/on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/rss ¾ÅÒ»ÐÇ¿ÕÎÞÏÞ Fri, 20 Jun 2025 00:10:56 Z en /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-we-shouldnt-ignore-conflict/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-we-shouldnt-ignore-conflict/ I’m as guilty as the next Kiwi of complaining about the tyranny of distance, but the fact is we’re bloody lucky to live far across the ocean and out of harm’s way.  We’re at least 10,000 kilometres away from the nearest nuclear weapon launch site, whether it’s China’s Jingxian Province or the United States' Pacific Coast.  That doesn’t mean we’re immune to threats and fallout from conflict, nor should we ignore them. Foreign Minister Winston Peters this week remarked he’d never seen such an uncertain geostrategic circumstance as the one we’re currently living in. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute published its yearbook Monday with a warning that the risk of a nuclear weapon being used is increasing. Most of the nine nuclear armed states are either upgrading or replacing their stockpiles.  Over the next few years, it estimates the rate at which new nuclear warheads replace old ones will accelerate to the point where, for the first time since the Cold War era, we’ll have an overall increase nuclear weapons.  No matter how far from the frontlines we may be, and how safe we may feel as a consequence, it doesn’t mean we don’t or shouldn’t care about the rest of the world. We Kiwis love travelling the globe and experiencing all the complexities and differences it has to offer. In doing so, we learn to appreciate our own backyard that wee bit more.  This Matariki weekend I'll be taking a moment to be grateful that when I look to the night sky, I'll see stars rather than incoming missiles and drones.  Wed, 18 Jun 2025 18:05:44 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-is-run-it-straight-really-that-dangerous/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-is-run-it-straight-really-that-dangerous/ The moral outrage over Run It Straight competitions is a tricky one.  As more and more young men ran at each other head-on and tried to knock each other out, as the injuries piled up, the outrage was palpable. Lots of pearl clutching and horror.  The reaction from some rugby stars and sporting legends was more nuanced, for obvious reasons.  They also run full steam ahead at one another on a Saturday, with great risk of personal injury and even death. Certainly, the chance of broken bones and concussion.  They do this because A. They enjoy it. B. It's often all they've ever known. And C. Presumably, because it pays well.  And that's the problem with the outrage over Run It Straight.  They had a guy in the news yesterday who won $20 thousand in trials held in Auckland. He's booked a spot in a final in Dubai. The money, he says, is putting clothes on his kids backs.  He said this: "We got to pay off some debts and stock up the fridges and the cupboards, food for our little ones, especially with the economy and stuff like that here in New Zealand. Nothing's cheap these days." He saw it as a couple of hours work with a huge payday.  I happen to think if somebody wants to play a high-risk sport like rugby, or UFC, or anything with horses, then good on them. It's their life, I'm not here to judge.  The question for the rest of society —and this is what our listeners most often email me about with Run It Straight— is ACC.  To qualify for ACC, your injury has to be the result of an accident. An accident is basically something you didn't intend to happen, happening. A mistake.  Run It Straight is bloody dangerous but I think ultimately, its injuries are accidents, like rugby or horse riding.  The system doesn't judge based on the threat of injury, just whether it's an accidental one or not.  Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:11:27 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-the-economys-been-a-sick-patient-for-a-long-time/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-the-economys-been-a-sick-patient-for-a-long-time/ If growth is the game we're in then the Reserve Bank should keep cutting interest rates.  The problem is growth is not the game they're in. They're in the business of taming inflation, and that's about it.  The Government ditched the dual mandate —introduced by the last lot— that saw Adrian and Co. also focus on keeping people in jobs. Maximum sustainable employment.  That's now gone and inflation's in the band.  So the bank is going to take things slow. Ease the next few cuts over a longer period of time out of fear they'll overcook it again. They'll be thinking about Trump's tariffs and the fear of price hikes, even though these haven't materialised —even in the data out of the States— as yet. They'll be worried about the Middle East and the price of oil.  It's an imported cost and it's in everything, not just our cars, but transport of goods, production, you name it.  It directly and indirectly contributes up to 30% of our inflation when the price is high – like when somebody's dropping bombs in the Middle East.  But that wouldn't be my main concern if I was setting monetary policy.  Sure we'll get a solid growth number of around 0.7% for Q1 on Thursday, but there've been a couple of signs this week of things being a bit shaky in Q2 – the one we're in now.  Yesterday it was a Mayday call from the services sector – going backwards for the month, again. This time, a bigger drop than last. And again, way out of whack with our trading partners. Our golden dairy run will continue but there are signs production will be up this year on last, which could effect price.  Cutting rates sooner and faster would help avoid any surgical complications as we revive the economy, which as been a very sick patient for a very long time.  Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:04:33 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-a-lot-going-on-in-the-world/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-a-lot-going-on-in-the-world/ The Prime Minister’s jetting off on a diplomatic mission this week and he’s heading into a very undiplomatic world. Israel and Iran are going at it. Netanyahu says Tehran is close to producing a nuclear weapon. As missiles and drones fly across the Middle East, talks for a nuclear deal with Iran’s leadership in Oman are on hold. The UK is mobilising fighter jets in the region as Iran warns it will strike western targets if they dare support Tel Aviv.  Israeli’s blockade of Gaza continues despite protests from this country and most others through the UN and sanctions. Talks in Turkey to end the war in Ukraine haven’t stopped the violence. Diplomacy has so far failed.  China continues buying oil from Russia and tacitly keeping its war in Europe alive. The US continues supporting Israel, keeping its wars on Gaza and Iran alive. China and the US themselves are doing direct battle of a different kind on trade. We’ve got politically motivated assassinations in America. Marines and national guard troops on the streets of Los Angeles. All this as the global economy splutters along under the weight of it all and I haven’t even mentioned Pakistan and India.  As Luxon prepares to meet with Xi Xinping and then attend a NATO leaders meeting in the Netherlands, the big question is not what to do, but where to start? New Zealand's influence in all of this is, is course, is limited. Most of these conflicts date back further than the birth of our nation. We rely on the United Nations - who's P5 VETO power renders is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike. Utterly useless. This no the first time the world has faced a collision of crisis involving wars backed by competing global superpowers. While diplomacy has failed to prevent them, history tells us it's also the best and only way to eventually solve them.  Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:01:37 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-luxons-rhetoric-is-starting-to-match-the-reality/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-luxons-rhetoric-is-starting-to-match-the-reality/ It’s fair to say Christopher Luxon’s had a rough run at the top. The transition from CEO to PM hasn’t been all that smooth. His approval ratings have been way out of whack with those of any predecessor at the same time in their reigns. We hardly saw a honeymoon. One of the problems has been communication. You ask people and they tell you: it’s hard to connect with him. We don’t really get what he’s about.  His loudmouth coalition partners have largely filled the personality void to his detriment. As a business executive, you’ve got to optimistic. You’ve got to project positivity, and that positive, upbeat style has jarred with the reality of our economy.  The more he said things are improving and this economy is turning a corner, the more out of touch he has sounded.  Jacinda Ardern encountered this problem when she refused to call the cost of living crisis a crisis. You lose the room. It's like a bit like trying to entertain a crowd of Metallica fans with a choir - a bit of a bum note.  And that problems has befallen Luxon. Until now.  Despite this morning's card data going sideways, there’s no doubt the economy’s on the up. We’re about to see another jump in GDP next week as we get Q1 data, which follows positive Q4 data. Treasury reckons this current year will see growth hitting almost 3%. Thanks to our exporters and global conditions, there’s light at the end of the tunnel. You can feel it - shops are filling up. Manufacturing’s on the up. Company’s are hiring.  And this is massive for Luxon because it means his rhetoric is starting to match the reality.  It’s the missing piece of the puzzle that could turn his political fortunes around.  Thu, 12 Jun 2025 18:03:26 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-the-dial-has-shifted-in-farming-and-emissions/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-the-dial-has-shifted-in-farming-and-emissions/ I’ve been reflecting this Fieldays week on how much the dial has shifted in farming and emissions. We had Chris Hipkins on the Herald Now programme Tuesday admit they essentially don’t currently have a policy in putting agriculture into the ETS.  It was a signature policy platform under Ardern. We had to do it, they told us. It was immoral not to.  Farmers had to pay a higher price, and who cares if it’s CO2 or methane, emissions are emissions.  Labour’s now open to ditching that altogether and softening its tone on farmers. This is happening for two reasons. 1. People are alive to the fact that without our strong agriculture export prices, our regions would feel a lot more our main centres right now: economically depressed and limping along. Actually, selling a bunch of stuff we already know how to do well is exactly what a small trading nation likes ours should be doing. 2. The Government has successfully changed the narrative on emissions, basically through repetition: our farmers are the most efficient in the world. The world demands meat and dairy. If we cut back and burn the farmers, bite the hand that feeds our regional economies, somebody else meets that global demand with, you guessed it, higher emitting meat and dairy products.  So for reasons of basic economics and political reality, the dial has been shifted in farming and emissions.  Labour’s a little late to the party, but at least acknowledging the landscape has well and truly changed.  Wed, 11 Jun 2025 18:11:47 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-nobody-wants-to-give-more-money-to-councils-who-waste-it/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-nobody-wants-to-give-more-money-to-councils-who-waste-it/ If you're in Auckland and waking up this morning feeling poorer, it's because you are. It's because we all are.   CVs down 9%, rates are up 6% at the start of the month – that's an extra 223 bucks a year. Now the CVs aren't the market value, obviously, but the market value of our houses has also dropped.   And so it's right that we feel poorer, we are. But spare a thought for Wellington – CVs down 24%, rates up 17%. No, thank you.   Everyone's asking why are we paying more when our houses are worthless? The answer is just because it's how councils collect money, and they have few options to do it any other way.   I saw a graph yesterday in defence of councils – this is a tax as a percentage of GDP,  over the last 130 years, since the 1800s. The blue line was central government. They tax us through income, y’know, spending via GST, a whole bunch of stuff was up around 30%, peaked at about 35% of GDP.   Greedy. Disgraceful. Poor. Old in orange. Your Councils basically flatlining for the last 70 years at 2% of GDP. This is why they want more options to make money, like charging rates on government buildings in their districts. Because yes, the government doesn't pay rates at present. Bit rude, isn't it? We have to.   It's why Wayne Brown wants other levers to pull, like bed taxes. But here's the problem: they have a good argument for more funding streams, but they keep blowing up their sympathy with dumb, expensive, useless stuff like cycleways, and raised pedestrian crossings, and road calming measures, and food scrap bins we have to pay for. The list goes on.   The problem councils have is that nobody wants to give more money to somebody who wastes it. For as long as that keeps happening, their sympathy tank is on empty.  Tue, 10 Jun 2025 19:42:49 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-serial-protestors-arent-helping-anyone/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-serial-protestors-arent-helping-anyone/ Honestly… it’s time Greta got a grip. This is a stunt. She’s sailing on a yacht with a diesel motor, which they’ve been using because the sails haven’t been up. There’s been photos and video, Greta doing the Titanic at the bow, on her merciful mission to save the Middle East onboard the vessel complete with Aircon and TVs and Instagram. As for being kidnapped, this must be the first time a victim has broadcast their own hostage video. How does that work? It’s a tiny yacht. How much aid can you actually have on board? There’s no doubt Palestinians desperately need aid because of Israel’s inhumane blockade. Unfortunately, they’re not going to get any from this attention obsessed Swede.  This is the problem I think people have with protesters. Not the ones who protest and then do something useful like become scientists and invent a solution to global warming. Protesters who protest for the sake of it and change causes with the wind.  One day it’s the climate and oil is the devil and the house is burning down. Then the next it’s powering through the Med on a diesel laden yacht to rescue Gaza.  And it’s a bit like a drug.  John Minto is a case in point. Serial protester. Most recently seen promoting a bounty tipline for hunting out Israeli's holidaying in New Zealand.  You name a cause; he’ll get behind it. In Europe they’re defacing ancient artefacts, throwing soup on paintings and confetti on the Court at Wimbledon. While they’re doing all these ridiculous stunts, hoovering up social media followers along the way, they claim, as Greta did yesterday, that it’s not about them. It’s about the Palestinian people, not me, said Greta.  The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Mon, 09 Jun 2025 18:06:12 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-how-much-will-winter-cost-us-this-year/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-how-much-will-winter-cost-us-this-year/ She was a chilly weekend.  Even in Auckland it was only 5 degrees.  We had the heat pump cranking the entire weekend. I spoke to a friend in Marlborough who had the fire going all weekend. They had a proper frost there.  It's right about now you start thinking... how much is all this going to cost me? The answer $250 for May for a house of two persons, one dog.  Already we've spent $70 for June.  This is one of the few bills I pay in our household so it's one of the few I notice.  It's not going through the roof... and is tracking roughly the same as last year.  And disclaimer... our place is old and cold, poorly ventilated and you basically need either air con or heat all the time. There is good news on the energy front for 2025, not that it directly affects us as much, more the big industrial users.  Forsyth Barr released an energy note on Friday... they reckon we'll avoid another big energy crunch this winter. The next one is due 2026.  That means no risk of blackouts. The reason we've avoided this is because electricity producers did a deal with Methanex. And we've had rain - so the hydro lakes have been given a top up.  To avoid future blackouts, we'll need to cut industrial demand and burn more coal.  And that brings us to gas - a shortage of which caused last year's energy price crunch. Forsyth Barr reckons the government's push for gas is unlikely to solve out problems.  It takes two to three years to get a gas field up and running. First you have to find it. Right now, nobody's even looking. No fields are being explored.  By the time you get gas out of the government's $200-million budget buy-in, the energy shortages will likely have passed. It's one thing to let the producers go it alone, it's another to put our money on the line to develop these fields.  There's a genuine question about whether this is smart investment in our future or if taxpayer money is being wasted. A bit like the heat escaping from my old house.  Sun, 08 Jun 2025 18:01:37 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-my-take-on-the-m%C4%81ori-party-house-debate/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-my-take-on-the-m%C4%81ori-party-house-debate/ Well that was as chaotic as you'd expect.  I caught the first half of Parliament's debate on the haka-gate: Winston Peters went full attack dog, Willie Jackson fought back, Waititi brought a noose into the chamber, and Adrian Rurawhe, former Speaker and Labour MP, had the most sensible and respectable take of the debate.  I've had the pleasure of interviewing him a few times. He's a humble, quiet and observant sort of guy. He's quick to a smile and enjoys a good argument.   Not that you could hear it in the House yesterday. Loads of interjecting. Lots of noise.   Adrian gets respect because he shushed his own Labour colleagues while he was up on his feet.  He made two decent points.  1. The Privileges Committee is meant to be bipartisan. The fact this punishment was not, is a bad thing. Why? Because now it's open season, governments —of any persuasion— can weaponize its punishments against their political opponents. This is not a good thing. As he points out, this was the government punishing MPs, not the Parliament. Which it ought to be.  Herein lies the problem with Parliament these days - there is no agreed standard of behaviours that's universal to all MPs. Getting physically up in somebody's grill is considered okay by some. The House is meant to be about what comes out of your mouth, not how close another MP is to it.  2. Rurawhe scolded the Māori Party for not apologising for their bad behaviour. He spoke of his cousin Dame Tariana Turia. She never skipped a vote, worked hard for her people and spoke on every bill before the House. The question really is whether Te Pati Māori actually wants to be in Parliament or whether it wants a separate one. If it wants the latter, which its website says it does, and doesn't turn up half the time or gets suspended for breaking rules, you've got to ask yourself why they're there in the first place.  All in all, aside from Adrian's wise words, there's a few hours wasted the House won't get back.    Thu, 05 Jun 2025 18:03:09 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-are-supermarket-sales-really-sales/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-are-supermarket-sales-really-sales/ The Commerce Commission reckons we need fewer items 'on sale' at the supermarket.  That would mean less yoghurt on special at $4.99, fewer $1.99 chocolate bars at the checkout, and just less price yo-yo-ing in general. This is counterintuitive. The job of Commerce Commission, through the Grocery Commissioner, is meant to score us cheaper prices and boost competition, right? So, what the hell is going on here? This morning, they announced they want to change the rules around what the supermarkets can charge suppliers. Foodstuffs and Woolworths purchase $15 billion of goods from suppliers each year and control 82% of the retail market.  When they do this, suppliers will discount prices by about $5 billion a year through rebates, discounts, and promotional payments. This ensures their stock is on sale. If they need to move a boat load of it, they can do on special and quickly, because we all love a bargain. The Supermarket tsar says if you’re a new, smaller supermarket chain opening up, you can’t compete with that cause you don’t have the buying power and economies of scale. Now this is where I think the tsar takes one of many leaps of faith. They reckon we consumers are overall worse off because of these specials and discounts.  The tsar says: "Consumers lose out because prices jump around more. This can mean the average price is more expensive and it’s harder for consumers to assess the value of products.” They don't offer any evidence this is actually happening, and that a change would make things cheaper. Leap of faith #2 is that this saving will be passed on to the consumer via the supermarket. Is there not a floor in this logic? Does essentially banning discounts actually make prices cheaper? If so, by how much? $5 billion? Remember the industry’s revenue is $25 billion a year.  If all of the discounts were handed down the chain of command to us shoppers, we’re expected to believe general prices would fall a whopping 20%? Remember when the Grocery Commission was set up under Labour, we were told the supermarkets were making excess profits of $365m a year.  There's a bunch of other changes, too.  Some of this stuff is just proposed. Suggestions. Voluntary.  Some stuff needs consultation. Then further review. Others need 12 months. Others form part of a new report aiming for 2026. By the time this is finished I will have not only lost the will to shop, but also to live. Wed, 04 Jun 2025 18:04:32 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-international-spending-is-up-but-is-it-really-a-win/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-international-spending-is-up-but-is-it-really-a-win/ Tourism mojo.  Louise Upston fired off an enthusiastic press release last night.  "International visitor spend on the up” it proclaimed. New data, which we get from the International Visitor Survey, showed a 10% jump in spending on the previous year. Sounds impressive, right?  Sounds like we’re getting somewhere. Finally shaking off the Covid cobwebs.  But this is where we start to see the spin doctors earning their keep.  Let’s not forget we’ve been dealing with inflation outside the band over that year. Which means stuff costs more - restaurants and hotels included. So, are we actually getting more out of tourism than we were, and is the jumping up and down justified? Well, the measure of success ought to be pre-Covid, when everything was shut down, we battened down the hatches and kissed the world goodbye. By that measure, spending is still only 86% of what it was in 2019. Now, the very same Minister responsible for last night’s press release was the same Minister responsible for firing one off on March 4th this year celebrating a big boost in tourism spending - up to, you guessed it, 86% of pre-Covid. So, the long and the short of it is, nothing had changed in real terms between March’s PR exercise and June’s! The Aussies and most of our big competition for these international tourists reversed the trends and brought them back a long time ago. The number of tourists travelling around the world recovered to pre-pandemic levels last year. Instead of celebrating no real success month after month, we ought to be asking why we’re still such a long way off the hip, hit destination we were five years ago.  Tue, 03 Jun 2025 18:02:11 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-we-shouldnt-have-to-work-for-the-government/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-we-shouldnt-have-to-work-for-the-government/ Do you know what's really starts to rub me the wrong way?  It's governments telling us to do more things.  This morning, we've got the government coming out with yet another hotline. Sounds fancy. Sounds efficient.  It's a hotline to report road cones. A road cone tipline.  Sorry, but if the problem is that there are too many road cones on the road, and they're unnecessary for the work being carried out —which half of them appear to be— then why do you need us to tell you that? Surely if we just had better, clearer rules and less bullshit, we wouldn't need a road cone tipline. A pothole tipline. A 105 theft tipline. A beneficiary tipline. Either you know what you're doing and you've got smart people and smart systems, or you don't.  And every time I hear of another tipline I realise, they have no idea.  Tiplines are the equivalent of a safety calming measure. Those weird speed bumps or narrowing roads, designed to make people feel better when driving around. All they really do is piss people off and reveal how rubbish your road designs are to begin with.  Just think about this:  There's a bunch of road cones in a dumb place on a busy road. WorkSafe and NZTA and Council people drive past this busy spot every day.  Barbara in her little Honda Civic, she drives past. She calls it in. Barry in his truck and trailer. He calls it in. Sally picks the kids up at 3pm from school every day.  They all ring the tipline. They all report the same thing. It will then be somebody's job to sort through the tips. Somebody else will triage the tips. That's two jobs. In three weeks, Barry, Sally, and Barb get a letter. Because the post only runs two days a week.  The letter says we're looking into the issue for you.  Meanwhile, 100 government or council people have walked or driven past the road cone Armageddon and nothing's changed.  Tiplines are plasters over grenades. The only time I want to ring a tipline is speak to the actual dump.  In its first 156 days in office, the National-led government has set up 37 reviews, inquiries or advisory panels – some of which are being led by former ministers, including Bill English, Steven Joyce, Murray McCully and Roger Sowry. Mon, 02 Jun 2025 18:09:37 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-why-expensive-butter-prices-are-actually-a-good-thing/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-why-expensive-butter-prices-are-actually-a-good-thing/ The price of butter's shot up 65% over the past year - you might have noticed nana's cookie jar's a bit empty lately.  Bakers are buying in bulk from the Aussies, where it's cheaper. Online discussion blames our dairy farmers, the co-op that buys their milk, and the producers who sell it.  But, there are a couple of reason its cheaper there than here.  1) We export a hell of a lot more to the world than the Aussies do.  In 2023, they exported 9.4 tonnes. We exported 441 tonnes. They exported 2% of the quantity we did.  That means our price is more susceptible to the international market price. We export most of our butter, we pay the international price.  Australia on the other hand, eats a lot more of its own and exports less.  This is good and bad. It mean we pay the trade price, yes, but it also means when the price is high, as it has been lately, our largest company Fonterra does well. Our farmers do well. They spend money here and drive growth in our economy which we all benefit from.  Yesterday we learned that means an extra $15-billion being ploughed into this economy.  2) Supply issues in Europe have pushed that global price up. Our is a premium product which is in high demand overseas. It's grass fed, more sustainable, and just tastes better. The exchange rate has also encouraged large purchases from offshore buyers.  3) When you produce a lot of something, producers will lock themselves into big international contacts because they buy greater volumes than local retailers need.  The Aussies have this problem with their gas. Australian National University business and economics lecturer David Leaney explains that they signed some big money contracts to supply a enormous amount of gas at locked-in prices. He says even though they could sell it for more domestically, they're locked into those contracts.  4) We don't know the details of the Costco cheap butter that everyone's been raving about. Is it a loss leader? Is it a marketing ploy? Discount it to get people into your store to then simultaneously buy 48 rolls of toilet paper? So yes, Kiwi butter is expensive at home. But the fact it's expensive elsewhere is actually a good thing for our country as a whole.  Thu, 29 May 2025 18:03:43 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-trumps-unpredictability-is-predictable/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-trumps-unpredictability-is-predictable/ Another Reserve Bank rate cut.  It was largely as expected - 25 basis points. The rest of the press conference and much of the Monetary Policy Statement itself was focused on the ‘unpredictable’ global environment.  We can’t say this because we don’t know what Trump will do. We can’t be certain about that because XYZ. Trade war, etc, etc. But at what point does unpredictability become predictable, and therefore not the great threat we make it out to be? Yes, Trump went nuts on Liberation day. The sky fell in, then he calls a ceasefire in May. The markets have recouped all their losses, the indices are patchy but largely back to where they were. Trade talks are ongoing. The IMF yesterday upgraded Britain’s growth. US consumer confidence actually increased last month. China’s industrial growth for April was positive yesterday. Our agriculture exports are doing the business abroad.  Trump rants and raves on twitter. He un-announces stuff as quickly as he announces stuff.  He’s impulsive, emotionally reactive, and vindictive. He’s a weathervane.  The political equivalent of Katy Perry, cause he’s hot then he’s cold. He’s in then he’s out. He’s up then he’s down. He’s yes then he’s no. He’s wrong when it’s right, he’s black when it’s white... You get the point.  The point ism we know this about him. We know he’s unpredictable and that makes his unpredictability, predictable. I reckon we aren’t taking his threats as seriously as we were two months ago. Not the US consumer, not Chinese industry, not us.  And you know who else should stop paying him so much attention? The Reserve Bank.  Wed, 28 May 2025 18:21:34 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-online-trends-are-taking-lives/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-online-trends-are-taking-lives/ What happened in Palmerston North with the death of this young man was an absolute tragedy. We don't know exactly what happened here, other than it was linked to another viral challenge.  The sad reality is stuff like this will happen again. And again. And again.  The campaigners and professionals will warn about the dangers.  And then kids will be kids, and another craze will come along and somebody else will get hurt or worse. Ten years ago… remember planking? The came skin art, where young people paint sunscreen on some parts of their bodies and burn the rest in the sun.  An American family lost their son to the infamous blackout challenge, where kids choke themselves or their friends for fun. For ages teenagers, especially boys, have played bullrush, drank to excess, and driven cars way too fast. Frontal lobes don’t develop properly until age 25. That’s when reason overtakes risk in the brain. Behaviour changes. If you ask me honestly if society can ever prevent these tragedies from happening again, I’d say look at the numbers, the trends and social media algorithms. But more than that, that overwhelming urge to, when you’re young, experiment with danger. To push the boundaries in life. To just goof off with your mates. That primal urge has existed since the beginning of time and doesn’t appear to be going anywhere in a hurry.  All we can do as individuals is offer our sincere condolences to this poor family and hope that others learn a lesson from his death.  Tue, 27 May 2025 18:07:27 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-no-chippy-for-winston/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-no-chippy-for-winston/ So, Winston has definitively ruled out working with Chris Hipkins. Not Labour, but Hipkins.  He had of course already pretty much done this earlier in the year after his State of Nation address, in which called the Labour leadership a bunch of liars and unreformed losers.  But this is crystal clear now. He’s spoken to Thomas Coughlin at the Herald - it’s a firm no, thank you. This is interesting for two reasons. 1) Winston is a political wizard and knows how to read the room and play the game. This is not a random outburst. This is a calculated decision based on the path he thinks will get New Zealand First back to the Treasury benches. By virtue of ruling out Hipkins, assuming he doesn’t get rolled and replaced, Winston has reduced his bargaining power. Which is not an outcome a kingmaker takes lightly.  The key to his success on the campaign trail has always been as much about what he stands against as what he stands for - immigration and Treaty issues spring to mind. He’s decided that in 2026, the punching bag will be a three-headed clown show marriage of the Greens, Labour, and Te Pati Māori. He’s read the room and picked his side.  In 2023, Winston ruled out Labour before Chippy definitively ruled Winston out. He has yet to do the same for 2026.  He’s now missed his chance, and any moral high found that went with it. Remember, Hipkins must appeal to a base that despises the anti-woke agenda Winston peddles. This year alone he’s labelled him a pale version of Donald Trump, a conspiracy theorist, and spokesman for the tobacco lobby. Hipkins’ failure to rule out working with him undermines the high horse he canters around the Parliament. His protestations were sounding a bit hollow. The question for Hipkins this morning: are you willing to rule out working in Winston given he's already done the same to you? Or is there a wee small hope in your head that he might just change his mind and under MMP, an open door is is worth walking through, even if it leads you to the across to the dark side? Mon, 26 May 2025 18:21:46 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-we-need-more-of-a-heads-up-on-kiwisaver/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-we-need-more-of-a-heads-up-on-kiwisaver/ KiwiSaver.  I was thinking about this at the weekend. I get why the government is doing the old switcharoo. I get it. Means test the government sweet we, halve it for everyone else… save some money.  Then we workers… and our employers… will slowly put more into the scheme… So that when it all comes out in the wash, we’re at least no worse off than before budget day.  Except that we will be worse off, because it’s us and our employers paying for it. We pay more up front. Our employers pay more up front. That’s added cost. Businesses recover cost by putting up prices, which we end up paying, or by lowering costs, like wages… which is how most of us make a living, right? So the net effect is worse for us and better for the government. Now again, I get why they need to slash spending but the irony with tinkering with KiwiSaver is this. For your average kiwi working hard and saving and planning for retirement… that’s what we’re told to do…. These changes throw all your calculations out of whack. You plan on a long-term, predictable set of circumstances. When they’re changed without warning and at random, it punishes people who are trying to do the right thing.  We need more of a heads up on changes to KiwiSaver… and more importantly… NZ Super. It’s not a matter of if but when that also gets means-tested. Even if the when is post-Winston.  Nicola Willis says she’s been giving this some thought. The future of superannuation. I’d like to know, and other hard-working Kiwi-savers I’m sure would also like to know, sooner rather than later, what those thoughts are.  Sun, 25 May 2025 18:21:33 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-the-growth-forecast-in-budget-2025-at-least-gives-us-hope/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-the-growth-forecast-in-budget-2025-at-least-gives-us-hope/ Good morning and guess what? Things are looking up. The future's looking pretty good. Not from budget announcements themselves, necessarily, but the Treasury forecasts. We'll hit just shy of 3% growth next year. It'll average 2.9% across the next four years. Unemployment gets back below 5%. Inflation is beaten at 2%. Wages grow faster than costs at 2.7%. These are the best forecasts we have, and they show that even if the global outlook gets worse, we'll still grow by a whisker shy of 3% next year. We've been talking about them all year but thank the Lord for our primary sector exports. They're in high demand. Prices are up. Payouts are up. Tourism is coming back back on, albeit slowly. Finally, after effectively two years of going backwards, and four years of feeling very poor, things look like they're finally turning a corner. The good old days are coming back. But the pain isn't over yet. The forecasts have us actually going backwards 0.8% this year. And you can feel that and see it some of the confidence, employment, card spending and PSI data we spoke about the other day. The services sector is still in contraction, unlike most of our trading partners. The government surplus is also a fly in the ointment. Despite average growth of almost 3% a year for the next four years, Nicola Willis won't, in any of them, return to books surplus and actually start paying down the debt. Debt's costing us more than Defence, Police, Corrections, Justice, and Customs combined. It peaks at 46% in 2028 and won't come down below 40% target in this forecast period. Why not? Net debt doubled under the last lot and your net borrowing is still increasing as a proportion of the economy, and the economy's going to grow. Nicola Willis says this would have required harsher cuts to health and education. If you were running a business, you'd gut the costs out because there's more fat to trim. But she's not running a business, she's running a country. Cut too deep and your risk being turfed out in 2026 and the next lot reversing all the cuts anyway. In a way, deep cuts are less sustainable, politically, than smaller, incremental ones. That's not to take away from the growth track. The question of reliability is a reasonable one to ask. Treasury's been wrong before. The elephant in the White House is, of course, Donald Trump. He's to economists what cyclones are to meteorologists, quite hard to predict with accuracy. Trying to nail down an accurate forecast is like trying to whack a pinata, blindfolded, and drunk. So all of this is to say that finally, on the whole, you'd have to feel a bit more hopeful about the future of this country today than you did yesterday.           Thu, 22 May 2025 19:58:56 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-is-paying-tax-through-your-working-life-really-worth-the-pension/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-is-paying-tax-through-your-working-life-really-worth-the-pension/ Providing I make it to 65, and you don't count your blessings, but assuming for a second that I do, I don't expect I'll be receiving the full pension.  And you know what? I'd rather receive less, at a later age, than pay more taxes through my working life. In 2006, the number of Kiwis aged 65+ was 495,000. It's increasing by about 80 people a day and is likely to reach 1 million by 2028. By 2050? 1.5 million.  Compared to the OECD, we have the highest basic pension paid from general taxes. With fewer young people working to support it, Treasury has long forecast a cost blowout and the need for much higher taxes to afford this system.  Personally, I'd like to take a pass on that.  With about another 30 years on the clock before reaching this magical age, how much extra tax must I pay?  Which colour government will be in charge when the inevitable happens?  Why can't I instead invest my own money, and with the help of compounding returns, hopefully set myself up for my own retirement? Whatever measly amount I might get, I don't expect to get at 65. The UK, Australia, Denmark, US, Germany France and the Netherlands have all increased the age threshold. We will of course do the same at some point.  Like most Kiwis, I hope, and again, you don't count your blessings, will have invested wisely and saved adequately to feed and house myself.  If that changes, then a means tested system should always be a safety net.  But at some point, it'll have to move from Think Big, to think Smaller. NZ Super will have to go on a diet.  Crash dieting is never a sustainable way to trim the fat. Smaller, incremental changes over a long period of time afford best results.  The same is true of NZ Super. And if the choice is higher taxes for 20 or 30 years instead of me investing that money myself. I'd back myself over the State any day.  Wed, 21 May 2025 18:29:50 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-its-three-strikes-for-chippy/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-its-three-strikes-for-chippy/ Politics is all about perception and the perception of his last time on the ninth floor was bad for three reasons.  Crime - they were too soft.  Spending - too much waste. And debt - too much with nothing to show for it. All of this fed into the cost-of-living crisis. Basically, Labour was too loose on the purse strings and the gangs, too harsh on businesses and middle New Zealand.  Yesterday, Hipkins stood up in the Parliament and argued for shorter sentences for some MPs after gun-gesture-gate.  Arguing for a reduced sentence from 21 days to 1 day was ill-advised.  No matter where you sit on the actual debate, politically for Chippy in the eyes of the middle voter, it was a bad move.  Arguing for a 95% discount on sentencing just plays into a narrative they ought to avoid like the plague.  That was strike three.  Strike two came earlier in the day on debt.  He refused to commit to the debt ceiling of 50% of GDP.  It's the sacred threshold Treasury warns we shouldn't cross.  It's the same threshold even Grant Robertson said we shouldn't cross.  The same threshold even ol' Barb from accounts said we shouldn't cross a day earlier.  So now National can run around till the election screaming "debt monster" till their blue in the face and won't be wrong until he commits otherwise.  Strike one came courtesy of the Greens last week.  The mad-hatter alternative budget... the plan so toxic it'd kill growth like roundup on your weeds.  Chippy first said he hadn't read it, which nobody believed. Then he said he'd read it and wouldn't rule anything out. So, he might allow some or all of the roundup to be sprayed on our economic prosperity.  Then he says some of the stuff was bad, some was okay, but not committing to anything.  Obviously, this is the high tide mark on a Green party negotiating position post-election and most of won't actually happen. In the same way the privileges committee thing is not that big of a deal to most voters.  But politics is about perception. And perception is reality. It's three own goals in a week. Three strikes for Chippy.  Tue, 20 May 2025 18:08:05 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-do-people-care-about-the-suspended-te-pati-m%C4%81ori-mps/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-do-people-care-about-the-suspended-te-pati-m%C4%81ori-mps/ Government debt is the worst it’s been since the 1990s but today, two days out from a Budget designed to fix it, our Parliamentarians be debating a haka.  The public largely doesn’t care about this stuff. Pocketbook politics always trumps theatrics - except if you're Te Pati Māori. No matter how today’s debate over the Privileges Committee report goes, and it could go on for a long time, Te Pati Māori wins. A loss for them in our Westminster system, what we might think of as a sanction or punishment, is to them a badge of honour. Already their well-followed social accounts are beating the drum of discontent.  There are some who say that 21 days without pay is too harsh. People are comparing the haka and Debbie’s gun gesture to Brooke's C-bomb.  They miss an important point.  Both the c-bomb and the haka were pre-planned choreographed stunts. The difference between the two is Brooke asked the Clerk in advance of her stunt if she was allowed to use the word. The answer was yes. Te Pati Māori did not. Brooke’s stunt did not disrupt a vote being taken in the House. Te Pari Māori's did.  Voting is the essence of democracy, where the elected express the views of the electors. It’s Parliament’s Holy Communion.  And nobody’s yet said sorry. That doesn’t mean the punishment a slim majority of government members voted for is not overly harsh.  The Clerk reckons it is. Brownlee clearly reckons it is. The Opposition reckons it is. Does the punishment really fit the crime? Or have standards slipped so badly, the House such a hot mess, that a precedent and a message needs to be sent?  The public, largely, doesn’t care. The question today is how long will National let this debate drag on with amendments and filibustering before a compromised is reached? Winston and Seymour will be hardliners, of course. As will the Greens and TPM. But for the bigger parties the risk is if you play politics over policy for too long you look childish.  The only winners from today’s sideshow will be the minnows and, of course, the rest of us.  Mon, 19 May 2025 18:12:39 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-we-need-better-protection-of-our-privacy/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-we-need-better-protection-of-our-privacy/ Here's a question for your Monday morning.  If somebody came up to you on the street and asked for DOB, next of kin, phone number, personal address, your interests, sports and hobbies.... what would you say?  Bugger off. Why do you want all that? What will you do with it? Do you need it?  and yet, when some random business asks you this stuff while you're buying shampoo or a computer mouse on the internet, we happily give it away, hand it over, pay for our loot (using a credit card number and password, then promptly think nothing more of it.  The reason we do this is because we're asked to do it. And we often don't have much choice.  If you don't answer those pesky questions with the asterisk on them.... you can't get the thing that yo want. Even if you've paid.  Privacy Commissioner has a new survey out. Survey says F-off, basically.  Two-thirds say protecting their personal information now a major concern in their lives (yes, major. Presumably up there with death and a mortgage) 80% say they want more control over it. Honestly, why does my hairdresser need to know my date of birth when I'm booking an appointment?  Does it tell them how thin my hair might be at a certain age?  Do they need my address to ship my cut hair back to me after its swept off the floor?  Do they need my surname because it may denote frailty in my follicles passed down through generations?  No. It's because they can ask for it. So, they do.  They make money off, presumably.  Honestly, my online supermarket and electricity provider know more intimate details about me than some of the ex's.  We regularly reveal more personal details to Countdown than we would a first date! Companies here can basically ask you anything. You often have to answer. They must take reasonable steps to keep keeping it secret.  Then along comes the hackers. Then it's all out the window.  The EU has strict rules... Business must give you option to reject cookies. Informed consent. Only ask for stuff related to what you're buying or doing. AND you have the right to change or delete the info companies hold open you.  You could avoid the internet altogether but that train's sort of left the station. So, can I suggest a question for businesses? Could you please stop asking us so many damned irrelevant and annoying questions?  Sun, 18 May 2025 18:03:22 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-missing-out-on-the-americas-cup-isnt-the-end-of-the-world/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-missing-out-on-the-americas-cup-isnt-the-end-of-the-world/ Buongiorno! Italia is going to host the 38th America's Cup in summer 2027.  The Auld Mug once again heads to European waters - the first time the Italians will play host. They've had the World Series but never the big one. It'll be Mt Vesuvius in the background, not Rangitoto. Pizza lining the bellies of fans, not fish and chips. Auckland has missed, which we already knew. Athens has missed out. Giorgia Meloni's excited. Luna Rossa, obviously pumped.  But the question for you this morning: do you wake up feeling jealous? Was there a pit of disappointment in your stomach? Do we lambaste our messily, stingy government for not prioritising a sailing race?  My feelings are, well it's nice they have somewhere to sail and good luck to them.  But I don't feel FOMO. We were on the hook for tens of millions of dollars - Wayne hasn't got his bed tax, yet.  Politically, it was the right call, too.  Imagine with this announcement coming a week out from Budget Day the outcry from the unions and Opposition. You're spending how much on men sailing round the harbour while cutting women's pay? Can you just imagine it? Plus, when we debated all this a few months back, we didn't know at that point Dalton was quietly walking away contract negotiations with Peter Burling.  So, we would have spent millions a race for a boat with an Aussie at the helm, not our beloved Burling.  And that's fine. We've had one before in Glen Ashby, but there's no doubt the preference was for Burling to continue. Grant Dalton told me that at the time.  But there's a bigger point here. When times are tough, when the kitty's running on low, you can't afford the nice to haves.  For Team New Zealand, that was Burling. For us, it was the competition itself.  And if you're worried Dalton has regrets about Auckland failing to get a look in, take a look at the press release for today's announcement.  He say's Italians, not us Kiwis, are quote "the most passionate and engaged America’s Cup audience in the world and the city is the best option for growing global audiences".  It's summer in Europe. If you're sailing mad, might be time to look at some flight options for a mid-winter getaway. Some difficult Captain's calls have been made, but for us, and for them, it sounds like they were necessary ones and the necessary choices are always the right ones.  Thu, 15 May 2025 18:10:55 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-the-greens-budget-is-in-la-la-land/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-the-greens-budget-is-in-la-la-land/ Here’s a few c-words for your Thursday morning: communist, coalition, and crash. Crash, because that’s what’d happen to the economy if we lived in the Green utopia complete with the $88-billion tax train wreck.  Coalition, because that’s what you’d get if Labour shacks up with their neighbours on the far left. Hipkins yesterday first claimed not have read the manifesto. Whatever.  This is the manifesto of a party he could well be sitting round the cabinet table within a year from now.  He then refused to rule out anything in it. It won't rule out the hammer. And I won't rule out the sickle.  The Greens are by far Hipkins' biggest Achilles heel, and therefore Luxon’s greatest strength.  Remember the hit in the polls Labour took over "defend da police"? Here's the thing about us New Zealanders, your middle voters, we may not right now be affected by the inheritance taxes, wealth taxes, higher income taxes, the company tax hikes which would put them amongst highest in the developed world. But the problem for Hipkins and Co. is that we'd like to be.  Kiwi families would like to start a business and create a life for their families. An asset. An income. A future. They dream of working their way up the ladder to get that better salary to get that house they’ve been saving to own. They don’t think it’s fair for part of mum and dad’s life work and savings to be stolen by the state.  The election of John Key showed us families are ambitious.  They believe in themselves to do better.  They’re motivated and ready for this recession to be over so we can get on with it. I’ve never doubted that spirit in New Zealand. That spirit hasn't left for Australia, it was hidden under a rock for six years. And yes, there are social problems here too. But what we learnt from the fading days of Hipkins reign is that voters don’t trust if they give up their hard-earned money and assets, that the state has the ability or wherewithal to change any of this. To fix it. They’re like Temu versions of a Michael Joseph Savage. Many of the houses he built still stand, building never started on most of Chippy's. And that brings us to the final C word: communist, because what else do you call them?  The Greens are planning a roadshow after their pre-Budget announcement.  My only question for Chlöe, Mārama and Co. is: will you be travelling to these towns and cities by bicycle or will be flying on an aeroplane? Wed, 14 May 2025 18:25:58 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-labour-s-back-to-its-old-tricks/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-labour-s-back-to-its-old-tricks/ Ahead of the Budget we got the same message we got from a barefoot, jandal wearing Chippy on day one of his post summer break. More debt. Borrow more and spend more.    Name an issue, pick a portfolio, any portfolio, where Labour has not criticised the government for cuts and promised to restore spending to pre-Willis levels.  The latest example is pay parity, but that is just the latest in a long and growing list of items on the wishlist.  In case they didn’t get the memo, Kiwis voted for cuts at the last election. If we’re doing our bit, the government ought to do its bit. That’s the politics of it. The economics have been up for debate. Net core crown debt has more than doubled on pre-Covid to $182 billion or 42.6% of GDP. Like our tourist arrivals, debt has unfortunately not returned to normal pre-Covid levels.  Some of this is inflation but much of it is not. There’s spending that went too far and got baked in. A couple of things to note. Yes, government debt is low compared to other OECD countries. But, the credit ratings agencies are telling us we must get back to surplus and start paying it down. If you risk a credit downgrade, then borrowing costs you more. We’re already spending more financing debt than we do on defence, Police, Corrections, Justice, and Customs combined.  And remember, we’re the shakey isles with huge exposure to trade. We need headroom to borrow big if shit hits the fan.  Ask any economist or the person who runs your household and they’ll tell you borrowing for everyday spending is a bad idea. We’ve been doing that year, after year, after year, and Willis is actually still doing more of it.  If that’s enough to convince you on debt, here’s the kicker. The real doozy.  Private debt. We have student loans and business debt and houses. We love houses. Loads of mortgages, and the problem is how much we owe and who we owe it to.  Household debt is 120% of GDP and higher than America, Spain, Germany, Ireland a bunch of other countries. What’s worse, much of it is owed to foreign banks. We don’t have enough savings to lend to ourselves.  This makes us more vulnerable as a country, keeps Reserve Bankers awake at night, explains why Nicola Willis’s knickers are always in a twist when it comes to getting the government’s debt levels down.  Willis could, and many argue, should go harder and faster as she’s still spending more than Grant Robertson.  But one thing you can be sure of, because it has come from Hipkins mouth repeatedly this week, is that spending and therefore borrowing would be higher right now had they be given a third term. Tue, 13 May 2025 18:09:40 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-flick-electric-on-its-last-legs-is-a-sign-winters-coming/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-flick-electric-on-its-last-legs-is-a-sign-winters-coming/ If what’s they’re saying about a Flick Electric shutting up shop is true, and I’ve no reason to doubt it, then it should come as no surprise. This is a BusinessDesk report - it's owned by Z and so far, they're not saying anything. It’s one of the smaller retailers that help keep the bigger gentailers honest, but the cracks started showing ages ago. Winter 2021, they closed their books to new customers. The great wholesale price crunch hit them hard.  Last year, again, wholesale prices shot up above retail.  You can’t run a business like that, and we were warned then about what is happening now. Means little guys can’t hold on. The problem is hedging. They couldn’t afford the cost of hedging during the crunch for new customers.  That means less choice for us, and we know what that typically means for prices.  Unlike your Air New Zealand regional airfares debate this past week, there is a quick fix for this problem. At least a partial one.  The government announced to much fanfare in February that the big gentailers would no longer be allowed to offer sweetheart deals to their own lot, and transparency about those deals would be forced upon them. The generator part favouring its own tailer, but not other, smaller players. So, the odds are stacked against them and flick - out goes the lights.  So, we've known about this unfairness since at least 2021 for Flick, we've had belatedly an announcement something might change, but years later no change and another retailer bites the dust.  40,0000 customers off to, you guessed it, Meridian - one of the big gentailers. Losing Flick, if true, is another sign winter is coming, and I can’t see anybody in much of a hurry to do much about it.  Mon, 12 May 2025 18:23:37 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-were-cracking-down-on-the-kids/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-were-cracking-down-on-the-kids/ The youth are out of control.  We'll crush the cars. We'll crush the smartphones.  Which all sounds nice this will... like most laws designed to make us feel like we're getting a handle on social problems, will all come down to enforcement. For all the time Judith Collins spent at the scrap metal yards for photo ops, was not quite the Crusher those photos ops made her out to be.  In the five years after they passed the law, three cars were crushed.  But that was a three-strike solution, Mark Mitchell, the destroyer, is moving us to a first strike programme... so you're one Gone in 60 Seconds Street race away from destruction or your car ending up on the Turner's auction site.  If you've tried to get some sleep in an area where they convoy in some Subaru at 3am in the morning, you'll know how annoying these so-called meet ups are.  It wastes so much police time. They're crashing into each other and hurting themselves. Ripping up the road.  So yeah, why not double down on the crusher, but this won't make the problem disappear.  Somewhat ironic, too, because we're saying screen time is bad. Get off your phone. Go outside and do something.  These kids are off their phones, fixing their cars. Learning about engines. Chatting with one another face-to-face. Actually, out there doing something other sitting at home on Tiktok.  The TikTok problem is the far bigger problem because it affects all of them not just the few who race cars.  By their first year of High School, 90% of kids have a smartphone.  This is interesting now because we've moved beyond Member's bill to a government bill being proposed, so a social media ban is now officially on the agenda.  The problem with enforcement here is obvious - how do you do when there are so many workarounds.  And the enforcers will not be police, they'll be parents.  And here's the problem. Most parents spend time more time on social media than their kids. Nearly half of kiwi teens say their parent is at least sometimes distracted by their phone when they’re trying to talk to them. Isn't that a bit hypocritical? Like telling them not to smoke while puffing away on a pack of winne blues?  Enforcement of whatever rules we pass to manage the impulses of teenagers will ultimately determine how successful those measures are in stopping them doomscrolling or joyriding.  Sun, 11 May 2025 18:02:33 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-my-thoughts-on-the-pay-equity-bill/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-my-thoughts-on-the-pay-equity-bill/ It was the last day of school in Parliament yesterday.  It happens after MPs sit through urgency, they get restless, excitable, a bit crazy.  They were shouting, interrupting, it was a bit chaotic - even Gerry Brownlee finished question time saying this has not been our finest hour.  Opposition MPs, particularly women, were up in arms and incensed over the Pay Equity bill for the second day in a row. The question for National is whether this outrage in Parliament will translate to outrage at the ballot box.  33 claims cancelled and must start again. Sure, there's a new legal framework set up with high thresholds for pay equity claims. But Labour is doing it's darndest to create the impression there's not. That this is the end of the road for low-paid workers of the fairer sex.  Dutton was emasculated at the polls last Saturday in part because he wasn't well liked by women.  The red landslide swept his heartland, handed Albo the win, and cost him his unfortunately named seat of Dickson. In Brisbane's Northern suburbs and across Queensland new residents, young voters, and women broke for Albo.  It was a big part in Dutton's down trou. So, the question for National is whether it's just created a problem for 2026? Will women voters give Luxon a swift kick in the gonads next year?  The bill creates a risk of them doing so. To counter that you've got the sell the changes. Right now, in the fog of war, they're not getting cut through. The critics, the Jan Tinetti's, are winning the PR war at present.  When the dust settles, they need to explain, with specific examples, which of those 33 deals in the pipeline or deals done thus far were bad or rotten and why. Why is it important we save billions? What's it good for? This is not to say all women vote the same or even together in a bloc. Life's not one big sisterhood of the travelling pants. Every woman is different and doesn't necessarily vote on their gender.  After all, women didn't show up for Kamala last November, even though MSNBC was basically saying Trump removed your womb.  Women ditched Labour after Jacinda left the building and the Nats picked them up.  The pay equity bill is a risk to that support, a bit of a gamble - not one that can't be overcome, but you've got to sell your story.  Thu, 08 May 2025 18:19:23 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-why-comcoms-not-investigating-air-new-zealand/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-why-comcoms-not-investigating-air-new-zealand/ So, after all the handwringing, the complaints, the stomping of feet, the Commerce Commission's shooting down talk of an investigation into domestic airfares. Greg Foran and Co. will see this as vindication - validation that, despite the headlines and Consumer NZ's claim the market is quote broken, the reality is their costs have gone up and, surprise surprise, it's expensive to run routes with high fixed costs to small places with few people.  So they conclude doing a market study —which is easy politics, it scratches the itch— won't actually achieve anything.  And they say it won't lead to consumers getting a better deal.  Refreshing honesty. Could the same refreshing honesty not have been applied to the claims about banking/supermarkets/petrol stations, etc, etc, etc? Like most things post-Covid, costs have gone sky high. Airport landing charges - up. Air traffic control - up. Security levies - up. And when you're a business, one owning to the tune of 51% remember, you recoup those costs by putting your own prices up.  We don't want them subsidies flights and crashing our business, right?  We sold off the national carrier in 1989. We re-nationalised it in 2001after Ansett went bust - that cost us close to a billion bucks.  Ansett's problem was high costs and regulation changes - when airlines fail, it gets expensive for taxpayers. Now I don't want to defend an airline charging me $400 to fly for 40 minutes anymore than the next guy. But this is the crux of most of the complaints we hear about through the media.  Short flights, regional flights are expensive right now and people don't use them often enough.  They use more fuel as a proportion of total flight time because take-off and climbing is when you burn through it - it takes a bit of gas to lift us into the sky. The cost of fuel is a third of operating cost —something Foran can't control— that's more the purview of a Putin or a Sultan. Planes spend way too long sitting on the ground, your costs are higher, and you've got fewer passengers to spread those costs over. Using jets would be more efficient but, again, we don't have the people to fill them.  Which is why I said the other day —and it's true but doesn't make it palatable— we're a small country, we pay a price for sparsely populated, beautiful and untouched landscapes.  The ComCom does say there's room for improvement, but on the whole, the real enemy here is the politician or talking head who tells us by simply bashing Air New Zealand's head into a wall, they can make Kiwis fly on the cheap. Wed, 07 May 2025 18:43:59 Z