After all his talk about asset sales, David Seymour has obviously been scratching his head like the rest of us, wondering what we’ve actually got left to sell. And he’s got Christchurch Airport in his sights.

The Government —or the Crown— owns a 25% stake in the airport (which is the second largest in the country) and the ACT Party leader is saying today that he doesn’t think it should. And I agree.

Remember, 75% is owned by the Christchurch City Council, and it’s the other 25% that Seymour thinks should be sold because he doesn't think owning an airport is core business for the Government.

I think it’s a great idea, but not for exactly the same reason as David Seymour.

He thinks an airport shouldn’t be a government activity. I don't care too much about that side of it, because the Government —or the Crown— has its fingers in all sorts of pies, doesn’t it?

My support for this comes down to numbers. And whether you and I would be better off if the Government stayed involved in the airport company or not.

So David Seymour is saying today: “ACT believes that owning an airport isn’t part of the Government’s core business and would support selling its share so the money can better be used elsewhere.”

He says: “Whether that means better infrastructure, better healthcare, better education services or homes for the next generation.”

And the reason I think this idea is a winner has nothing to do with me saying “yeah open the doors to anyone with money”. It’s not me agreeing with Seymour that governments shouldn't be involved in things like airports.

It’s got nothing to do with those things.

And if you’re familiar with my views on assets, you might think it’s a bit weird that I’m supporting Seymour on this one. Because, generally, I don’t consider anything to be an asset unless it’s making money - and the airport is making money.

It’s making money for the Crown and it’s making money for its majority owner, the city council.

But if you dig a little deeper into the numbers - that’s where the argument in favour of the crown selling its 25% share lies.

In the 12 months until June last year, the airport company reported an underlying net profit after tax of $41.8 million. That was from revenue in the 12-month period of $233.1 million - a 15% increase on the year before.

And, once they’d done things like taking into account changes to depreciation rules, the actual result for the year was $22.7 million.

Here are some more numbers:

All up, the airport company is worth more than $2.3 billion.

So, if we do some really raw mathematics, let’s say the crown’s 25% share is worth $575 million.

And if we take the crown’s 25% share of last year’s actual profit, that comes to about $5.7 million.

So, what would you prefer? $5.7 million in a year or $575 million in a one-off transaction?

The Crown could sign a deal and get $575 million. Or, based on last year’s profit level, it could wait 100 years to get the same sort of return.

Based on those numbers, I think it’s a no-brainer. And I don't expect to be the only one thinking this is a good idea.

Just a few days ago, Mark Lister from Craigs Investment Partners said Christchurch City Council missed a trick when it decided against asset sales. He reckons Christchurch Airport is an attractive asset, which is all the more reason for the Crown to sell-off its 25% share.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined in studio by Hamish Campbell and Reuben Davidson.

David Seymour thinks the Crown should sell its share in the Christchurch City Airport – is it wise to sell off a profit-making asset?

Eastgate Mall has made headlines for its crime this week, as MP for Christchurch East, will Rueben be asking for more police?

And should we be nervous about the Cook Islands making deals with China?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Be very nervous.

That’s my advice regarding the Government’s big re-set for state housing provider Kāinga Ora.

Don’t get me wrong. Some of the stuff it’s doing makes perfect sense. But, overall, there’s potential for it to be a real cluster.

Let’s start with the positives, though. It seemed to me that, under Labour, Kāinga Ora had become some sort of urban development agency.

In fact, I’m pretty sure that was the pipedream old Phil Twyford had back in the day.

Which, when you think about it, is somewhat ironic given it was Labour that came up with the plan in the first place to have the state provide a roof over the heads of people who can’t afford their own place.

You would think that Labour, of all parties, would have the basic gist of the state housing programme embedded in its DNA.

So, tick: I’m all for housing minster Chris Bishop’s plan to get Kāinga Ora to focus on its knitting - which is to provide houses and be a good landlord.

The Government’s also going to sell 800 or 900 state houses a year and demolish about 700. These will, generally, be the old-school weatherboard and tile jobs. The places that people talk about having “good bones”.

Two hundred of the ones that are going to be sold are worth around $2 million each - which has more to do with their locations. Some of them are in places like Remuera.

And that makes sense to me. Although, to be fair, Kāinga Ora has already been doing this. The Government’s just getting it to do more sell-offs.

And it’s going to replace them with new builds. It’s also going to do some alterations to other existing properties.

And the upshot is - according to the Government, anyway - is the number of state houses will stay the same as it is now.

Woohoo! Big deal!

Because, when you think about the fact that there is a social housing waiting list with 20,000 people on it; plus 1,000 households living in emergency housing; the Government crowing about keeping the number of state houses the same is a pretty hollow.

On top of that.. According to the last census, there are also 5,000 people living “without shelter”.

So you take all of those numbers and, surely, it tells you that we should have more state houses than we do now.

In fact, not should - we need to have more state houses than we have now.

You’d think so. Well I would, anyway. Not Chris Bishop, though.

Labour, of course, is ripping into the Government. Saying that this plan shows it’s more interested in cost-cutting then housing people. Which I agree with.

And it’s one reason why I’m saying we should be very nervous about what the Government is doing.

The other reason - in fact, the main reason why I’m saying we should be nervous about the Government’s new plan for state housing - comes down to 14 seconds from the minister’s interview with Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB this morning.

I heard him and thought 'hang on a minute'.

He said: "Fifty percent of people on the register, they just need a one-bedroom unit. They don't need a three or four-bedroom unit, they just need a one-bedroom unit. And, actually, we can build that really cheaply and some of the stuff we're doing on the granny flats, for example, making it easier to build one or two-bedroom granny flats on properties will make a real difference there."

He’s right when he talks about what types of properties people need.

This has been known for quite a while. Which is why we've seen Kāinga Ora demolish some of those big houses and replace them with more smaller homes on the same site.

And the reason more and more people only need one bedroom is because we do not have as many large families anymore. Society is way different from back in the day when Michael Joseph Savage turned up at 12 Fife Street in Miramar in 1937 to open the very first state house.

So yep I get all that.

But when we get the housing minister talking about granny flats and state houses in the same breath, that’s when we need to start getting nervous.

Especially when you join the dots to the minister’s announcement yesterday where he said: “Ministers are clear that Kāinga Ora should be building or acquiring simple, functional, warm and dry houses, as quickly and efficiently as possible.”

Which, for me, is code for a whole bunch of one-bedroom granny flats built in a rip, shit and bust fashion.

And we should be very nervous about that prospect.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I tell you what, I am almost torn on this talk today about New Zealand pulling out of the Paris climate agreement.

The one we’re signed up to along with a truckload of other countries - and which US president Donald Trump has just exited.

In fact, here are the numbers: we are one of out of 193 countries that are signed up members. That’s 193 out of the 197 countries that there are in the world.

But Donald Trump is not having any more of it. And talk about winds of change in the White House, there could be winds of change here too, with David Seymour sniffing an opportunity and saying that the ACT Party could very well go into the next election with a policy to get us out of the Paris agreement too.

Here’s what he’s saying: "There is a wider question of whether the government of New Zealand should be committed to the Paris Accord when half of the world appears to be pulling out of it, anyway.”

Which isn’t really correct, but that’s politics.

Speaking of, maybe David Seymour is just doing what Sir John Key used to do all the time: put an idea out there as if we are one big focus group.

Somehow, I suspect there might be a bit more to what David Seymour is saying. And I bet there will be no shortage of people who would actually vote for this kind of approach.

And this is where I get to the bit about me being torn.

I reckon —in fact I know— there would be no shortage of people who would vote for this kind of policy. I know there would be no shortage, because I can actually understand their thinking.

It is very easy to understand their way of thinking that New Zealand is a tiny cog in the climate change machine and, really, what difference can we actually make?

And then there's the belief that the big polluting nations aren't doing their bit. So if they’re not, why should we bother? Which I get.

The other side of the coin, though, for me, is that the United States isn’t necessarily the be-all and end-all. Which is what former climate change minister Nick Smith was getting at when he spoke on Newstalk ZB this morning.

He says when it comes to climate change you have to take a long-term view, and you can't have politicians flip-flopping on policy.

He says our free trade agreement with the European Union has specific references to climate change and we would be nuts to pull out of the Paris agreement.

He says China and Australia are part of it and, if we did pull out, there could be serious trade and economic consequences for New Zealand.

And this is the point where I stop being torn and come to the conclusion that we have to stay signed up to it. Whether or not we think we can make much of a difference.

You might think ‘well that’s a lot of time and money and effort to make little or no difference’. But is it worth jeopardising trade relationships for?

I don’t think it is.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

“There are dropkicks everywhere”.

That's what someone said to me when we were talking about this situation around Eastgate Mall.

This person I was talking to goes to Eastgate all the time and they were saying that they feel more nervous going to Riccarton Mall.

And I agreed with them. Sometimes the atmosphere outside Riccarton Mall can be pretty threatening.

Which is why I think there is a strong argument for police to have a permanent presence not just around Eastgate - but all the big malls.

Riccarton’s one of them where I think there is a definite need. That might be because, of all the malls, that would be the one I go to most often.

So why Eastgate is in the news today, is that the owner of five shops in the area around the mall has had a gutsful after having to call the police 70 times during the last three months.

He’s called them for all sorts of things - assaults, drug use, attempted break-ins, vandalism and loitering - but they haven’t always turned up. And that’s got local community leaders saying the police need to be stationed in the area permanently.

Which they used to be. But it seems they've been diverted to the foot patrols in the central city.

Which are great - and very noticeable.

Just the other day, I was in the centre of town and a couple of cops walked past me. I turned the corner and there were two more walking towards me.

So that’s brilliant. But it seems that it may have come at the expense of places like around Eastgate Mall - going by what this landlord is saying today and what the local community board leader and local city councillor are saying.

City councillor Yani Johanson and the head of the local community board, Paul McMahon, both reckon that the strife around Eastgate could have something to do with officers being reassigned to the CBD.

“We need the community policing team back”. That’s what McMahon is saying.

He’s saying: “There was a Phillipstown policing team, which included Eastgate, and the community constables were a regular presence.”

He goes on to say: “But the new government re-prioritised police to beat policing, and that means more police in the central city and fewer police for places like Eastgate.”

City councillor Yani Johanson is singing from the same song sheet. He says he goes to Eastgate often and he's aware and concerned about the anti-social behaviour going on there.

He says more needs to be done and having more of a police presence is something people would welcome.

I bet it would. But, like I say, if you’re going to have more cops at Eastgate - you need to do it elsewhere too.

Problem is, though, police resourcing.

As Inspector Glenda Barnaby puts it - she’s the metro area prevention manager - she's saying today that police can’t be everywhere, all the time.

Which is a fair point. She’s also saying today that what she calls “vigilant reporting” from the public is key to the police being able to respond and do something about bad behaviour.

But tell that to the guy in the news today who has called them 70 times in the last three months

The thing is - whether we like it or not - malls have become central meeting points in communities.

Back in the day, people would congregate in places like your old town squares.

These days, people go to malls to congregate as much as anything. And wherever people congregate in large numbers - you're going to get all sorts, aren't you?

Which is why I agree with these two council guys who want a heavier police presence at Eastgate. But I’m saying don’t stop there and do the same around all the big malls in Christchurch.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A mate was telling me last night how surprised he was that he was breath-tested by the police yesterday afternoon.

If he’d been riding an e-scooter, though, he would have been waived straight through.

If he’d been riding an e-scooter he also wouldn’t have been drug-tested. He also wouldn’t have had to have the thing registered like any other vehicle.

Which the AA is saying today is nuts and needs to change. Because even though the number of e-scooter injuries is going through the roof, e-scooter riders and e-scooter companies don't pay any ACC levies. And I agree with the AA.

Because when a vehicle is registered, it enables all sorts of things. One of which, is to charge ACC levies.

Which is way overdue for e-scooters, especially when you consider these new stats which show that ACC paid-out nearly $15 million for e-scooter injuries last year. Which was a 50% increase on the year before.

The number of injuries were up across all age groups. Although, one-in-four people injured were in their 20s. About half of the claims were for soft-tissue injuries. More than 1-in-20 were for fractures and dislocations.

People bang on all the time, don’t they, about people coming here from overseas and getting free ACC cover. The reason for that being that you can’t sue in this country and so we have to provide cover for people from overseas.

But the exact same thing is happening with e-scooter riders. Because they don’t have to pay ACC levies, they’re getting free ACC cover.

And if you don't like the fact that tourists get ACC for free, then you should be just as brassed-off about e-scooter companies and e-scooter riders getting the same.

There have been numerous efforts over the years to have e-scooters recognised as vehicles. None have been successful.

So the Automobile Association is trying again. Writing to the outgoing Transport Minister and the incoming Transport Minister, as well as the minister for ACC, telling them that the time has come for e-scooters to be registered.

The particular point that the AA is making is that the number of privately-owned e-scooters has reached the point where these things are not novelties anymore.

It’s not unusual for someone to own their own e-scooter and the laws need to catch up with that. They need to reflect that.

And it’s not as if the people who do own their own e-scooters don’t recognise the dangers. Most of the time they’re dressed up like Darth Vadar, aren’t they?

Full-face helmets and all of that. Plus, the protective clothing. And the speeds these things can get up to still blows me away.

Then you get the muppets on the Lime scooters and all those other rental scooters, riding as if there's no tomorrow. The one thing I’ll say about the people who own their own e-scooters is at least they put some effort into keeping themselves safe with the helmets and all that.

Another thing the AA wants to see is e-scooters being allowed in cycleways. It also wants e-scooter riders to be tested for alcohol and drugs. It wants them banned from using mobile phones, as well.

The Government has said it’s “open to changes”. As it should be. In fact, it should more than open to them, it should be getting on with it.

You’ll remember how, at the end of last year, motorcyclists were fired up about their ACC levies going up.

Motorcycle Advocacy Group New Zealand was even going to the Human Rights Commission about it, because motorcyclists are facing an 80% in ACC levies over three years.

And, at the time, I said if that’s what needs to happen —given that motorcyclists are at much greater risk and potentially more likely to need ACC cover— then why shouldn't they pay more cover?

As far as I’m concerned, the same goes for e-scooter riders. And the e-scooter rental companies too.

Because, like motorbikes and anything else on two wheels, they are inherently more dangerous than something on four wheels, and our transport laws need to recognise this.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the first Politics Friday of 2025, John MacDonald was joined by Matt Doocey and Megan Woods to dig into some of the biggest political stories of the week.

New data reveals that ACC paid out almost $15 million for e-scooter injuries last year, a nearly 50% increase on the year before – is it time for the businesses operating them to pay levies?

What does Megan make of Shane Jones honing in on the banks and their dealings —or lack thereof— with fossil fuel companies? Is it wise to sell off the country’s state-owned assets? And the new school lunch programme has seen some criticism – would Matt eat the meals?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I like to think that I care about the climate and climate change. Well, I know I care.

But, like most of us —if I’m really honest— I’m all a bit token on it.

Which might be why I’ve got absolutely no problem with Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones taking on the big banks for refusing to lend money to the fossil fuel industry.

I’m not like some people who I actually know —friends of mine— who are deeply committed to trying to do something about climate change. And it shows through the way they live their lives. I go along with the recycling and all that, but that’s about it.

If I was more of an eco-warrior, maybe I’d be ripping into Shane Jones for threatening the banks with a private members bill which —I’ll admit— could set quite a precedent. Because if Parliament forces banks to do business with the fossil fuel industry, what could be next?

And if I was more of an eco-warrior, maybe I’d be jumping to the defence of the banks and saying that they have every right to decide who they do and don’t do business with. Which, technically, they do.

But, despite all the things the fossil fuel industry gets accused of, it is not an illegal operation.

Which is why Shane Jones is planning this intervention to force banks to drop their “woke” approach and to stop treating people who own petrol stations, for example, like second-class citizens.

There’s similar talk across the Tasman. Peter Dutton —the opposition leader who could very well be prime minister in a few months in Australia— is saying the exact same thing as Shane Jones.

Which I agree with. If you’re running a perfectly legitimate business, then banks shouldn’t be allowed to close their doors to you.

Where this has all come from is a thing called the Net Zero Banking Alliance, which is a global thing that banks around the world have signed up to.

It’s voluntary, but a pretty good sell job has been done on it, obviously. Because all up, there are 136 banks around the world involved.

136 banks in 44 countries with assets worth about $NZD100 trillion.

The purpose of the alliance is to get banks to lend money to businesses and industries that align with the idea or the goal of having net zero emissions by 2050.

So you can see why the banks here have been pulling the pin on lending money to petrol stations. Because petrol is "bad" and doesn’t do much for achieving your net zero emissions by 2050.

And I’m perfectly happy if the banks want to be part of this. Good on them.

I’m perfectly happy if they want all their mobile mortgage managers to run around the place in EVs because that would align with zero emissions. Go for it.

I’m perfectly happy too for the banks to give all their staff free bus passes – although it would be us customers who would end up paying for it.

What else? Solar panels at all branches? Yep, go for that too.

But turn your nose up at petrol station owners and the general fossil fuel industry? No thanks.

Because, whether the banks like it or not, they are legitimate businesses - just as legitimate as any other sector. And what the banks are doing is wrong.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.