I don’t know if I’m going to make any friends in Governors Bay, especially with the people involved with the Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust.

Because I think their call that the city council stop charging them interest on a loan it gave them to get the project across the line is, at best, unrealistic. They are dreaming.

I remember the first time I went to the rebuilt jetty after it was re-opened last year. It was a beautiful evening. Very still. One of those brilliant evenings on the peninsula. And I was really impressed.

I’d been to the old jetty plenty of times —that was before it was damaged in the earthquakes— but the new jetty was quite something. Still is quite something.

If you’ve been there, you’ve probably walked up-and-down reading the plaques with the names of all the people and the outfits that gave money to the project. Who only gave money because of those volunteers who decided that the community was going to get its jetty back and who did an absolutely brilliant job making it happen.

Especially when you consider that the city council originally thought it would cost $7.8 million, and these volunteers managed to get it done for $3.8 million. So around about half as much as the council was talking about.

They did it after the council decided that, because it was going to cost so much, it wasn’t worth doing.

Not that it wiped its hands completely, it sold the jetty to the trust for $1 and chipped-in $1.75 million of ratepayer money. It also gave the trust an $850,000 loan at 4% for four-and-a-half years.

So the jetty is back. Everyone happy.

Well, not quite. Because after all the heart and soul these volunteers put into raising the money to get it re-built, they’ve run out of puff.

They’ve worked out that, just to pay the interest on the loan from the city council, they’d have to have the equivalent of a fundraising sausage sizzle every weekend for the next three years. That’s just to pay the interest.

So this week they’ve been to the council, asking it to drop the interest on the loan. The council has said “no can do”. And I’m with the council.

For the exact same reason that the council has given to the jetty people – that, if it agreed to flag the interest on their loan, it would set a dangerous precedent.

Not that the city council is unanimous on this one – Councillor Aaron Keown reckons the council should drop the interest on the loan. He thinks that, instead of setting a dangerous or a problematic precedent, it would actually encourage more community groups to take on these types of projects.

His view is that if you look at the jetty project, the volunteers managed to get the rebuild done for half the amount the council thought it was going to cost. And he’s saying today that “if it delivers infrastructure at half the price, it is good precedent setting.”

Which Aaron, with respect, is a pretty weak argument.

It’s a weak argument because if the council gives on this one, not only will it have other outfits that it’s leant money to knocking on the door wanting their interest waived, it will also have others applying for council loans with 0% interest from the get-go.

There will be a stampede of people wanting free money from the council, and it will be pretty hard for the council to say no if it gives-in and flags the interest on the loan for the Governors Bay jetty.

I mean I get what this volunteer group is saying – that after 10 years working on this project, they’re worn out. But they knew when they took out the loan with the council, what the conditions were.

They knew the terms. It’s not like you or I can go to the bank asking them to stop charging us interest on our mortgage because we’re a bit tired, because it means we have to work more than we really want to.

The bank would tell us where to go. Which is what the council is doing too, as it should, to the jetty restoration people.

Yes, the jetty is an asset for the community. Yes, the fact that it’s been re-built much cheaper than what the council thought it would cost is brilliant. Yes, it is another fantastic example of a community recovering from the earthquakes. It ticks all of those boxes.

But it still doesn’t change my view that the jetty restoration people need to accept the conditions they signed-up to when they took the loan out with the council. And the council is absolutely doing the right thing refusing to stop charging them interest.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John MacDonald was joined by National’s Vanessa Weenink and Labour’s Duncan Webb this morning for Politics Friday. They discussed whether the new gang patch law will make a difference to crime numbers, and why the Government is pushing on with the boot camp legislation while the trials are ongoing.

They also discussed behaviour in Parliament, particularly following Erica Stanford’s apology after insulting Jan Tinetti in the House. Is it time for more serious action? Are standards slipping?

Labour MP Duncan Webb claims Education Minister Erica Stanford has muttered insults in the House for some time.

Stanford apologised yesterday after Education shadow-minister Jan Tinetti accused her of using a swear word to describe her.

Parliament's microphones and Hansard recording did not pick it up.

Webb raised a point of order, and told John MacDonald that Stanford is a repeat offender.

He says this is just one instance where the Minister over-stepped the mark, and he decided it shouldn't, couldn't continue.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today’s the day when one of the most ridiculous laws we’ve ever seen in this country starts being enforced by the police.

As of midnight last night, it is illegal for gang members to wear their patches out in public. Not only that - the Government also wants the cops to stop gang members hanging-out together in public.

As far as I’m concerned, this is just another placebo policy. A policy that might make us feel good but won’t actually make much difference.

And instead the Government should just be letting the cops do more of the great work they’ve been doing to crack down on the criminal activities we know gang members are involved in.

The Comancheros are a perfect example. Remember back in September when the cops arrested pretty much every Comanchero member in the country after that three-year undercover operation?

They charged them with importing and selling drugs, running what was described as a pretty elaborate money laundering scheme, and running military training camps run by a former US marine.

I know we said at the time that it probably wasn’t going to spell the end of the Comancheros in New Zealand. Well, I did anyway. That’s because they’re a gang that actually has clout and international connections.

Nevertheless, the police have shown us what can happen if they’re just allowed to get on with it. And if the Government was serious with all its talk about making life difficult for the gangs, then it wouldn’t be telling the cops to go searching for gang patches in hanky drawers.

What I’m saying is we should be focussing on the crimes already being committed by gang members instead of creating another crime - which is what this new law coming into force today is doing.

In fact, I’d go as far as agreeing with a gang guy I saw on the news last night who said that this gang patch ban criminalises people for doing something where there are actually no victims.

Think about it: if you see someone going down the street wearing a gang patch - does that make you a victim? Now you might say, well yes it does because whenever you see a gang patch you might feel uncomfortable.

But does that make you a victim? I don’t think it does. There are all sorts of people out there who make me feel uncomfortable or intimidated, and they aren’t necessarily gang members.

Tell that to the new police commissioner Richard Chambers, though, who you might have heard speaking with Mike Hosking a couple of hours ago.

Mike was talking to him about the new job and asked him what he thought about these new gang laws, and he said “well, funny you should ask”.

He didn’t actually put it that way, but he did say that in Hastings at three minutes past midnight —mere minutes after the laws came into force— police stopped a gang member travelling in a vehicle. The gang member was wearing a patch, and so they dished out their first charge under the new law.

The thing is —and the Police Commissioner knows this— stopping one guy in a car is a different kettle of fish from dealing with a whole lot of gang members in one spot.

Or going into the homes of gang members and having a nosey around for gang patches, because that’s what the cops are expected to do from today. To go through hanky drawers and wardrobes and pull out the patches if there’s a gang member with criminal convictions living there. What a waste of time and resources.

Another gang person in the news today who I agree with as well is lifetime Black Power member and community advocate Denis O‘Reilly.

He’s saying: “This legislation is just pandering to an anxious, white, middle-class population, who the research demonstrates are the people least likely to be affected by gang activity.”

And he’s spot on.

That’s why I’m calling this a placebo policy. Because making life difficult for gangs isn’t taking their patches off them or throwing the book at them if they’re caught wearing them in public. Because a gang member doesn’t have to wear a patch to tell the world which gang they’re in.

Making life difficult for them is infiltrating their networks. Cracking down on all the illegal stuff they’re involved in. Which is why I think the gangs are going to be winners in this so-called crackdown on gang patches and gang’s congregating in public.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I can’t accuse NZ First MP Shane Jones of being pale, male, and stale. But he is male, and he is stale with these comments of his about the way some MPs are dressing in Parliament. I do agree with him, though, that some of the rules in Parliament need toughening up.

This has all been stirred-up after the MPs did their haka in Parliament last week.

Shane Jones and ACT leader David Seymour are saying that the rules governing how things are supposed to run in the House aren't up to scratch.

I was reading that the toughest personal penalty that an MP can face for playing up in the debating chamber is $1,000. Which is chicken feed when you consider the salaries MPs are on.

So MPs on Parliament’s Standing Orders Committee are going to look into it and see if they can come up with some stiffer penalties for MPs who break the rules.

Officially, these rules are known as Standing Orders and it is the Standing Orders Committee which is responsible for reviewing and considering the rules that govern how the House operates.

So Shane Jones is happy about that. He’s also happy to let the Standing Orders Committee decide what changes might be needed. But he also reckons they need to get tough on dress standards, as well, in Parliament.

He thinks the way some MPs dress, they look like "scarecrows".

But I’m not upset about cowboy hats and feathers in Parliament. That’s because Parliament is, after all, the House of Representatives. Meaning the politicians in that House are supposed to be representative of us.

And, if you’re somewhere right now where there are other people, take a look around. Is everyone dressed the same? Of course they’re not. Are all the guys in suits and ties? I bet they aren’t. And are all the women wearing smart business suits? I bet they’re not, either.

Whether we like it or not, dress standards generally have changed. You might say they’ve gone backwards. I wouldn’t describe it that way.

The point I’m making is that Parliament needs to reflect the real world. And the real world includes people dressing in cowboy hats. And feathers too, at times.

But where I am with Shane Jones and Christopher Luxon, though, is the need to ensure that the rules that determine how Parliament is run and what is expected of MPs and the consequences for breaking those rules need toughening up.

Reason being that there would not be any other workplace in the country where aggressive behaviour would be tolerated.

And I’m not being anti-haka here, but what happened in Parliament last week was aggressive. The All Blacks’ haka is aggressive, and the haka in Parliament on Thursday was aggressive. Just like Julie-Anne Genter was aggressive when she went nuts at Matt Doocey in the House earlier this year.

And that’s where the rules —or, at least, the punishments for breaking the rules— need a good look at.

Because, just like people wearing cowboy hats and feathers is part of the real world, we should also be seeing our Parliament run in a way that gives MPs the same protections that all workers in this country expect when it comes to not being treated aggressively and being respected.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins says he had no problem with Te Pati Māori's haka in the House last week, during the vote on ACT's Treaty Principle Bill.

David Seymour, the National Party, and Shane Jones have written to Speaker Gerry Brownlee.

They say the Speaker should oversee rule changes at Parliament in light of the disruption.

Hipkins told John MacDonald it's worth instead looking at Winston Peters, who he describes as one of the worst-behaved MPs.

He says it's wonderful Jones and Seymour have appointed themselves Parliament's hall monitors, but they could lead by example and speak to their own leaders.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

An absolute circus is one way to describe David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill.

Or you could say that the thousands at Parliament today to protest against it is what democracy is all about.

Either way, if you want to point a finger at anyone for creating this shambles, don’t point it at David Seymour. Point it at Prime Minister Christopher Luxon.

Who kept telling us last year how much of an expert he was at negotiations. Mergers and acquisitions was what it was all about. And, as we know with negotiations, it often means all parties doing a bit of give and take to get something across the line.

But for someone who likes to go-on about his real-world business experience, it amazes me that he’s created this shambles by acting in a way that no chief executive would. More on that shortly.

But I reckon people are thinking less about Christopher Luxon’s negotiation skills and more about his leadership skills right now. And I bet he is ruing the day that he agreed to include this sham in his coalition agreement with David Seymour.

I also bet he is losing a lot of people’s respect. He’ll know that. If he doesn’t, then someone needs to tell him. His MPs won’t say so, but I bet he’s losing a lot of their respect, as well.

It’s obvious. You talk to pretty much any National MP about the Treaty Principles Bill and they’ll shuffle uncomfortably in their seat. They’ll look away. They’ll say “oh yes, but not past the first reading” blah blah blah.

They’ll try not to let it show in their face. But look into their eyes, and you can see the dread.

That’s because they are embarrassed to be associated with this thing. And they have every right to be embarrassed when you consider that it was only agreed to, to get a deal across the line. Agreed to in a way which means it’s not actually going to go anywhere.

All it’s going to do is give David Seymour a platform for the next election.

Now before you start saying “hold on a minute, hold on a minute - it was only the other week mate that you were saying that we —as a country— seem to be incapable of discussing this sort of thing without it turning into a bunfight."

Yes I did say that. I wasn’t saying I supported the Bill, I was saying that, despite how advanced we think we might be as a society, when push comes to shove, we are incapable of having this “national discussion” that the pointy heads like to bang on about without it turning to custard.

And we’re seeing that play out today. Which Christopher Luxon knew would happen. He would have known full well that there’d be people who would go nuts over it.

But he went with it and, as a result, his leadership is looking weaker by the day.

Because if he had approached his negotiations with David Seymour in a way you would expect a seasoned chief executive to, then he would have done what any chief executive worth their salt does and determine whether a deal is going to do good things or bad things for the interests of the company.

The best chief executives —and I’m talking the absolute best of the best— what they do, is they base all of their decisions on what’s best for the business or organisation that they lead. And, if they're really good, that can sometimes mean making decisions that might even see them lose their job.

I’ll let you decide whether the company, in this case, is the National Party or the country. But this deal with Seymour isn’t good for his party and it isn’t good for the country.

And, if Christopher Luxon is the leader he claims to be, then he needs to show some genuine leadership —some genuine backbone— and use his business skills to get us out of this mess.

If he doesn’t, he will be toast. He will be toast as far as his MPs are concerned and he’ll be toast as far as the majority of voters are concerned.

Because, if he did do what I’m saying he needs to do, then I would respect him infinitely more than I will if he does nothing. If he keeps on with this charade, if he keeps on banging on about how unhelpful the Bill is, how divisive it is.

Keeps on trotting out that nonsense, and then sticks with the plan.

I don’t care about his leadership experience until I see some genuine leadership in the here-and-now. To get us out of this treaty principles mess.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you’ve got solar panels on the roof, you’ll be loving the blue skies.

And a solar energy advocate is saying today that those of us who don’t should be getting financial support from the Government.

Mike Casey says New Zealand is one of the few western countries that doesn’t provide subsidies for solar energy. He says, in Australia, people can get subsidies to convert to solar and - guess what - more of them have. Way more.

I think this is brilliant thinking - but not necessarily a brilliant idea. Because, if we could do all that magic wand stuff - which we can’t - but if we could, I’d say yep - Government subsidies for anyone and everyone.

But there’s no magic wand and so we can’t. So I reckon there should be Government support to get solar into all new builds.

I was talking to someone who, as they put it, went down the solar panel rabbit hole - in that they looked into it. But they just came to the same conclusion that I think most of us have - and still do - and that’s that the numbers just don’t stack up.

You can spend the money getting the panels on the roof, but it’ll take you years before the savings in electricity costs justify the spend.

But getting more and more people onto solar energy is a much more realistic way for the Government - and I’m not just talking about the current Government, but all Governments - it’s a much more realistic way of trying to get those power costs down.

Because what other options are there? The Government of the day can thump the table and tell the power companies to stop ripping us off.

But that’s rarely worked with the supermarkets. So as if thumping the table is going to work with the power companies.

The other option up the Government’s sleeve is restructuring the electricity market. But when do you think we’re going to see that happen?

I was reading a history of New Zealand’s electricity reforms back in the 80s and 90s and it took about four years for those reforms to happen. So any changes the Government wants to make to the current electricity market is going to take a fair amount of time, isn’t it?

So, if it wants to, the Government can do that. But I think it needs to be looking for some quick-wins at the same time. And subsidised solar conversion would be a quick win. Because, like anything in life, if you focus on the things you can actually influence - then that’s when you start to make progress.

And providing taxpayer support to get solar power happening more widely, then that would be something the Government could make happen as soon as it wanted to.

There are about two million occupied homes in New Zealand and around 60,000 of them have solar panels.

It took New Zealand more than seven years to get 30,000 houses with solar. The other 30,000 took three years. And so now we’ve got 60,000. Which is about 3 percent of houses connected to the national grid.

Compare that to Australia, which heavily subsidised solar, simplified the installation process, and invested in workforce training for installers and the general figure is about 35 percent (compared to our 3 percent).

In many neighbourhoods in Australia, though, 50 percent of houses have solar panels. In some, as many as 80 percent. Thanks to government subsidies.

Which our Government could bring in today, if it wanted to.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.