I reckon we should have signs up at our international airports saying: “Welcome to the people’s republic of pushovers”.

Because of our crazy ACC system which, a lot of the time, makes those of us living here fight tooth and nail but tells anyone coming here for a visit that they can tie themselves to bungy ropes, jump on skis, do whatever they want - and we’ll pay for their treatment.

It seems even crazier when we’ve got ACC announcing today that it’s got a plan to become more financially sustainable, after that big loss last year and a projected $26 billion deficit in four years’ time.

ACC says it’s going to focus on getting people back to work quicker after an injury. But I think it also needs to think about who it covers, starting with people from overseas. Because we are too much of a pushover.

Not that it’s ACC in isolation that’s the problem. The reason we provide ACC to visitors from other countries is that we don’t have the right to sue here in New Zealand. That’s why visitors are covered.

So, let’s say someone comes here and goes skiing and has an accident and ends up getting helicoptered to hospital. They can’t sue the ski field operator or the clown who was gunning it down the mountain and lost control and ploughed into them. So ACC covers the cost of their treatment and care.

But I think this needs to stop.

Some people will probably argue that, if we make tourists pay for their own treatment if they injure themselves, then they won’t come here. But that’s nonsense.

There are two approaches we could take. We could either charge non-residents at the door when they need treatment. Or we make it mandatory for anyone visiting New Zealand to have travel insurance. Because it isn’t at the moment.

It needs to be. Because it’s time to turn-off the ACC tap for people visiting from other countries

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you bump into Chris Hipkins today, can you tell him he’s dreaming?

Because, now that we know this year’s election is happening on 7 November, Chris Hipkins is saying that Labour can get more than 40 percent of the party vote and form the next government.

He also wants Labour to win back Auckland.

He’s dreaming. Because I don’t think voters, generally, are ready yet to give Labour another chance. And I don’t think voters in Auckland, especially, are ready to trust Labour again.

Hipkins is doing what leaders do - especially in election year. They rally the troops. But it’s going to be a big task keeping the troops rallied for 10 months.

And I know Labour will be disappointed that the election isn’t happening sooner. An earlier election would have meant less time for the economy to recover. Plus, Labour has nowhere near the same campaign resources that the likes of the National Party has.

So it’s going to be a tough winter for the party.

The thing is: what would we need to see from Labour or hear from Labour to buy into this talk from Chris Hipkins that it’s a different party from last time around? Rather than banging-on about changing and being different, we need to hear what it is the party has accepted about itself that has driven this so-called change. It’s very easy to say “oh, we’ve changed. we’re different now, you’re gonna love the new us”. That’s just telling people what you think people want to hear.

To even think about giving Labour another chance so soon, people need to see the difference.

Let me give you an example: you’re running a cafe but customers are leaving in droves because they don’t like the way you and your staff treat them when they come in for lunch or a coffee. You’re a bunch of grumps. Terrible vibe. So people give you the flick. You realise what’s happening and you go onto your Facebook page and you say “hey guys, I’m hearing that some of you haven’t been that impressed with our service. Hey, I’ve had a word to the team and we’re different now, we’ve changed our ways, so come on back.”

Would you buy into that? I’m picking voters will be exactly the same with Labour.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Phil Goff agrees with the Christchurch City Council's response to a Government proposal of capping rates to no more than 2 to 4 percent per year.

Goff says the Government is not performing in lowering the cost of living, but a rates cap is not the right answer.

The former Mayor of Auckland told John MacDonald the Government sees local councils as an "easy target".

Christchurch City Council has responded to the Government's proposal, saying that while they support a prudent approach to managing rates, the cap as currently designed is “unrealistic and unworkable”.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hats off to the Christchurch City Council.

Which is telling the Government today that its idea of forcing a cap on council rates increases is “unrealistic and unworkable”.

Which is a polite way of saying “rates caps are a daft idea, so just drop it right now”.

And that’s what I think too. I’ve always thought it’s a daft idea to force local councils around the country to increase rates by no more than 2 to 4 percent each year. It sounds brilliant, but it’s never going to work.

The Christchurch council says even at the upper range of a 4 percent cap, it would be forced to cut costs by up to $120 million a year.

Which confirms to me that the Government either has no idea or no interest in the financial realities local councils are dealing with.

Christchurch city council says rates caps would force cuts to essential services, lead to a decay in assets, delay investment in critical infrastructure, and reduce the council’s ability to repay debt.

Not only that. It says they would drive up fees and charges. Which the Government isn’t being totally upfront about.

Because, just before Christmas, a Cabinet paper was quietly published which shows we’re only being told part of the story.

In the paper, the local government minister says the rates caps are intended to “incentivise greater use of user charges, which have declined in recent years”.

Which is what the Christchurch city council is warning us about today.If councils are forced to limit annual rates increases to somewhere between 2 and 4 percent, we’ll just end up paying more in other ways. How do you feel about higher parking fees? Higher dump fees. Paying more to use your council pool. Higher consent charges. Life won’t be cheaper, it will be more expensive.

I’ve always known that this idea isn’t actually going to deliver us any benefits.

This cabinet paper and the people who actually know a thing or two about how councils work - Christchurch city council staff and councillors - are proof.

No matter how much you might think your local council needs to rein-in the spending, this idea of rates caps won’t make one bit of difference.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In his state of the nation speech yesterday, Christopher Luxon continued the great New Zealand tradition of kicking the retirement age can down the road.

He said raising the retirement age was “inevitable”. But that was it. And, when I say kicking the can, it was more like nudging the can with his foot really. Because what the Prime Minister and every other politician should be doing, is showing some fortitude and accepting that tweaking with the retirement age is never going to be enough.

What I think we should be doing, is telling people who are 35 and younger right now, that they’ll have to provide for themselves completely when they retire because there won’t be a NZ Super pension.

That’s what needs to happen. Instead of increasing the age of entitlement by one year or two years, we should ditch the scheme completely. But over a sustained period of time.

Because the problem we’re trying to solve is the fact that it is completely unsustainable.

By the end of the decade, we’re going to be spending $30 billion a year on NZ Super and, as economist Brad Olsen said recently, every other thing in the government’s budget will be “rats and mice”.

So, if we are serious about leaving a legacy for future New Zealanders - which is something the Prime Minister talked about a lot in his speech yesterday - we need to make sure that legacy doesn’t include lumbering future generations with an unsustainable state pension scheme.

But, the way we’re going, nothing’s going to change. Because politicians seem to be terrified of doing anything meaningful. Whereas, what I’m talking about would be meaningful.

It would have no immediate impact, given it would only apply to people 35-and-younger now. But you can’t underestimate the long-term benefits.

I know doing away with NZ Super would be huge. But we can’t afford to be all sentimental about it.

We have to face the reality that the way we do things now - and the way we’ve been doing things - can’t continue forever.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The personal responsibility brigade will be going ape over Pharmac looking into funding weight loss drugs.

This wouldn’t be for anyone wanting to lose a few kilos here and there. This would be for people who are obese and at risk of serious health complications. Around 200 potentially serious health complications, actually. Such as Type 2 Diabetes.

I think it’s a no-brainer. Because we have the third-highest adult obesity rate in the OECD, which is a problem for all of us.

Even those of us with the metabolism of a racehorse. Because, with the health complications that come with obesity, we all end up paying.

Whether it be in a financial sense as taxpayers or as users of the health system seeing waiting times blow out because of the demand for treatment. Because of the impact of obesity on the health system.

The fact that Pharmac is even considering giving these weight loss drugs the time of day is brilliant. It now needs to ignore the naysayers and get on with it.

And there will be naysayers. The people in the personal responsibility brigade who look at every overweight person and think they’ve got no control.

You know: “They’re all just a bunch of lardies who eat KFC every day. And why the hell should us taxpayers pay for that lot to get a magic potion because they can’t say no. Because they’ve got no self-control. Haven’t they heard of personal responsibility?” Blah blah blah.

The funny thing is, you don’t hear this lot ripping-into people with high blood pressure. Or people with heart disease. Or even people with cancer.

You don’t hear the personal responsibility crew saying those people shouldn’t be on Pharmac’s funding list. Because, if you apply the logic they apply to obese people, the exact same thing could be said.

That someone who smokes, for example, shouldn’t get their blood pressure pills funded by the taxpayer or someone who smokes and gets cancer shouldn’t get medications that might save or extend their life.

Obesity is a disease just like any other disease. A disease people have because of genetics or hormonal issues or psychological issues. It’s way more complicated than just how much food someone eats.

Which is why we need to accept that, if these drugs are a genuine option for people who have no way of losing significant amounts of weight and no other way of avoiding serious conditions like Type 2 Diabetes, then why wouldn’t we fund weight loss drugs for them?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After yesterday’s half-year fiscal update from the Government, the canary in the mine is gasping for air and the elephant in the room is walking all over everything.

And economist Cameron Bagrie is saying that we can’t ignore either of them - particularly in relation to the long-term outlook and what it means for superannuation and retirement planning.

He says, with Government debt forecast to blow-out long-term, we need to accept the fact that the universal pension scheme is unsustainable.

Government debt is forecast to increase to 180 percent of GDP in 30 to 40 years because of the ageing population and Cameron Bagrie says if we think tinkering around the edges with KiwiSaver is the solution, then we’re dreaming.

And I couldn’t agree more.

He says a conversation about the sustainability of superannuation can’t be avoided forever. I would disagree with him slightly on that one. I think that conversation about the sustainability of our NZ Super scheme needs to happen now.

My view on NZ Super is that it’s crazy people who work beyond 65 get the pension. Even though it’s taxed at a higher rate - I get that. But I still think it’s wrong.

I've also been a fan of some form of means testing.

But, if I’m honest, do I really think the scale of the problem we’ve got - especially long-term - would be sorted out by not paying the pension to people who continue to work beyond 65 and means testing people before they get the pension?

Probably not.

So, if we’re really going to think long-term, I reckon we need to make the call that people of a certain age are told that the NZ Super pension won’t be available to them by the time they reach retirement age.

This would have to be long-term. So, for arguments sake, let’s say we told people who are 35 and younger that they will have to provide for themselves completely when they retire.

That would give them at least 30 years to get themselves sorted. In fact, I would say that people in this age group probably assume now anyway that they won’t be getting a government pension by the time they reach retirement age.

So what I’m talking about is a very gradual phase-out of the government pension.

I’m in no doubt that something like this is needed. Because we are dreaming if we think we can keep doing what we’re doing.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You would think that, having had a major terror attack here, we’d be the last people that needed to be told after what happened in Bondi on Sunday night that we’re too complacent.

But that’s what security experts are saying. That New Zealand remains complacent and naive, despite 51 people being killed in the mosque attacks in Christchurch in March 2019.

And I think we are getting to the point where we need to have armed police at all major events in this country.

These security experts are saying that what happened at Bondi should be something of a wake-up call for us. With one of them putting it this way in the NZ Herald: “We’re only a small millimetre away from that occurring in our own backyard again.”

That’s a quote from Chris Kumeroa, who is a director of Global Risk Consulting and principal security adviser to the Government’s Crowded Places Security Advisory Group.

He says, even though there are significant differences between New Zealand and Australia in terms of international relationships and migrant communities, there is still growing political, religious and social polarisation here. And he says we could be doing more to deal with the risk of another mass casualty event happening.

But what more could we do? How could we be more vigilant?

Armed police at major events would be one way.

Anyone who went to the public gatherings after the 2019 mosque attacks will remember the police being heavily armed.

And I know that what I’m suggesting would definitely be confronting, but I think it would be comforting, as well.

Because the clincher for me is this: in Bondi on Sunday night, one of the alleged attackers was a licensed firearms owner. The father, who was still allowed to keep his weapons despite his son apparently having an interest or a connection to ISIS.

Nevertheless, the guns weren’t illegal. Which shows how gun laws aren’t enough on their own.

So what I’m talking about is armed police at big sporting events, big concerts and gatherings of particular communities that might be considered at-risk.

As former SIS agent and now Massey University senior lecturer Rhys Ball is saying today: “We still don’t have conversations within New Zealand society that is thinking about security and safety in any way other than this kneejerk response. Security is usually down the pecking order of issues.”

Armed police at major gatherings and events would be a definite way of putting it up the pecking order, don’t you think?

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.