money for facilities too. And the parochial ideas blinding our thinking on that.

Perfect example being the stadium saga in Auckland and the council deciding last week to redevelop Eden Park instead of building something new on the waterfront. They’re still wanting more than $100 million from the Government for Eden Park, when we already have stadiums coming out of our ears in New Zealand.

There’s Dunedin stadium - with a roof. The new Christchurch stadium - with a roof. The Cake Tin, in Wellington. And Eden Park.

And the only reason money is being poured into Eden Park is parochialism. Just like Christchurch wanted a 30,000 seat stadium because of parochialism.

And if the country keeps going like this, we’ll never have the money to get big events here. We’ll have the stadiums - but there’ll be nothing happening inside them.

Which is why we need to take the job of chasing these big events away from all these regional agencies and have one central agency deciding what events we’re going to go for and where they’re going to be held.

Because what’s good for Christchurch is good for Auckland. And what’s good for Dunedin is good for Wellington.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Four more years. That's how long we’re going to have to wait for KiwiRail's new interisland ferries. But I reckon it will turn out being longer than that.

The Government says it will be December 2029. By then, we will have had two elections.

But I don’t think it will happen in that timeframe, because I listened this morning to someone who knows a bit about this. Mark Thompson’s his name. He was in charge of the Government’s ferry ministerial advisory group.

He reckons the Government is a bit on the optimistic side, thinking the ferries can be here in four years’ time.

He was talking this morning about decarbonisation within the maritime sector creating huge, worldwide demand for new ships. As he puts it, he thinks the Government will need its spinnaker up and calm seas to meet the deadline, because of what's happening internationally.

Spinnaker up and a calm sea. A wing and a prayer. Fingers crossed. Sounds exactly like the way we do infrastructure here in New Zealand, doesn’t it?

I thought Mark Thompson sounded pretty unimpressed with the announcement. That will be because the Government has ignored his committee’s advice to not go with ferries capable of carrying rail wagons.

His advice was that ferries that could only carry trucks would be cheaper. But Winston, of course, was all-for ferries that can carry rail wagons from the get-go.

So maybe Mark Thompson’s nose is out of joint a bit. But I’m listening to what he has to say. Because he’s the guy who looked into this whole ferry thing after Finance Minister Nicola Willis pulled the plug on the former Labour government’s iReX project.

Winston Peters isn’t buying any talk about delays though and says the new ferries will be here by the end of 2029.

But when you dig further into his announcement yesterday, you see that he’s talking about the ferries being no frills, on one hand, but also saying that many of the costs he’s cutting will need to be paid for somehow in the future.

And these are the costs for the on-land facilities at Picton and Wellington – which he’s suggesting will have to be covered by the ports themselves.

He’s saying that investment is needed at Picton, but he reckons the facilities in Wellington have got another 30 years in them.

Again, doesn’t that sound so familiar when it comes to infrastructure in this country? “We can get away with what we’ve got for a bit longer” – the same for the ferries themselves. The ones that keep clapping out.

As for the new ships - if we do end up competing with the rest of the world for new vessels because of a global influx of orders, we could end up waiting more than four years.

That's why I’ll believe it when I see it.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Where's the grocery commissioner? Wasn’t he going to get cheaper groceries for all of us?

That was the idea. But he hasn’t.

So is Nicola Willis going to do it? My prediction, is she won’t.

Because, no matter how much we would all like to pay less at the supermarket, the two ideas she announced yesterday are duds.

And I’m picking that, if you did a grocery shop yesterday afternoon, the Government’s announcement-of-an-announcement yesterday morning did nothing to soften the blow when you went through the checkout.

So the Government wants to see a foreign operator coming here. Which is never going to happen. For the simple reason that foreign operators have bigger fish to fry elsewhere.

German supermarket company Aldi is often touted as a potential foreign outfit that could come here and create more competition.

It’s kind-of here already, because it's been registered with the New Zealand Companies Office since 2000. But it hasn’t bothered doing anything more - focusing on Australia, instead.

But, despite Aldi operating across the Tasman, Australians are still paying through the nose.

Just over a week ago, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission put-out a report saying that Coles, Woolworths and Aldi are among the most profitable supermarket chains in the world.

Prices there have risen sharply over the past five years. With the supermarkets increasing profit margins during that time, as well. Sound familiar?

And just like here, politicians in Australia are all promising to do something about it.

But, like here, it will be all talk and won’t amount to anything. And, in five years time, shoppers on both sides of the Tasman will still be paying through the nose and politicians will be floating go-nowhere ideas.

But if you forced me to pick one of the ideas Nicola Willis announced yesterday that I think could actually work, it would be this threat she made yesterday to force the two big companies to sell some of their supermarket brands, to create more competition and reduce their dominance.

If you forced me to choose one, I’d chose that one. But it's a terrible idea.

David Seymour doesn’t like it, either. Saying that, if the Government poked its nose in this way into Foodstuffs and Woolworths operations, it would put businesses off investing in New Zealand.

Which I agree with. I think it could. And it’s a weird thing for the Government to be proposing just two weeks after it had all the money people over here from around the world trying to get them to invest in New Zealand.

Looking at the rules the Commerce Commission uses to decide whether to allow things like mergers to go ahead, they're all about preventing situations like we have with supermarkets in New Zealand. Not enough competition - all that stuff. Which is fine when you’re deciding whether-or-not to allow a merger. But for the Government to try and do that retrospectively, which is what it would effectively be doing, would be a terrible thing.

It would be a terrible thing for the supermarket companies. It would also be a terrible thing for the Government’s sale pitch to the world. That New Zealand is open for business; that we want businesses to come here; and that we’re getting rid of some of the red tape to make it easier come here.

It would say 'we’re doing all that but, if you do come here, we might tell you what to do with your business if we think there are a few votes in it for us'.

But the ideas Nicola Willis announced yesterday won’t win votes. Because they won’t go anywhere.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Some people think a 90-day trial for new workers is tough, but what about a two-day trial? Which is what’s happened with Liam Lawson.

And like his Red Bull teammate, world champion Max Verstappen, I think it stinks. Verstappen thinks Lawson should have been given more than two races to prove himself, and I couldn’t agree more.

Red Bull are dressing it up, saying that they’re dumping Lawson as part of their “duty of care” obligations.

Red Bull boss Christian Horner said overnight: “We have a duty of care to protect and develop Liam and together we see that, after such a difficult start, it makes sense to act quickly so Liam can gain experience, as he continues his Formula 1 career with Racing Bulls.”

But BBC Formula 1 correspondent Andrew Benson isn’t buying it.

He pretty much said on Newstalk ZB that Red Bull are trying to put lipstick on a pig. They're dressing it up, trying to make it sound better than it is. Which is nothing short of an unceremonious dumping.

Andrew Benson says: "This is not a duty of care by any stretch of the imagination, getting rid of someone after two races.

"Duty of care is to give him a chance to try and perform a bit better. Put your arm around his shoulder and talk to him about what’s going wrong.”

So the “duty of care” line is hogwash.

But even Andrew Benson, who’s a Formula 1 correspondent and follows the sport all the time, is scratching his head trying to work out what’s happened.

He did say though, that he thought Lawson looked like a bit like a rabbit caught in the headlights at his two races this year. He said looking at Liam off the track, while he was waiting to do interviews and things, he looked completely shellshocked.

But, like Max Verstappen, he thinks Lawson deserved to be given more of a chance to prove himself.

Verstappen isn't the only Formula I driver to think that way. He's one of several current drivers who have “liked” a post on Instagram criticising Red Bull’s treatment of Liam Lawson.

It’s a post by former F1 driver Giedo van der Garde which says: "Yes, you gotta perform. Yes, the pressure is insane. But, in my opinion, this comes closer to bullying or a panic move than actual high athlete achievements."

He says: "They made a decision - fully aware - gave Liam two races only to crush his spirit. Don't forget the dedication, hard work and success Liam has put in his career so far to achieve the level where he is now. Yes, he underperformed the first two races - but, if anyone's aware of that, it's himself."

Liam Lawson deserved more support, encouragement and time. And what's happened stinks.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National’s Matt Doocey and Labour’s Megan Woods joined John MacDonald in studio to discuss some of the biggest political stories of the week.

Green MP Tamatha Paul has been under fire for her comments about beat police – does their presence really make people feel less safe? And how do her comments bode for Labour, given they’re potentially coalition partners?

Is it fair the new Christchurch stadium could have a levy for ‘out-of-towners', since ratepayers funded the build?

And will the proposed changes to the RMA really deliver what’s promised?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I’m sure you’ll tell me if you think I’m stuck in the past, but I reckon that with the police now being expected to do roadside drug tests —as well as everything else— I think we should bring back the old MOT. The old traffic cops.

Officially, it was known as the traffic safety service, but we all knew it as the MOT.

And, yes, I know the police are struggling as it is to get the 500 new cops by the end of the year that the government has promised. But if they are now going to be expected to do thousands of roadside drug tests —as well as the alcohol tests and writing out tickets for speeding drivers— then I think they should create a separate, dedicated traffic division.

The way the roadside drug testing is going to work is that drivers will do a saliva test. If it’s positive, it’ll be sent to the lab for further testing. As well as that, an extra test will be done on the spot and, if that’s positive as well, the police will order them to stay off the road for 12 hours.

As someone who thinks we should have a zero alcohol limit for drivers, anything to try and catch the clowns who drive stoned is a good thing in my book. Especially when you consider the carnage that has been caused by drivers high on drugs.

Here’s a stat that proves it: in 2022 alone, 112 people died in crashes where drugs were involved. That was about 30% of all road deaths that year.

So the MOT was merged with the police in 1992 and, considering the fact that police are going to be expected to do 50,000 roadside drug tests each year as well as more roadside alcohol tests, change is needed.

The Government’s told them that instead of doing 3 million alcohol tests a year, they’re going to be expected to do 3.3 million – so an extra 300,000.

So 300,000 more alcohol tests, plus the 50,000 roadside drug tests.

I imagine Police Minister Mark Mitchell would say that the police already have a highway patrol, but I don’t think that’s going to be sufficient long-term.

And it’s why I think we should have a genuine, dedicated traffic policing service.

The other aspect of this too is that the Government has told the police that if they don’t meet these roadside testing targets —for the alcohol and for the drugs— they won't get all their funding.

So, full marks to the political parties that voted this drug-testing legislation through, but I think we’re setting the police up to fail if we don't have a re-think about how all this testing is going to be done.

And, for me, the best way to ensure this new law lives up to its promise is to have a dedicated traffic policing service. Like we used to.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

British comedian Ben Elton is returning to Christchurch this May, in what will be his final show in his Authentic Stupidity tour.

He joined John MacDonald for a chat about his outlook on life after years of writing comedy and how he feels about performing in Christchurch – plus, an exclusive reveal about his upcoming autobiography.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.