Yesterday, Treasury released a whole lot of documents showing the advice it gave the Government during the early days of the fuel crisis.

One of the key things was a recommendation not to cut fuel taxes or road user charges, because it didn’t think it was needed.

The Government went with the advice. But, you might also remember, that the Government went a step further than that and said that the fuel tax increase - due to kick in at the start of next year - was unlikely.

Which I thought was a bad move. And I still do.

In the reports I’ve seen about yesterday’s document dump, there’s nothing about any Treasury advice on next year’s increase.

But there’s two reasons for that: 1. This advice was to help the Government deal with things in-the-moment. And 2. When Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop poured cold water on the fuel tax increase, that was just politics.

Because, as you’ll remember, there were all sorts of people crying out for help.

The Government went ahead with the support for low-to-middle income earners. But that was it.

And it knew it wouldn’t be a good look if it said no to everyone else wanting help and, in the same breath, said it was also going ahead with next year’s fuel tax increase.

But that was a bad move by the Government. My view on that hasn’t changed. And that’s why I think the Government needs to bite the bullet and press on with the fuel tax increase early next year. As planned.

There’ll be plenty of people who will say that they couldn’t afford fuel taxes increasing.

But I don’t think the country can afford not to increase them. And I’m not the only one.

Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour thinks the same.

He says the Government shouldn’t do anything to limit its revenue from fuel taxes because of the long-term consequences for the Government’s finances.

And what he’s talking about there, is limiting or restricting the amount of money the Government gets in to pay for road maintenance and construction.

It also helps pay for things like public transport.

The Finance Minister even acknowledged this negative impact when she said a few months back that the fuel tax increase was unlikely to go ahead.

So, in its heart of hearts, the Government knows that increasing fuel taxes is a no-brainer. Which it is.

The Government knows it. We know it. So there’s only one thing for it to do.

It needs to stop being so antsy and it needs to commit to putting the fuel taxes up, as planned, early next year.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chef and co-owner of Christchurch's popular fine-dining restaurant INATI Simon Levy joined Canterbury Mornings after his restaurant won a Michelin star on Tuesday evening.

He told John MacDonald about his beginnings as a young chef under Gordon Ramsay, and what he reckons won over the judges when they anonymously visited his central city restaurant.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Can we all just accept now that David Seymour’s school lunch programme is a dog’s breakfast?

With this report out from the Auditor-General saying only 50 percent of the lunches are up-to-scratch on the nutrition front and about 20,000 meals a day aren’t being eaten.

The Associate Education Minister has hit back of course, using his usual tricks of discrediting the report and going on about how much money he’s saved.

Tell that, though, to all the people who have been vindicated by this report.

People like Christchurch principal Peggy Burrows who ended up in a tit-for-tat spat with Seymour over mouldy lunches, and who was to blame.

The Auditor-General’s report paints a pretty shambolic picture. It says last year only 50 percent of the school lunch collective’s meals met the ministry of education’s nutrition standards.

That improved a bit later in the year.

I’ll come back to the nutrition part. Because I think a re-think is needed on that front, but I reckon the biggest concern has to be how much food is being wasted.

Not that that’s a major surprise. because we’ve seen plenty of reports of food being fed to pigs and principals getting into trouble for letting their staff take uneaten food home.

Now I’m a big supporter of the government providing school lunches.

But I can’t support that level of waste. 20,000 meals a day.

I’m a big supporter because, as anyone will tell you, it’s no use sitting a hungry kid in front of a teacher.

You know what it’s like trying to do something yourself when you’re hungry, hopeless, and that’s why we just can’t have hungry kids at school.

And if that means the government feeding these kids at lunchtime, then I’ve got no problem with that.

But I can’t turn a blind eye to 20,000 meals a day being chucked out. Which brings me to the criticism in this Auditor-General’s report that the school lunches aren’t nutritious enough.

I’ve always said that we can go on as much as we like about our school lunches when we were kids being pretty basic.

And I guarantee my school lunches would never have met these nutrition standards the ministry of education has these days for the lunch programme.

The difference is, though, I didn’t go to school hungry in the first place. I had breakfast and I had dinner at night.
Some kids these days don’t, but aren’t we defeating the purpose if the kids themselves aren’t even eating the lunches because they don’t like them?

Which is why I think the ministry of education needs to accept that it's got things wrong. It needs to go back to what you might call the basics and serve up something the kids will actually eat.

And if that means something basic like a cheese sandwich, then do it. Because eating something has to be way better than eating nothing.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I think the people at the NZ Initiative thinktank need to have an away day in Christchurch

Then they would understand why I’m poo-pooing this claim they’re making today that having multiple local councils in close proximity to each other is a good thing.

Because if there’s one thing that proves how wrong they are, it would be the disjointed situation we have with housing developments in Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri.

A situation I would sum up as the left hand having no idea what the right hand is doing.

So what the NZ Initiative is saying, is the government is wrong reducing the number of local councils. It thinks that having multiple councils in close proximity to each other is a good thing, because it allows them to keep an eye on each other.

I think he’s wrong. And I don’t think our three councils have any idea what each of them is up to.Because we have the Christchurch council flat out consenting townhouses and apartments to get more people living in the central city.We have Selwyn building homes too fast for the infrastructure to keep up. And, in Waimakariri, we’ve got that 850-home development proposed for Ohoka.Not to mention the Pegasus golf course development.

If these three councils were keeping an eye on each other, as the NZ Initiative guy seems to think they are, we wouldn’t have this piecemeal approach to housing developments.

But we do.

Christchurch city council has been signing off any townhouse or apartment development that comes across its desk, meaning all the people wanting to build or live on a full section in a 3- or 4-bedroom house are flocking to Selwyn and Waimakariri. Selwyn, especially.

So much so, that the infrastructure in Selwyn isn’t keeping up

You might have seen the reports about developers striking problems with sewerage capacity.

Selwyn council’s executive director of building, planning and regulatory services, Robert Love, says the systems in Selwyn are definitely under pressure.

He says: “The scale and speed of growth in Selwyn is among the highest in the country, which creates ongoing pressure on all infrastructure networks. While significant investment is being made and major infrastructure upgrades are under way or planned, including working with Selwyn Water, our treatment plants and networks are currently nearing capacity.”

And that, right there, is proof that the three councils in the greater Christchurch area are not keeping an eye on each other - as the NZ Initiative claims - and is proof that we desperately need one council. To get a much more co-ordinated approach to where homes get built.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I’ve never been on a sickness benefit. But I imagine that, for anyone who is, the government telling you what you can and can‘t spend your benefit money on, and spying on you to make sure you toe the line would be pretty degrading.

Tell that to the ACT Party, though.

Not only that. In this policy announced yesterday, instead of your own GP signing you off for the sickness benefit, you'd need to see a government-approved doctor.

Which sounds a bit like ACC, doesn’t it?

Last week, when we were talking about ACC, people were telling us about their dealings with ACC’s own doctors and how it felt like their main priority was turning people down.

Which is exactly what it would be like under this system David Seymour wants to introduce for the sickness benefit.

He says a person’s GP or specialist would still be able to provide medical history details, clinical notes and supporting evidence. But it would be doctors employed by the government who would decide whether someone qualifies.

And we know what would happen, don’t we? More and more people would be turned away. We know that, because the only reason David Seymour wants to make these changes, is to get less people on the benefit.

David Seymour says these government-employed doctors would have one job. Getting people back to work. Which sounds all kind and supportive. But I don’t buy that for a minute.

Then there’s this bit where he wants to stop paying the sickness benefit into people’s bank accounts.

Instead, the benefit would go onto a payment card that would track how the money is spent and wouldn’t let people spend it on alcohol, gambling and tobacco, or get cash out.

This would kick-in after someone has been on the benefit for four months.

I’m not sure which of these two ideas is worse.

Getting through the hoops with these government-employed doctors, as I say, sounds like ACC all over again.

But I actually think telling people what they’re allowed to spend the benefit money on and forcing them to use this special card that would be monitored by the government would be nothing short of degrading.

Because, yes, I know there will be people out there on the sickness benefit who are taking the mickey.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I don’t know what to make of the fact that thousands of people have put their name to this petition calling for the Christchurch City Council’s rates increase to be paused and put to a referendum.

I don’t know what to make of it for a couple of reasons.

First of all, I’m not a petition guy. Because I don’t think they achieve much.

It’s very easy to stick your name on something. But does it achieve anything? No.

The other reason I can‘t believe people are getting behind this, is that they seem to have forgotten what city councillors are elected to do.

They’re elected to make decisions. And one of the biggest decisions they have to make every year, is how they’re going to spend ratepayer money.

Which means that, quite a lot of the time, they get criticised left, right and centre.

Like yesterday, when I was ripping into the council for getting involved in this apparent bid for a second professional NRL rugby league team.

But I’m not starting a petition over it. Because, while I might think it’s not what the council should be getting involved in, I respect the fact that it’s the job of the councillors around the council table to make the decisions.

Just like it’s their job to decide how much of a rates increase they need to hit us with to make the city tick.

Tell that to James Pawson, though. He’s the guy behind the petition. Who is saying today that the 7.35 percent rates increase the council has signed-off on is a burden and people should get to have a say before being expected to pay up.

He’s dreaming. Just like the 7,000-plus people who have put their name to the petition in the past 48 hours. No doubt us talking about it this morning will get more people adding their names.

One of James’ particular concerns, is the council including $15 million in the budget for the Anglican cathedral reinstatement.

His introduction to the online petition describes this particular spend as “staggering”. Saying: “It raises critical questions around funding priorities and equity, especially in an economic climate where many residents are already facing financial hardships.”

He says: “The decision to allocate $15 million of ratepayer money to a project that should arguably be funded by the Anglican Church sends the wrong message to the people of Christchurch who are directly affected by this rates increase.”

What James doesn’t say in his petition blurb, is that the council’s $15 million is dependent on the government chipping-in the same amount. And we know that’s never going to happen.

Yes, Winston Peters has pledged $15 million if he’s part of the next coalition. But that’ll be forgotten about.

Just like he was going to be the first person to walk into the Pike River mine. Remember that promise?

And whether I agree with the council wanting to spend more on the cathedral or not, it comes down to the fact that it’s the job of the council to make these decisions.

What’s more, if the people signing this petition want a referendum on this rates increase because they’re brassed-off about more of their rates going into the cathedral or whatever, what happens next time there’s something they disagree with?

Have another referendum? No thank you.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Newstalk ZB's voice of football Jason Pine joined Canterbury Mornings live from Vancouver ahead of New Zealand's game against Belgium.

The All Whites must win against The Red Devils tomorrow afternoon to secure any change of proceeding to the round-of-32.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.

They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from Nationals solar panel policy, what can be done to make rural roads safer, and if the fast-track process is appropriate for the Pegasus Golf Course.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.