Anyone who’s ever been the victim of a home invasion needs to avoid seeing the latest election campaign ad from the Taxpayers’ Union.

It’s the latest in a series of attack ads from this outfit. Alongside all the other negative advertising out there from some of the actual political parties.

But this one takes it to the next level.

What they’ve done, is they’ve used AI to create a video which shows Labour leader Chris Hipkins kicking down the doors at people's homes, rushing in and helping himself to their wallets and cash.

The objective is to show how much of a money grab Labour’s capital gains tax would be.

The part that I find most disturbing, is where the Chris Hipkins character kicks in the door of an elderly woman’s home while she’s sitting on the couch.

The Hipkins character then grabs money sitting on the TV cabinet and takes off, leaving the woman sitting there like a stunned mullet.

That’s why I’m saying that anyone who’s ever been the victim of a home invasion needs to avoid seeing this thing. Because I’m in no doubt that it will be triggering for some people.

Which is why I think it is the most bad taste election campaign ad I’ve ever seen.

I’m not the only one who feels that way.

David Cormack owns Cormack PR and he’s told the NZ Herald that the ad is “revolting”. He uses some other words too. But I’m not going to repeat them.

He’s saying today: “The Taxpayers Union is putting Hipkins at the scene of a robbery. There’s a difference between saying someone will cost you money and depicting them stealing from your wallet.”

He says: “They’ve turned a tax argument into a home invasion.”

And that is what makes this ad so appalling. Say what you like about Chris Hipkins, but don’t use something so terrifying, like a home invasion, to make a political point.

But, as I said earlier, the Taxpayers’ Union will accuse me of overreacting.

I know that, because Jordan Williams from the Union called me this morning to say it was just satire.

After telling the NZ Herald: “AI is so good now we have to artistically make it so over the top to make it clear that it is done in humour rather than for someone to take it seriously.”

He said: “I got advice on this ad and the lawyer’s advice was that no one’s going to look at this and think it’s genuinely Chris Hipkins because it’s so over the top.”

But I’m sorry Jordan. Negative political ads have had their day. And appalling ads like this one should never see the light of day.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week's Politics Friday Election Special focused on the Banks Peninsula electorate.

The candidates, Vanessa Weenink from National, and Tracey McLellan from Labour, made their pitch about why they want to become the next local MP.

They discussed the tight 2023 election result, which was decided by just 396 votes, and the key issues facing the electorate, including coastal erosion, un-swimmable beaches, and how they feel about the potential for the Tāwhaki National Aerospace Centre to attract aerospace and defence-related investment and contracts.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Let me say from the get-go that I despise gang culture and everything it stands for and represents.

I despise gangs for the misery they inflict on people with their drug dealing and the way they treat the people desperate for the poison they peddle.

I despise gangs for the other heinous crimes they are associated with. Their appalling “initiation” processes. All of that. I have zero time for it.

Let me also say from the get-go that the three MPs and a candidate from the Greens and Te Pāti Māori who visited a Mongrel Mob pad, south of Auckland, picked the worst possible time to do it.

It’s the worst possible time because we’re in the middle of an election campaign and any claim that they were there to, you know, “discuss the issues” is just nonsense.

They were there to get votes. Plain and simple.

So I hate gangs, and I think these four from the Greens and Te Pāti Māori have cocked up big time.

But…

Despite what you or I might think about gangs, isn’t it better that politicians engage with them in some way, shape or form?

I’m talking about politicians engaging genuinely with gang members. Not with the objective of getting elected, but with the objective of trying to show gang members that there is an alternative way to live.

It’s been done before. The most obvious example is National Prime Minister Sir Rob Muldoon. You never hear people slagging him off for spending time with gang members. But that’s what he did. In particular, Black Power.

Doing things like helping gang members find accommodation and setting up subsidised work schemes for them.

His thinking was that finding gang members work cutting firewood or getting painting contracts would put them on the straight and narrow. And they loved him for that.

And these gang members didn’t just come to him. He went to them, as well. Drinking with them at gang pads and everything.

There’s even a story about him throwing the dregs of his whiskey at a gang member who had been flicking beer at him.

And then, when he died, about 100 Black Power guys turned up at his state funeral at the Auckland Town Hall in August 1992 and honoured him with a haka.

The following month, after a memorial service in Wellington, his wife, Dame Thea, even spent time with Black Power gang members.

The doubters will point to the fact that, despite Sir Rob’s efforts, gangs have continued to grow. And they’d be right.

But this is where Merepeka Raukawa-Tait comes into it. She used to run Women’s Refuge. These days she chairs Whānau Ora and is an advocate for women and children.

Before the last election, when National was touting its crackdown on gangs, she wrote a piece in the NZ Herald about Muldoon.

She said his relationship with gangs did work. For a while. Until the work contracts dried up and the gang members, as she put it, “turned back to doing what they do best: surviving on the proceeds of crime.”

But she also said this in her article: “I think Sir Robert Muldoon had the right idea: engage with the gangs and understand that whānau is whānau - whether gang whānau or otherwise.”

What she was getting at there is that whether you and I can get our heads around it or not, gangs provide a sense of belonging. A sense of whānau.

And we can choose to reject that or cover our ears and ignore it. Because you, like me, probably don’t have any time for gangs. But that’s reality.

We go on all the time about politicians not being in touch with reality.

So what’s so bad about politicians getting more in tune with the realities of gang life?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Qiulae Wong’s night couldn’t have gone better last night.

Just before the Opportunity leader joined the other leaders for the minor parties TV debate, a new poll came out putting her party well and truly in the position of kingmaker.

According to the 1News-Verian poll, Opportunity is sitting on 8 percent - which equates to 10 MPs in Parliament.

And, not just that, the parties on the left and the right would need it to form a coalition government. A great start to the night for her.

But it was just the start. Because, an hour later, she lined up with the leaders of ACT, Te Pāti Māori, NZ First and the Greens. And, right from the get-go, she owned it. And Opportunity is pretty much on its way to Parliament.

Because, if people are happy to assume that ACT and NZ First will be there on the basis of their current polling, then the same for Opportunity.

In last night’s poll, ACT and NZ First were both on 10 percent. Opportunity was sneaking-up behind them on 8 percent.

A result that I think will seal-in those voters who might have been thinking about voting for Opportunity, but were a bit spooked that their vote might have been wasted if they didn’t reach the 5 percent mark.

That poll result and Qiulae Wong’s performance last night sealed the deal.

I thought she was a brilliant contrast to the Greens’ Chloe Swarbrick and demonstrated exactly why someone who might have previously voted for the Greens could or would vote for Opportunity.

Chloe declared that the Greens are out to change the Government because of the “massive attacks” it has inflicted on people over the past three years. The Opportunity leader said: “Imagine how many of those egregious things the Greens could have stopped if they were willing to work with National.”

Boom!

I thought she stood her ground brilliantly with Winston Peters, too.

Saying again that there’s no way she will serve in a government with him as Foreign Minister. Because of his racist comments to Chinese-born Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan.

My hunch is that, even though Christopher Luxon has ruled out working with them, Opportunity’s preference would be to form a government with National.

Because, if it went with Labour, that would confirm to the doubters that it’s a left-wing party and not as open-minded as it says it is.

And, let’s face it, on those poll numbers last night, we know that Christopher Luxon won’t be ruling out working with Opportunity come election night.

He, like the rest of us, needs to take Opportunity seriously. Because its time has come.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I thought the tax cuts we got after the last election were a complete waste of time.

And I suspect that, by now, most people feel the same.

Which is why I am in no way excited about this talk from National about possibly further cuts. At some stage.

When the party released its fiscal plan for the election yesterday, finance spokesperson Nicola Willis opened the door a little bit. Hinting at further tax cuts once the books are back in surplus.

Saying: “National is the party of low tax”. Adding that the tax changes after the last election were the first in 14 years.

But she said first priority is getting the Government books back into the black so future generations aren’t lumbered with more debt.

The thing is, though, what would you rather?

Would you rather get another miserly tax cut? Or would you like to see the money spent differently or, even, more wisely?

I’m in the “spend the money more wisely” camp. So I don’t give two hoots about tax cuts. But I do give two hoots about some of the way my tax dollars are spent.

I’ve got five examples. In no particular order.

Money blown on infrastructure projects that go nowhere. Labour excelled on that front with the $50 million it poured into the Auckland Harbour Bridge bike lane project. All that money and nothing to show for it.

Untargetted government subsidies. Example: the fuel subsidies. We know they’re going to people who don’t actually need them.

MP perks. I think we can agree that they’re way too generous. For example, being paid $1,000-a-week to stay in Wellington at a property they own themselves.

How much of our money goes into paying off government debt. We have no choice on that front - we have to pay it off, with interest. The interest alone is $27 million-a-day.

And, this is small-fry compared to the others, but it still shows how Wellington throws taxpayer money around. It’s the $150,000 blown on the Government’s farcical road cone hotline. It achieved nothing. Money down the drain.

So, for me, less of the wasteful spending is far more important than giving me a tax cut.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Canterbury District Commander Superintendent Tony Hill joined John MacDonald to take listeners questions about the issues that local police are facing in the community.

Superintendent Hill discussed the recent homicides in Christchurch, youth offending, police response times, public concerns about unsolved crimes, and the move-on powers coming into force later this month.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If a 16-year-old doesn’t want to be at school anymore, is it worth forcing them to stay until they’ve completed Year 11?

At the moment, they can leave as soon as they turn 16.

But National says, if it’s re-elected, it will make it compulsory for students to stay until the end of Year 11. Irrespective of when they turn 16.

Education spokesperson Erica Stanford says 16-year-olds shouldn’t be quitting school with “nothing to do but sit on the couch”.

The thing is, though, if a 16-year-old just isn’t interested in school, should they be forced to stay? No, they shouldn’t.

Which I’m basing on my own personal experience. When I was in Year 11. Or 5th Form as it was then. Which I will get to.

But I can see what National is trying to do with this policy. And I like the objective. Because if someone has to stay until the end of Year 11, they’ll hopefully walk out the door with some qualification. Which, at the moment, is NCEA Level 1.

That’s what Brendon Crompton from Blue Light Ventures, which runs mentoring programmes for young people, thinks. He likes National’s idea and describes NCEA Level 1 as something everyone needs to be an adult.

But you don’t get it just for turning up. You have to put the work in. And chances are, if someone has pretty much given up on school, they’re not going to put the work in, are they?

And I’m not just saying that. Because I know what it’s like being someone who has given up on school.

When I was in my School Certificate year, the 5th Form or Year 11 as it is now, I couldn’t wait to get out of there.

I scraped through. Passing three subjects and failing two. My parents could see what was going on and they let me leave school and work for them in their shop.

A year down the track, they had an offer for the shop that they couldn’t refuse. So I was out of a job.

They suggested that I go back to school. To a different school. Which I did. And it turned my life around.

But I know that, if I’d been forced to stay at the old school when I didn’t want to be there, things would have really gone pear-shaped for me.

The other thing is that, for as long as we have NCEA, not every school is going to offer the Level 1 qualification. That’s because it’s not compulsory. So some schools don’t bother with it.

So if someone turns 16 in May, for example, what’s the use of forcing them to stay at school until the end of the year if they’re somewhere that doesn’t even offer Level 1?

And what’s the use of forcing them to stay if school is the last place they want to be?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Anyone over the age of 50 should be very wary of this plan National has to reduce benefit payments for people on the Jobseeker benefit longer than two years.

I’ll tell you why. But first, here’s what it wants to do to save taxpayers $572 million over four years.

A single person receiving the Jobseeker benefit would get $48 less per week after more than two years. A couple both receiving it who don’t have kids would get $82 less. While a couple with kids would get $24 less. And a sole parent on Jobseeker would also have their benefit cut by $24 a week.

National’s view is that the Jobseeker benefit is there to provide temporary support for people. That it’s a backstop.

Which, broadly, is how I see it too. I have never been on the dole or the Jobseeker benefit. And, when I lost my job at the start of Covid, signing up never actually occurred to me. I just got on with setting myself up as a sole trader to get some money in the door. And I went from there.

But that’s me. Everyone approaches things differently. And not everyone has the confidence or the skills or the wherewithal to create something themselves.

That’s not a criticism of anyone. It’s just a fact.

National, though, sees everyone being the same and having the same opportunities to find work.

Here’s how leader Christopher Luxon put it: “I am not happy to have people sitting out there on welfare when there's a massive opportunity to connect them to work. That is what we want to do.”

Which all sounds great. But here’s the kicker. Bringing me back to my warning that anyone over the age of 50 should be very wary of this idea.

Those of us over 50, like I am, know that if we find ourselves out of work, it’s going to take us way longer to find a job than someone younger than 50.

I’ll give you an example.

Sue’s her name. She has decades of experience in law and engineering.

At 63, she was out of work and putting in half a dozen job applications every day for six months, with no success. And she’s convinced it was because of her age.

In fact, she says: "I got one response. She phoned me up from Australia and asked me over the phone: 'I need to verify your age.' And when she found out what age I was, that was it."

That’s the brutal truth. And I can imagine two years disappearing very quickly for someone over 50 trying to get back into the workforce.

Not to mention someone over 60.

Like Yvonne, who has removed anything in her CV that might give away her age.

She says: “As soon as you start getting into your 50s, even in your late 40s, people start looking at you and wonder why you haven't become a manager.”

And this is why this policy of National’s has unintended consequences written all over it.

I get what its social development spokesperson, Louise Upston, means when she says the Jobseeker Benefit is supposed to provide temporary support for people.

But this idea that anything longer than two years isn’t temporary totally ignores reality. Especially for anyone over the age of 50.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.