Isn’t David Seymour the guy who got himself into government at the last election and then went and set up a new government department?

But, despite the irony, I agree with him that we need fewer government departments and fewer Cabinet ministers.

Previously, the ACT leader has described the public sector as "a big, complicated bureaucratic beast".

There are the numbers to back that up. We have 82 cabinet portfolios, 28 ministers and 41 separate government departments and agencies.

David Seymour thinks that’s crazy and says ACT will campaign in this year’s election on changing that. And, instead of having 41 government departments and agencies, he wants us to have no more than 30.

As for cabinet ministers - at the moment there are 28, David Seymour thinks we need no more than 20.

I remember Oliver Hartwich from the NZ Initiative think tank saying last year that we could get away with having as few as 15 cabinet ministers, instead of the 28 we have at the moment.

But he thought that 20 was more realistic.

As for government departments, they are monsters. They operate in silos. They compete with each other for funding. They don’t talk to each other. That’s why there’s so much duplication.

For example, do we need a Ministry of Education and an Education Review Office? I don’t think so.

Do we need a Ministry of Justice and a Department of Corrections? Possibly not.

As for cabinet positions, do we need a mental health minister? Could that all be part of the health minister’s job?

And don’t get me started on things like the Minister for the South Island or the Minister for Auckland that Labour brought in.

So, I’m with David Seymour and I think we could do with fewer government departments and agencies.

But it will never happen.

Talking about having less government departments and less cabinet ministers is easy and politicians talk about it because they know it tends to go down well with people.

But it will never happen. Because, whether people admit it or not, they still expect the government and its departments to fix everything.

And, unless that changes, the government isn’t going to get any smaller. And its list of departments isn’t going to get any shorter.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week on Politics Friday John MacDonald was joined by National MP for Banks Peninsula Vanessa Weenick, and Labour List MP Tracey McLellan.

They covered the latest national and local issues, including NZ First's announcement to campaign on a Māori electorate referendum, whether all events at One NZ Stadium should have a levy, electric e-trail bikes that are speeding around the city, and more.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christchurch City Councillor Yani Johanson thinks we should all pay a special levy when we buy tickets for all events at Christchurch’s new One New Zealand Stadium.

And he won’t be getting any argument from me.

Yani can’t believe the news today that a levy is only going to be charged on tickets for concerts by international artists.

He says it is “inconceivable” the levy won’t be charged for all events, including rugby matches and everything else that happens there, because he reckons it’s only fair that all people who use the stadium help pay for its upkeep.

No international acts have been announced yet but, apparently, there are going to be some announcements in the next few weeks.

And when the tickets go on sale, the council’s events company - Venues Ōtautahi - which is going to be running the stadium, is going to add a $5 levy to the ticket price.

The money from the levy is going to be used to pay for the extra toilets and extra food and drink facilities that are going to be needed when they have these big concerts.

So it sounds as if we might be queuing up for portaloos even though it’s a new flash harry facility.

The point Councillor Yani Johanson is making, is that anyone who wants to go to any event at the stadium should make the same contribution towards the running of the place.

He says: “A lot of these people buy expensive tickets to these events and are subsidised by the ratepayers in Linwood, Bromley and Aranui. I don’t think that is fair.”

But the head of Venues Ōtautahi, Caroline Harvie-Teare, says it wouldn’t be fair or right to charge a levy for all events.

Her thinking is that if you or I are buying tickets to see the likes of Bruce Springsteen or Pink or the Rolling Stones, we’re not going to give two-hoots about a $5 levy on top of the ticket price.

But she says it would be a different story for some of the smaller-scale, community-type events that are also going to be held at the stadium.

She says a levy on those types of events could put some people off and so they would be less viable. But what I would say to that, is that the stadium is not a charity and if events can’t pay their way, then maybe they need to be held somewhere else.

What’s more, do you really think a $5 levy would put people off buying tickets to see the All Blacks or the Crusaders? Of course not. Do you think a $5 levy would put people off buying tickets to see the rugby league world cup double-header in October? Or the Black Ferns when they play here?

So, of course, this levy should be added to the ticket prices for every event. Yani Johanson is spot on.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Do you think there is anyone in New Zealand who believes the Government’s line that it’s a coincidence the findings of its inquiry into the Reserve Bank’s COVID-19 response will be released a few weeks before the election?

As the NZ Herald’s political editor, Thomas Coughlan, puts it: the inquiry will ask the right questions at the wrong time.

Because this has election campaigning written all over it.

The official line is that the review is being done to “identify any lessons New Zealand could learn to improve the response to future major events”.

But how credible is that, given the findings of the inquiry will be released just weeks before this year’s election?

Not very, according to Labour leader Chris Hipkins, who’s saying today: “If this is a genuinely independent review that provides some lessons learned, it could be useful. But doing it right in the middle of an election campaign suggests that’s not Nicola Willis’ primary motivation here.”

And he’s spot on. Because it’s not.

The Government’s primary motivation is to spend half a million dollars of taxpayer money on a report that is going to come out at the pointy end of the election campaign, which will do one of two things.

It will either rip into the Reserve Bank in the way the Government hopes it will. So it can then say to voters, “do you really want the last lot who let the Reserve Bank get away with this trainwreck back in charge of the economy?”

Or, the report will be a bit soft - not quite what the Government wants - but will still give it bragging rights about looking to learn from past mistakes. Unlike Labour, who it will accuse of not having the guts to front up to the COVID-19 Royal Commission of Inquiry.

So it’s going to be a win-win - especially for National.

I think this would have way more credibility if the Government had come out yesterday and said it was launching the inquiry but the findings wouldn’t be released until after the election.

For the benefit of whoever the government of the day is after the election.

If it had done that, I would have had no problem with the timing.

Instead, this inquiry - which, in itself, is fully justified - is at risk of looking like nothing more than taxpayers coughing-up for the National Party’s election campaign.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Is there anything about the Government’s free trade deal with India that anyone likes?

The prime minister and the trade minister love it. Winston Peters doesn’t. And it seems Labour leader Chris Hipkins is coming around to thinking that he doesn’t like it, either.

He’s concerned about the prospect of an unlimited number of Indian students being allowed to come here and work and the impact that could have on the job market.

Which the trade minister is poo-pooing. Because we don’t actually have any limits on the number of students who can come here from anywhere. Not just India.

But I think we should.

I know the trade minister will tell us until he’s blue in the face that this is a trade deal - not an immigration deal. But he’s pushing that one uphill with the likes of Winston Peters, who is picking up on the immigration side of it because there is no shortage of people who love to complain about foreigners “taking over”.

Do you really think NZ First would be making as much of a noise if this was a deal with the UK or the US? I don’t think so.

So they’re just tapping into some good old-fashioned xenophobia.

That said - since the government announced the deal just before Christmas - whenever I’ve been speaking with young people especially about it, I’ve been surprised how strongly some of them feel about students coming here from other countries.

And how many of them think there should be limits. Which I agree with, for several reasons.

First of all, students don’t come here with any skills. They come here to get skilled. I know they spend money and it’s great for the tertiary sector because they pay higher fees being international students. But they don’t come here and fill the workforce skill shortages we’re dealing with.

Secondly, the more students from overseas, the higher the demand for accommodation. Which means student rents going skyward.

What’s more, if we have no limits on the number of students coming here, then that increases the risk of students getting ripped off by employers. It also makes it tougher for domestic students to find the work they need to pay for their studies.

But what do you think?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A lawyer believes the Christchurch couple who found $200,000 in their ceiling space should keep the cash that they found in their property.

However, the High Court has decided that the couple are not owed a cent of the money, even though they handed it in with good faith.

They uncovered the cash sealed in plastic bricks and concealed in insulation in 2021 and reported their discovery to police.

Lawyer and former police officer Matthew Hague told John MacDonald that there's no question that the couple were innocent in their reporting.

"They had zero involvement with anything untoward, they should be allowed to keep it"

When asked if he thinks the couple will end up with the money, he said there is one thing going against them.

"If you pay for something, that can be a factor for something to be returned, but they're not out of pocket."

"In my view, they did nothing wrong"

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins has fallen into the trap that I could very easily find myself falling into if I didn’t think a little bit more carefully about this plan by the Government to set-up a new shipping terminal in Taranaki to import liquified natural gas.

This is the gas that’s needed to generate power, alongside the other ways we generate power in this country - hydro, coal and wind.

It’s going to cost somewhere north of $1 billion, and the Government reckons it will be up-and-running in one-to-two years’ time.

I think it’s dreaming on the timeline front. I also think Chris Hipkins is dreaming when he says $1 billion would buy a lot of solar panels.

Because even though Energy Minister Simon Watts banging-on about us paying less for our electricity - or more to the point, not paying a truckload more for electricity - this isn’t actually about you and me.

Unless you run a big manufacturing or processing plant - in particular one of these big plants or factories that have been struggling with power prices. This is about industrial electricity supplies.

This talk about importing gas first surfaced a couple of years ago when factories were actually closing because of high power prices.

The big power companies looked into it, and they wrote a report for the Government which essentially said that it wasn’t as straightforward as it sounded.

They looked into the practicalities of importing gas and they said we could do it, but there are a few things to think about.

The main ones being the price tag and how long it would take to get it happening.

They said last year that it could be done cheaper than $1 billion - for around $200 million - but the gas would be 25 percent more expensive, because the cheaper option would use existing facilities.

However, there wouldn’t be the same amount of storage and so we couldn’t buy as much in one hit and so we’d pay more for it.

They also said it wouldn’t be an overnight fix. It would be about four years before we started to see the benefits.

Another main point in this report was that we could spend the money and wait for it all to come online, but there could be years when we don’t even need the extra gas.

But that’s a bit like pouring money into a fire alarm and sprinkler system and not using it. You know it’s there and it gives you security.

That’s how I see this gas importation business. It’s a back-up. And so, what if it isn’t needed all the time?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I’ve done a few things in my time. But one thing I haven’t done is serve on a jury.

For a long time, I put it down to me working in the media. But I was out of the media for a long time, as well. So I don’t know why I haven’t had the call up.

But, apparently - according to defense lawyer John Munro - I might be somewhat unusual in my enthusiasm.

He says people don’t have the same sense of civic duty as they used to and aren’t keen to do jury service.

And, because of that, we need to be offering more carrots for them to make themselves available - starting with paying them more.

I think that might help. But if someone has no sense of civic duty, paying them more to turn up isn’t going to make much difference, is it?

If more money is the only reason they do turn up - then do we really want them on a jury? Would they be there for the right reason?

At the moment, you get $62 a day for jury service. Which is chickenfeed.

As John Munro says, it’s nowhere near enough - especially for people who are self-employed.

At the same time, we’ve got this guy in Auckland saying today that he will never make himself available for jury duty again after his experience.

He’s really brassed-off after he took leave from his job and spent three days waiting around the court building doing nothing. He wasn’t selected for any trials and, after three days, they told him he was done.

Nico van Rooyen was very excited to be called up for jury service. But it’s only left him out of pocket and a harsh critic of the system.

He says: "I won't ever do it again. Believe you me, it's the biggest waste of time I have ever experienced, The selection process is a farce of gigantic proportions."

He says 80 people waited at the district court for several hours and then, without any scrutiny, were reduced to 40.

He was then told to turn-up at court the next morning. He did that and waited all day and was told to come back the following day.

Day three, he turned up and at lunchtime he was told he could leave.

He says the system needs a shake-up.

“Not a single one of my friends or customers had anything good to say about jury service. Some said, ‘just make an excuse for work’. Some had been excused from it between three and seven times. But not me, mate. I wanted to do it.”

Never again, though, he says.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.