I’m glad I’m not a volunteer firefighter. Because, if I was, I would be brassed-off that an attempt to get volunteer firefighters the same ACC cover as full-time firefighters has gone nowhere.

A petition calling for the change has been rejected by a parliamentary select committee because it doesn’t want to set a precedent. The committee is trotting out all the usual platitudes but the fact remains that volunteer firefighters have just had another kick in the guts.

A bit of background: Katherine Lamont from the Queenstown volunteer brigade started the petition after another volunteer developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, but couldn't get any help because he’s a volunteer.

That’s because volunteer firefighters don’t get the same ACC cover and benefits as full-time firefighters. Which means if they suffer from any mental health issues because of their firefighting work, or if they get some kind of gradual injury from their firefighting work, or develop cancer because of their firefighting work, they can forget about any ACC entitlements.

Whereas, full-time firefighters get all of that covered.

Which is so wrong. Especially when you consider that volunteers make up 86 percent of the front-line Fire and Emergency New Zealand workforce and are often first responders in emergencies.

In 2023, volunteer firefighters responded to callouts for 70 percent of all motor vehicle crashes, 71 percent of all medical emergencies and 81 percent of vegetation fires.

That’s according to Katherine Lamont from the Queenstown brigade who saw how much of a rort this is and started the petition to try and get a better deal for the volunteers.

But Parliament’s education and workforce committee has said no. Because it doesn’t want to set a precedent - because it doesn’t think it’s practical for all volunteers to get ACC workplace coverage.

The committee says: "While we are sympathetic to the petitioner's arguments, we are concerned about the precedent that extending ACC cover to volunteer firefighters might set.”

I don’t buy that for a minute. Because is the committee saying that, if volunteer firefighters got full ACC cover, then we’d have people doing meals on wheels demanding the same?

So that’s what the committee says about its reason for rejecting the petition. Then the weasel words start: “We would like to take the opportunity to express our heartfelt gratitude to all those who volunteer for this important and challenging work."

Do me a favour!

Heartfelt gratitude would be recognising these people properly. Telling them that, if their “important and challenging work” means one day they find themselves suffering from PTSD, or some other serious injury or cancer because of that "important and challenging work”, then they will be looked after.

That would be “heartfelt gratitude”.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Australia pressed go yesterday on the social media ban for kids under-16 and a Parliamentary select committee here thinks we should do the same.

I don’t. Nor does retired district court judge David Harvey, who is saying today that a ban would be a cop-out for parents. He says it would be another example of outsourcing parental authority to the state.

He might have a point, but I think a lot of parents are to blame for the problem people seem to be expecting Parliament to fix. Because a lot of parents have been pushovers when it comes to social media. You go anywhere today, and you’ll see the next generation of pushover parents letting their kids on devices anytime, anywhere.

I’m anti a ban because I just don’t think it’s practical. I don’t see it working.

I know the counterargument to that is that people get around all sorts of laws, so does that mean we shouldn’t have any? Underage kids get their hands on alcohol even though it’s illegal. People on learner licences drive with passengers, even though it’s illegal.

I get that, but it’s still not a very good argument for a law that sounds great, but which I don’t see being great in reality.

The other reason I’m against a social media ban is that the under-16s who would be impacted have already grown up with social media.

It’s ingrained in their lives. It’s a genuine communication tool – schools use it, sports clubs use it.

Tell that though to the MPs on Parliament’s Education and Workforce select committee, which has been looking into the idea of a social media ban for under-16s here in New Zealand.

The committee’s interim report, its final report will be out early in the new year, its interim view is that we need something like that here. The committee also thinks we would need to have a social media regulator to make sure people and the social media companies follow the rules.

Back to retired judge David Harvey, who thinks banning under-16s from social media would be a cop-out for parents.

He says: “Supporters of the ban increasingly frame it as a tool for parents – an additional “lever” to help them say “no” to persistent children. That rationale reflects a growing trend: shifting parental responsibility onto the state.”

He says: “Telling children ‘the law says no’ is not parenting. It is outsourcing authority.”

And I agree.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chris Hipkins is hitting out at the Taxpayers' Union as it prepares to launch a campaign against Finance Minister Nicola Willis.

The lobby group is questioning Willis's track record on the economy.

Willis has responded, challenging chair and former finance minister Ruth Richardson to a debate.

The Labour Leader told John MacDonald the Taxpayers' Union has a view of "entrenched privilege".

He claims the organisation is funded by a group of rich people who want to keep all of their money.

Hipkins is also unimpressed by Willis’ decision to agree to the debate, which he says shows deep divisions among the National Party.

He calls it petty and says Willis should be focused on things like creating jobs.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There’s a lot to take in with these planning law changes. But what it comes down to is the Government wants people to be able to do more with their own property with less red tape.

If you want to do something that has no impact on anyone else, you’ll be able to do it. Your house, your castle.

That’s where there could be a few sticking points, because who determines what impacts others and what doesn’t? But overall, I like what the Government is doing.

And I know it will have looked for some of the most extreme examples of the current planning laws to sell the changes it’s making. Which is to ditch the Resource Management Act and replace it with a planning act and a natural environment act.

But you can’t argue with the minister responsible, Chris Bishop, when he says we need to see the end of developers being told one thing by one council planner and something different by another – such as one planner saying front doors have to face the street and another saying they can’t.

What the Government is saying is that the days of council planners playing god are over. And amen to that.

So the sorts of things it’s going to let us do without needing consents are things like adding a balcony or a deck or building a garage.

Chris Bishop says he knows of a guy who wanted to replace a garage on his property but spent nine months arguing with the council, because the council didn’t like the look of the garage.

It seems a lot of people are saying the devil will be in the detail. And one of the sticking points or potential bones of contention I see is where do you draw the line at what impacts others and what doesn’t.

For example: the Government wants me to be able to build a deck at my place without a consent, providing it has no impact on others. But what if building that deck means I can see over the fence more easily?

Overall, though, I’m in favour of letting people do more with their own property with less red tape.

But how do you feel about it?

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

These researchers calling today for a ban on alcohol marketing and sponsorship sound to me like they’re living in the past.

Maybe it’s the circles I mix in. But I reckon things have come ahead leaps and bounds when it comes to our drinking culture in New Zealand.

And before you start yelling “what about things like crate day mate?” - I’m not saying we’ve got it perfect. But I think we’ve moved on from any decade before the current one - when what these experts are saying today might have carried more weight.

So health promotion advisor Lizzie Barratt and researcher Dr Debbie Hager are saying that, with people drinking more at this time of the year, there is a spike in violence - especially by men against women and kids.

I’m not going to argue with them on that one. But is advertising to blame for that? I don’t think so.

But it’s not just an end-of-year thing. They say there needs to be a permanent ban on alcohol marketing and sponsorship to protect women and children from violence.

They say a ban would eliminate alcohol’s role in reinforcing a masculine drinking culture and eliminate its link with sporting activities. And, if we do nothing, things will only get worse.

But the alcohol adverts I see these days are way different to the ones we used to see. For starters, they are way less “blokey”. They also seem to be promoting restraint, as much as anything.

I really started noticing this a couple of years ago. Maybe further back than that. When the beer companies seemed to be putting as much effort into advertising their zero-alcohol products, as their other products.

So doesn’t that diminish the argument for a marketing ban and sponsorship ban?

What’s more, whatever I personally choose to drink has nothing to do with what I see on a billboard or whatever beer logo I might see on a rugby jersey.

I’m not saying that the alcohol companies should be allowed to run ads encouraging us to get tanked.

I‘m just saying that I don’t think banning alcohol ads and banning alcohol sponsorships would stop the mongrels who do get pissed and go home and beat up their partners and kids.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The eagle has landed. One of the police Eagle helicopters from Auckland is in Christchurch for the next two months as part of a crackdown on these criminal kids doing-over dairies and committing other crimes.

I think it’s brilliant that it’s here and I think we need one here permanently.

For several reasons: Christchurch is New Zealand’s second-largest city; we have a level of criminal activity here to justify it; and it’s not as if a police helicopter hasn’t been put to good use here before.

In 2020, it was in Christchurch for a five-week trial, and it was also used a few times earlier than that after the mosque attacks and when Prince William visited.

During the trial in 2020, the helicopter was sent to 346 incidents ranging from a water rescue, a robbery attempt, and helping a man thought to be having a heart attack in a park.

There was a bit of chat at the time about people being woken up at night by the sounds of it flying around. But an informal survey of residents found that only 24% of people thought the sound or noise from the helicopter was annoying. 60% said it didn’t bother them and 16% said they hadn’t noticed it.

The police themselves gave it a very positive review. One officer wrote to the Police News magazine saying every officer who had worked with the helicopter had found it beneficial in helping to prevent crime, catch offenders, and increase safety.

But despite Canterbury police themselves giving positive feedback on the trial, the powers-that-be decided it wouldn’t be made permanent. Which some people would have been happy about, because there were some who hated the helicopter being here and weren’t excited about the idea of us getting on here permanently.

National MP Gerry Brownlee was dead against it. I remember him saying that plenty of people had told him that they hated the noise. They also found it traumatising hearing it, because it took them back to the days after the earthquakes.

I get that. Nevertheless, I’ve always been in no doubt that we would benefit from having a permanent helicopter here. Which National kind-of talked about prior to the last election.

The party’s Christchurch central candidate was at a street corner meeting, and someone asked him what National was going to do about youth crime and whether it had plans for a police helicopter in Christchurch.

According to someone who was there, he said that Christopher Luxon had given it the nod but there wouldn’t be any announcement before the election.

That was it. Nothing more since.

But we know the cops love it. Most residents seem to like it. And my pick would be that support for us having a dedicated police helicopter would be much higher now than when the trial happened in 2020.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A couple of advisors at the Christchurch City Council have ripped into the Government’s plan for regional councils and have said to councillors that they reckon there’s a better way.

Or more correctly, two better potential ways. Instead of having local mayors run regional councils for two years and, during that time, work out how they’re going to get by without a regional council. At a briefing meeting yesterday, two principal policy advisors put two options on the table for councillors to think about.

Option 1: Amalgamate the Christchurch, Selwyn, and Waimakariri councils to create a new super city. Which I've been a fan of for quite some time now.

And Option 2: Keep all three councils and have the city council take over ECAN’s regional council functions.

The reason these two council advisors have put these two options up for discussion is that they think having local mayors run ECAN for two years and work out a new structure for local government is a “weak” idea, which wouldn’t do any favours for Christchurch ratepayers.

And I get what they’re saying, because as soon as you get three mayors around the table, they’re just going to be interested in what’s in it for them, aren’t they? Which is the same approach these policy advisors are taking. They’re on the city council pay roll and so they have to think about what’s best for Christchurch city.

And I like their idea of a supercity.

But every time a supercity is mentioned, some people are quick to point to Auckland as an argument against it. The Auckland supercity brought together seven city and district councils and the regional council back in 2010. But a supercity in the greater Christchurch area would be nowhere near the same scale. We’re talking here about just three councils: Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri.

We’ve done amalgamation before on a much smaller scale. Back in 2006, Banks Peninsula Council amalgamated with Christchurch city.

The issue then was that Banks Peninsula didn’t have a big enough population to get the rates it needed to operate properly. Selwyn and Waimakariri don’t have that problem – they’ve grown massively since the earthquakes. Selwyn, especially.

But half of the people living in Selwyn come into Christchurch every day for work and school, and they contribute nothing towards the cost of the running of the city. They’re using the city’s roads and so many of the other facilities that they pay nothing for.

Add to that the relatively small distance between Selwyn, Christchurch and Waimakariri, and amalgamation is a no-brainer.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You might recall a poll result that came out back in September which proved that 75 percent of us are idiots.

It’s these idiots that the Government is pandering to with the council rates cap it announced yesterday. And the 75 percent of people who said in that poll that they support the Government forcing rates caps on councils will be very happy today.

Because, from mid-2029, annual increases won’t be allowed to be any higher than 4 percent. Unless a council manages to get a special dispensation.

As a ratepayer, a rates cap sounds like a great idea. But it’s not.

One description I’ve seen of the Government’s move is that it’s lazy politics. Which it is.

Because of the 75 percent of people who support it, as the poll a few months back would suggest.

I suspect the only complaint the pro-rates cap people will have is that it isn’t planned to start for another three-and-a-half years. In mid-2029.

By which time there could very well be a different government in power and, if Labour (for example) is true to its word, then the whole thing could be history.

Labour’s local government spokesperson Tangi Utikere is saying today that they’ll vote against the rates cap law when it goes through Parliament.

He says: “We've made it very clear that we won't expect local government to continue to work and take on additional responsibilities without the funding. So we don't support this rates cap.”

Nelson mayor Nick Smith has been very careful not to bag his old National Party mates. But he does admit that it’s not going to be easy.

Rates caps have been brought-in in Australia and it’s created severe financial difficulties for some councils over there.

What’s more, Christchurch city councillor Sam MacDonald is already talking about the council selling assets to make up for the money it won’t be getting because of the limit on rates increases.

All this is, is another placebo policy. Something that might make us feel better for a little while. But it won’t last long.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.