What would you rather? Would you rather toll roads and shiny new roads, or would you rather waiting for NZTA to put you on the list of priorities and potholes up your ying yang?

New Zealand has just three toll roads right now throughout the country, and two of them are in Tauranga. There are also two more planned on Bay of Plenty roads – not surprisingly, residents are up in arms. Yes, there are workarounds for them under National Land Transport legislation. If you're going to bung a toll on a road, then a viable toll-free route must be provided, though these free detours typically add 10–20 minutes to your travel time. So you can pay and take 10–20 minutes off your journey, or don't pay and just be prepared to take a bit longer to get where you're going.

Residents affected by the latest toll that is yet to be imposed —but it's imminent at the Pāpāmoa East interchange— say $3.40 is far too much for people to pay, especially those who need to use the road to get to work, especially for those on fixed incomes. Retailers say the toll will reduce the number of drivers who choose to stop at Golden Sands in Pāpāmoa. They'll just drive straight through to avoid the toll, and the shopkeepers are going to suffer. However, while Bay of Plenty residents have tolls, they do have new roads.

And for many communities up and down the country, they would love the option of a tolled road. In an interview with Lloyd Burr, the Tauranga Chamber of Commerce CEO Matt Cowley said every time we get a new road, we have to pay through tolls. Now we don't disagree with them because without the tolls we'd be way down the national priority list. But he says every new state highway in New Zealand should be paying through tolls for the road and they're not. And he's right. There's a list of roads, brand new roads, where you don't have to pay tolls to travel on them. He says it should be one rule for all. He said I don't know why other regions are so anti-tolling. This Government really needs to make a stand. You want a new road, users will have to pay. It was a travesty, he says, that Transmission Gully was not tolled. In principle, every new road should be tolled. That's how it happens overseas without too much fuss. Is he right? What do you think?

There are many regions that are desperately waiting for a new road, would love to see a new road, but they are so far down the list of priorities that you know it'll probably be in your grandchildren's day that the roads will be delivered. If NZTA wants to consider a new road for tolling, there has to be public consultation, the road must have a meaningful cost contribution to the road cost, deliver value for money with the infrastructure cost no more than 20% of the anticipated revenue, not result in changes to traffic volume on other roads.

So when you look at the different roads around the country that have been funded but have not been tolled, you'd have to say Bay of Plenty's probably had more than its fair share, but at the same time if you look at all the different communities and regions that are desperate for a road or a bridge and haven't got one and don't look like getting one anytime soon, would you be happy to pay a toll to get it?

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Yes, it's election year. How can you tell? They're all coming up with policies now, aren't they, designed to appeal to their core constituency.

Winston Peters played a blinder by announcing to the party faithful at a campaign meeting in Warkworth over the weekend that he wants to see voting rights reserved for citizens of this country only.

If his party is returned to Parliament, he will move to reform voting rights. Current electoral law allows some non citizens to vote after 12 months continuous residence if they are lawfully in New Zealand and not required to leave by a specified date.

In his speech to attendees, Peters argued that that existing standard is far too lenient.

And when you look at other countries that have the same policy, I think it's Malawi, Ecuador and Chile. Certainly our neighbours Australia do not. If you're not a citizen, you don't vote in Australia.

I have friends who have been in Australia for years and years and years, decades, and they can't vote unless they are citizens, and one of them recently became a citizen just so he could. He did have that right, he had children that were born there and he wanted to be able to vote so he could help inform the future of the country.

Winston Peters said to general acclaim, voting in general elections should be reserved for those who have made the full legal and civic commitment to this country. Permanent residence gives people the right to live, work, study and build a life in New Zealand. Citizenship, he said, is different. It's a formal bond of allegiance, belonging, responsibility and democratic authority. New Zealand First believes that distinction should matter again.

Sort of like marriage over living together, shacking up. He wants to see a marriage between people who live in New Zealand and the government of New Zealand.

Okay, fair enough, but if we're going to make changes on how we vote, why stop there?

I have long argued, and I'm sure you've long agreed, that there should be a basic comprehension test before people can vote. Like, really. Some of the some of the comments and the questions that you will hear leading up to elections are truly terrifying.

Their vote counts the same as people who have a basic grasp of MMP and democracy and the different parties and what they stand for. Maybe a basic comprehension test? Should people be allowed to vote if they're citizens but they've lived overseas for more than 10 years? Why should they be allowed to influence the direction of the country when they don't even live here? They have no skin in the game.

If you haven't made any payments on your student loan while living overseas, you shouldn't be able to vote unless you've paid it back or you've got a system in place to pay it back. Why on earth should you be able to vote when you haven't paid back your loan to the taxpayers? If you're living overseas to avoid paying tax, I can think of a few high profile businessmen, you shouldn't be able to vote either. I mean, I've got a list as long as my arm.

If we're going to start talking about who can vote and who cannot, I'd go a whole lot further than just reserving the right to vote for citizens. Anyone who has chose to make their home outside of New Zealand, who hasn't been back, who has no intention of coming back, anybody who is overseas and still owes a lot of money to the New Zealand taxpayer and has no system in place to pay it back, they shouldn't be able to vote either.

What does your list look like?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

ACT wants to grant security guards more powers, with industry concerns not many would want the extra abilities

The Party says police are overstretched and security staff can fill the gap - protecting retailers, transport hubs and businesses.

They'd like them allowed to detain and remove people, issue exclusion notices, and use force.

Security Association chief executive Gary Morrison says he doubts most security staff would want to be in that situation.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Security guards will be given the power to detain people and use force under a sweeping ACT Party proposal that makes the very fair point that police are overstretched, and businesses can no longer wait for officers to respond. Some of them would see tectonic plates drift as they waited for the Police to respond to shoplifters who are slowly but surely causing their business to buckle under the pressure and the increased costs. Repeated shoplifters, those who just wander in, take what they want and leave because they know nobody's coming. Those who urinate in doorways and do all sorts of vile things I've heard about from inner city retailers because they know they're not a high priority. It's not good enough and nobody's come up with a solution yet until ACT's proposal. Under the plan, the accredited security operators would have and could use new powers on private premises, filling in the gap between police and community patrols. The policy would allow retailers, business associations, transport operators and others to deploy the guards.

In the story in the Herald this morning, David Seymour said the law and order pledge would protect business owners. He said police can't respond quickly to every call and we know that – security professionals have the potential to fill the gap. New Zealand has twice as many licensed security officers as police officers, but they currently have no more authority than any other citizen. And it's true that this has been a hardy talkback chestnut. The question is always asked; why can security guards tackle pitch invaders but not shoplifters who are brazenly walking out of supermarkets with hundreds of dollars worth of goods in their trolleys, taking one hand off the trolley to give two fingers to the supermarket owners, the customers and the security guards?

The answer is that pitch invaders are a threat to public safety apparently, to the players, to other people. So security guards are allowed to prevent disruption and mitigate high risk safety threats by tackling the hoors, whereas walking out with trolleys worth of stuff is not considered a threat to public safety. The physical intervention, the thumping tackles and the arm behind the back and the walking out of the grounds is purely for expulsion and safety, not for recovering property, which makes the tackle legally defensible if it prevents physical harm or major disruption. The question is would you want to? Do security officers want the expectation on the part of the business owner and on the part of the customers, the legal customers, do you want that expectation on your shoulders that you will intervene? Do you want everybody to look at you and say well go after them?

There's all kinds of crazy out there, especially with people who are just blatant career thieves. Will it escalate violence? If you do the thumping tackle, can you expect that the person who's trying to flee will resort to violence to get away? Will simply the threat of security guards being able to act rather than having to stand there like cardboard cutouts of coppers while the thieves laugh all the way to the boot of their car and load it up with all their goods? That must be so galling for everybody, for paying customers to have to see it, for the business owner to have to see it, for the security guards to have to see it, these lowlifes just walking out and laughing because they know that everybody is powerless.

If you're given power, if the security officers have the power, will that be a sufficient deterrent? I'd really love to hear your thoughts on this. I don't know the answer. I'd love to see them get the powers, the legal powers to intervene, but are you paid enough to risk your life? The coppers aren't and yet they do and they're paid a lot more than you guys and girls. There's enormous acts of bravery on the part of security officers, but should there be an expectation of that kind of bravery?

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Multiple hospitals are dealing with failing infrastructure.

Episodes of heavy rain are causing leaks and water damage at Middlemore Hospital’s aging maternity block.

And conditions at Hutt Hospital are being described as “disgraceful”, with water getting into wards, collapsing ceilings, and potential electrical hazards.

Nurses say they’re juggling patient care with buckets and mops, while Health NZ insists the issues are contained the hospitals remain safe.

Chief Financial Officer Bevan McKenzie told Kerre Woodham those specific issues will be addressed over the next 12 months under the remediation programme.

More broadly, he says, they have a weather tightness programme being implemented across the Health NZ estate, and they’ve earmarked $10 million for improvement in 2026/27 to continue that work.

McKenzie says that water-related issues are complex, as it can be difficult to identify where they’re stemming from, and wants to acknowledge the work the clinical and facilities teams are doing to improve the situation.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Yesterday, I was talking about the amount of aid we're sending to places like Vietnam and Indonesia. Places I would venture to suggest that are showing more go ahead, more investment in infrastructure than we are. When you're looking at Vietnam, they're building one of the largest stadiums in the world, they've got fast rail underway, they're building a huge city to house much of its population – they're spending billions. It's also a place where New Zealanders travel to get first class healthcare that we can't access here.

Now we've asked Winston Peters why we're sending money to Vietnam and Indonesia. He, or his people, referred us to MFAT. MFAT says they need time to tell us why Vietnam is in need of New Zealand money – we're waiting to hear back from them. They have been asked this before. Why are we sending money to places that don't really need it? It's the equivalent of donating to a Givealittle page for your neighbour to find out that they're building a swimming pool, but you can't afford to.

I was asking this question yesterday, this morning there are two stories about the parlous state of two of New Zealand's hospitals. Could be any of the hospitals, but in this case it's Middlemore, the ageing maternity block, and Hutt Hospital. And staff are complaining about the multiple leaks and electrical faults and mould and water on the window as a result of the heavy rain – the buildings can't cope with it. And they accept that every now and then, at times of heavy rain, there will be the odd leak, but they say throughout winter this is what they and the patients have to put up with.

Both of the hospital directors at Middlemore and Hutt Hospital say patient health was not compromised, services continued as usual, they're just leaks people, nothing to see here. But staff say they're fed up with working under sodden and collapsing roof panels, damp conditions and electrical issues. It might just be a leak on that one particular day and as a patient at the hospital you're only there for three days – the nurses, the doctors, the staff are working there all day every day and throughout winter they say it's miserable.

There's a programme of works for our hospitals around the country, a 10 year plan, but the need is so great it's hard to know where to start. The average age of our public health estate —1,274 buildings across 86 campuses— is around 47 years. That's the average age, some will be much, much older, and the new ones, the brand new spanking new facilities, will drag that average up. The population is growing and ageing and demand for mental health services is growing. The pressure on government budgets and on the health staff trying to deliver services in decrepit infrastructure is immense.

There is a 10 year programme of works, but Middlemore maternity hospital and Hutt Hospital don't feature as far as I can see on the plan. You've got Whangārei Hospital – and it's all built into stage one, two, three, and four. Waitākere, and God knows, despite the fact that wasn't in the news, according to locals, that needs a revamp. You've got Middlemore, but they're looking at targeted ED upgrades, and then stage two will be planning a new site. Stage three will be a new site or Middlemore expansion. Nothing about the maternities. Waikato, Tauranga, Gisborne, Hawke's Bay, God knows that needs a revamp. Palmerston North, Wellington and Nelson. So nothing there for Middlemore or Hutt Hospital, so I guess they'll have to keep going to the paper. And if the average age is around 47 years, the need will be great. I don't know how they prioritise which hospitals get it first.

Then you look at the last financial year, 24/25 New Zealand spent $943.81 million in foreign aid across 624 activities. I get that we want to be good global citizens and I get that we are wealthy compared to other nations and I'm not saying stop all aid, but come on. When household budgets tighten, you have to give less. There isn't that much money to go around, otherwise you are depriving your own family. And this is the case here on a macro scale.

How can we justify donations to Vietnam, which is just thriving, and Indonesia? How can $943.81 million in foreign aid be justified when we have leaky ageing hospitals, some schools need to be completely and utterly revamped, and some of the police stations are just appalling. A lot of the public buildings in which our public servants work are just not suitable and not fit for people to be there. How can we justify that level of aid when New Zealand citizens are travelling to the very country that we're giving aid to for their medical and dental care? Do foreign aid officials realise how weird that looks?

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nobody loves a tradie more than a politician in election year. Labour announced it would reset the apprenticeship boost scheme back to two years from 2028 if come the glorious day they became the next government. Labour leader Chris Hipkins announced the election policy to the party faithful at Labour's congress as they call it in election year in Wellington over the weekend.

There are so many young New Zealanders who would love to get into the trades and are just desperate for the opportunity to do that. And we've got a lot of feedback from those employers who would love to take on an apprentice but they just need a bit more financial support to be able to do that.

And they'll get it if Labour becomes the government with the Greens and Te Pāti Māori and maybe TOP. It's a hangover from COVID. The scheme started in 2020 Employers were paid $500 a month for one year to take on apprentices, helping pay for things like wages and ensuring apprentices can keep earning while they're training. In 2025 the scheme was pegged back by the coalition government from a two year subsidy to instead focus on first year apprentices in targeted occupations.

At the time, the government said targeting the scheme would ensure the skills and qualifications people were getting were in sync with what the country needed. Labour's scheme would see the 2020 we're back to the future with 2020 reinstated. It would be a two year subsidy and the trades that would qualify would also be expanded to include road construction, water treatment, and hairdressing. Hipkins later told media that Labour had deliberately sought to expand the scheme to more industries that employed more women. Pollys love a tradie.

Remember in 1999 you may not, but perhaps your employer does, Helen Clark campaigned on apprenticeships. Labour introduced legislation for a modern apprenticeship programme which would provide better opportunities for New Zealanders to gain national qualifications through work based training. So that was a big platform plank of Labour's policies going into the 1999 election.

In 2013 then Prime Minister John Key promised cash incentives to encourage people to take up apprenticeships as of election year 2014 Modern apprenticeships and other apprenticeship type training would be combined under a new scheme called New Zealand Apprenticeships. The overall subsidy payments to the scheme would be increased by 12 million in the first year, that would rise over time.

And then along came Labour's COVID scheme which the coalition government kept kind of but tinkered with. And now here we are with another election in a few months and yet again the tradies are being wooed. Are you wooable? Is this the sort of thing your business needs to take on more apprentices? Of all the schemes that have been dangled before you, that have been offered, that have been introduced and then tinkered with and then merged into one and then separated and then, times two divide by three, carry the four and plus five. Which scheme has worked the best for you?

When it comes to taking on apprentices, training them up, having the time and the opportunity and the readies to be able to take on apprentices, which apprenticeship scheme has worked the best for you? Of all the many, and I only went back 27 years, has a government scheme made a difference to your business being able to take on apprentices or does it very much depend on the economic climate of the day rather than any kind of government?

Surely a subsidy of $500 a month for a year would help because taking on apprentices does take time. You get a few prancing unicorns that come into your workshop or to your salon or to your work gang who are brilliant, who are meant to be doing the job, who understand it instinctively, who turn up on time. They're amazing and we get a few of those here.

But the rest of us, and I include myself in that, aren't much use for a couple of years. We make mistakes, we learn from them, we cost you money, you roll your eyes, you manage not to kick our bums and in the end we come right and we're worth something to you. It takes time, it takes dedication, it takes the right temperament to take on apprentices.

Is this COVID 2.0 scheme that Labour has announced, the apprenticeship boost scheme, is that going to make a difference to you in terms of taking on apprentices? Is there a government scheme over the last 27 years that's worked best for you or is it pretty much up to the economic climate of the time as to whether you can take on apprentices or not?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.