/on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/rss 九一星空无限 Sat, 23 Aug 2025 09:29:34 Z en /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-the-teacher-strike-achieved-nothing/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-the-teacher-strike-achieved-nothing/ As the teachers head back to school, like all the other strikes, nothing got achieved.  It never does.  For a strike to work you need to scare people, you need to bring a place to a standstill.  Cook Strait ferries and the bus and train services were unavailable for weeks on end at a time. That’s what works. But those days are gone, thank the good Lord.  These days it’s a day here, a day there.  Yes, we get you are not happy. Yes, you might deserve a better deal.  But your day off with your one minute of placard waving on the TV news that isn't watched the way it used to be anyway, doesn’t really shift the dial.  I think also the country has changed in the past few decades. Although unionism had a bit of a spike under six years of Labour, the Employment Contracts Act of the early 90's largely broke the unions for good.  Not literally, but when people got a choice, they chose to back themselves.  I wish those who are unionists could see the freedom and potential of non-union opportunity.  Not all jobs can be individualised, but most can, and teaching is one of them.  We all know good teachers, great teachers, and ordinary teachers, the same way we know good waiters, and restaurants, and doctors, and accountants, and retail outlets.  In a nation of small businesses, it tells us we back ourselves. We revel in the idea that we, and our skills and determination, can make a decent living.  The fact the rote response to merit-based pay for teachers goes something like "how would you judge on exam results?" shows how little they understand their individuality and ability to make a difference.  It's like that Radio NZ report last week where most of them thought they were in a sunset industry, when in fact the exact opposite is true.  It's Stockholm Syndrome. Your captors, the unions, have told you this is the only way. It isn't and never has been.  I have argued this for years and have got nowhere, but that doesn’t make it a bad argument.  What I know, like hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders know, is that being your own boss and your own person is a winning formula, if you want to win.  I know, like hundreds of thousands of other New Zealanders, that I love my job and my lot.  I don’t see the same fizz from teachers. Why do you reckon that is?    Fri, 22 Aug 2025 22:31:38 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mark-the-week-recalling-mallard-was-the-move-of-the-week/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mark-the-week-recalling-mallard-was-the-move-of-the-week/ At the end of each week, Mike Hosking takes you through the big-ticket items and lets you know what he makes of it all.    Alaska: 6/10  As an event it didn’t look like a lot. But Europe came to Washington and, apparently, a meeting is on. The lights aren't out yet.    Trevor Mallard: 8/10  Move of the week from Winston Peters. It took a while, but I still haven't found anyone who disagrees.    The Reserve Bank: 2/10  They missed the contraction, and they paused as the country was going backwards. Now we need two more cuts. They got us into trouble but can't get us out? Look up the word "useless" in the dictionary.    Helen Mirren: 7/10  James Bond "has to be a guy". You wouldn’t have had to say that once. Nowadays it makes headlines.    TOP: 4/10  As novel as it is to advertise for a leader, the fact you don’t have one probably sums up the prospects for next year - which are none.    Balls: 7/10  The balls at the US Open are made of New Zealand wool. My favourite fun fact of the week.    LISTEN ABOVE FOR MIKE HOSKING'S FULL WEEK IN REVIEW  Thu, 21 Aug 2025 23:20:06 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-were-still-talking-about-working-from-home/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-were-still-talking-about-working-from-home/ One of the "never the twain shall meet" moments that came out of Covid was working from home.  Here we are, five years on, and the battle has not only not died, it's intensified.  The big gab fest this week in Canberra had the unions asking for a four-day week.  Victoria, run by communists, has already stated they will put it into law, even though they can't.  Now the obligatory poll shows, guess what, huge numbers of people want the right in law to work from home.  On the other side of the equation is the poor old businesses who are pulling their hair out.  In places like the UK and America it's got a bit ugly with mandates and threats over returning to the office, or else you're out.  The coalition in Australia in the recent campaign ran on a policy of banning work from home for public servants. It went down like a cup of cold sick and was, among other things like nuclear, seen as the reason they lost so badly.  That’s the trouble with democracy, isn't it? What if the people are wrong? What if the collective doesn’t get it and doesn’t care?  You could run a poll that says, "would you like the Government to pay for a family-sized chocolate bar and a French martini every Friday?” You'd get a good number.  What we want and what makes sense don’t always align.  "But I save time in the commute". Yes, you do and that’s good. Because you have to remember not all ideas are 100% bad or good, right or wrong.  But on the whole working from home does not suit the employer as much as the employee.  Are there exceptions? Of course. But exceptions are not the debate. The debate is the law, and the law applies to everyone.  Making it worse is the people who make the laws are given their jobs by the people who do the polls. So, do you suck up to them and give them what they want, or do you do the right thing?  Especially when, in this case, the right thing may not be the popular thing.  Thu, 21 Aug 2025 22:23:24 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-we-were-more-right-than-the-reserve-bank/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-we-were-more-right-than-the-reserve-bank/ There are two key things for me that came out of the Reserve Bank commentary.  The press conference post the announcement should be a must watch for us all – the insight is invaluable.   On one hand, the genius three who turned up —Karen, Paul, and Christian— tell us that what they have done will flow through.  In other words, don't panic. "It will come through". I'll come back to that.  But then they tell you they got it wrong in Q2. There was less than no growth in the second quarter, but they didn’t see it.  So they're bullish in their talents on one hand, but hopelessly wanting on the other.  By the way, the vote 4-2 – that's never happened before. Two of the voters wanted a 50 point drop. I want to know who they are, because they would appear to get it.  What the confession of no growth in Q2 asks is if they had seen it, could they have done more?  Don’t answer that because the answer is yes, yes, yes, and yes. Now, because they botched it, they are most likely going down to 2.5% for the cash rate.  The other interesting thing for me is I'm a big believer in psychology. The economy is about much more than stats and data, it's about the mood and the vibe.  They talked of the cautious nature of our behaviour, I would argue they are part of the problem.  They look cautious. They look circumspect. They look like wonks who don’t get out a lot.  They certainly don't get out into the real world where the majority of us have been seeing the wreckage of our economy for most of the year.  They don’t vibe it and they don't sell it, which is not to say they are supposed to be show ponies, but my word, what a boring bunch they are, with spreadsheets for friends.  This economy needs a cheerleader. It needs a significant, impactive, influential, and loud voice for its merits. Hawkesby, Silk, and Conway aren't it.  It should have been 50 points, and it should have been 50 points before yesterday, and because it wasn’t, the economy stalled and they didn’t see it coming.  How does that install confidence?  So, there's at least two more cuts. But why are we waiting?  They will argue it's because the 25 points will flow through. Will they really?  Let the record show, to this point, we are more right than they are.  Wed, 20 Aug 2025 22:34:23 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-why-dont-parents-cop-flak-for-our-kids-education/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-why-dont-parents-cop-flak-for-our-kids-education/ Can I ask a question about parents?  I watched Erica Stanford do a press conference yesterday at a school in Wellington while launching the writing action plan.  While I was watching that I was reading a story about Nicola Willis, who it was suggested by people in London might be the next Prime Minister.  She had gone to the New Zealand Society on her trip last week. She stood there in a tangerine suit and there had been a buzz about the room as they wondered whether this was New Zealand's next Prime Minister.  It was a weird story, and it means nothing, but if it ever came down to it, I would take Stanford over Willis all day long.  She is a force of nature and if you ever want to see a minister in charge of detail, watch her in a classroom in front of cameras. You won't fail to be impressed.  The bad news though is part of the day involved the release of yet more data showing our kids in Year 3, 6, and 8 are in real trouble when it comes to maths and reading.  Only a small minority are where they should be. A small minority.  The claim at this stage by Stanford is what they have introduced, and are introducing, is the turnaround plan. It's the magic, the cure, and the panacea.  Not that it makes it better, but the numbers out yesterday were marked against some of the new standards, hence the massive failure rate.  This stuff is benchmarked internationally. Once, not long ago (maybe when I was at school), in a lot of stuff we led the world. Today we are so far from leading the world it makes you want to cry.  Stanford isn't crying. She speaks in a way that suggests she knows something the rest of us don’t, like she has seen the future and it is bright.  Or could it be she just hopes it is and is faking it till she makes it, because the gap between where our kids are and where they need to be is gargantuan?  So, back to the parents. Where are they?  Maths can be sort of tricky, if you want to find an excuse, but reading and writing isn't. A kid who can't read or write properly by high school is a reflection of their home life, as much as the school.  Schools take too much heat. Governments take too much heat.  If your kid can't write or read and your kid is 12 or 13, where have you been?  Tue, 19 Aug 2025 22:54:59 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-the-pay-equity-court-case-is-a-show-trial/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-the-pay-equity-court-case-is-a-show-trial/ If Grant Robertson thinks the Covid inquiry is a "show trial", then what is about to unfold at the High Court as of the end of this month can't be far behind.  A bunch of unions are taking the Government to court over pay equity.  They are having several stabs at it – the Bill of Rights is in play and the democratic process is up for debate.  One of the things the unions claim may happen if they win, is a select committee would have to hear submissions and a debate in Parliament would have to take place.  That’s the "show trial" part. Select committees hear from the people you would expect to hear from: broadly, it's people opposed to whatever change of law is in play.  And a debate in Parliament hears both sides, one for, one against, with the Government of the day prevailing, given it is they who have the numbers and indeed that is why they are the Government.  Which is essentially why court is a waste of time, remembering of course the Government is the ultimate court and if they want to pass a law, they can.  Making it complicated is the whole pay equity calculation is a mess. Secondary teachers, for example, were one of the many claimants putting an equity claim forward before the law was changed.  To my eye being a high school teacher is not an equity issue. Men do it, women do it, there are lots of them and they aren't paid on gender.  It's not a profession where 99% of them are women and because they are women, they are poorly paid.  High school teachers are paid quite well. You could equally argue they are not paid as well as they could be because the union insists on them all being paid the same based on time in the classroom. If they got paid on merit it would be a different world.  Kristine Bartlett's case became famous because we could all see the care industry was mainly female and the pay was poor. I would still argue the pay was poor because the work, although kind and worthy, is not of great numerical value.  If it was, rest homes would pay more, charge residents more and we'd happily foot the bill. But we don’t.  Anyway, the upshot is the best the unions can hope for is a court win. The win can then be used to beat the Government about the head as big, bad meanies.  But it will still not get them paid under an equity deal because the court is not the Government.  Mon, 18 Aug 2025 22:44:38 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-how-did-rnz-not-know-about-this-already/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-how-did-rnz-not-know-about-this-already/ You may have read a report commissioned by Radio NZ to look into why their operation has become such a dumpster fire. It said a bunch of stuff that was obvious. One thing that surprised and saddened me though was that most people within that organisation thought radio was dying and audiences were bailing. That's not true. In fact it’s the opposite. Radio is robust and, comparatively speaking, thriving. So my question is, how is it you can have a company of people who don’t understand their own industry? Where did they get their view from? Why has no one corrected the view? Where is management in that process? Their audience has shrunk, but it hasn’t vanished. It's gone to, well mainly, here to 九一星空无限talk ZB. The customer is still spending, they’ve just changed shops. The fact they don't know that I would have thought should set off alarm bells, most ironically because the place is full of journalists who once upon a time had inquiring minds. They asked questions and they wanted to know things. If you have such a mind you would have quickly discovered what was actually happening and what the reality of your medium was. How can you be a journalist and be that bewildered? And if you are that bewildered on your own doorstep, how bewildered are you about the rest of life and the world? Also of concern was management's response to the report. By the way the report basically says the place is shot, it needs a bomb and some genuine talent. The response suggests what Radio NZ management do quite well is commission reports, then ignore them. So the exercise as a whole appears a waste. They got told some obvious stuff they should have known, an alarming thing about their staff they should also have known, but now they do know they need to fix and the rest seems a bit tricky. For me, they can do what they like. But what I care about is that this industry is actually successful. Some of us are having the time of our lives. Some of us know what's going on and understand proceedings. Some of us still ask a few questions. The future is bright and it's there for anyone who wants it. But to want it you've got to be keen and you've got to be awake. That might be their biggest problem of all. LISTEN ABOVE Sun, 17 Aug 2025 20:30:52 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-stop-putting-the-bill-on-the-taxpayer/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-stop-putting-the-bill-on-the-taxpayer/ It never takes long to find the bank of the taxpayer.  The Green Building Council has lined the Government up for Lord knows how many millions so we can all ditch our gas heaters, buy heat pumps, and save money and the gas industry.  We talked during the week with businesses who use gas. Some are looking to convert, and some want discretionary loans from you-know-who.  Major gas users met the Minister last Friday to, I assume, state the obvious that we don’t have enough gas, so “something” needs to be done.  Just what the "something is" no one seems to know, given I haven't been given a clear answer to a fairly simple question.  At the big level like Methanex or Ballance, I don’t know if there is an answer. You either pay the price, and presumably pass it on, or you don’t and close down.  At the smaller level, does a grower of something need a government loan or hand out? Should a grower have seen the price of gas and thought to themselves that they might like to inquire about an alternative?  I guess you get that interface between a business being for personal good versus wider good, like jobs and produce and what role a government might play in that.  At a personal level we use gas. The price is a joke. We may or may not need to look at something different, but in the meantime, I'm prepared to foot the bill, and I have no desire to seek help from the government.  If the Green Building Council are right and we all switched to electricity as supplied by rain, wouldn't life be great? But we all know it's not that easy.  We all know the renewable journey has been, and remains, a cluster. We all know a variety of circumstances have coalesced to provide the sort of business environment that leads to big bills, big cutbacks, job losses and lack of growth.  It's an open question as to how much of the lack of gas is about Labour and the killing of an industry versus what we already had, running out faster than we thought.  But is it possible we could have a mindset change, whereby the taxpayer isn't always the first cab off the rank to cover yet more lack of foresight and planning?  Fri, 15 Aug 2025 22:32:10 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mark-the-week-visas-are-one-of-the-bright-spots-of-the-week/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mark-the-week-visas-are-one-of-the-bright-spots-of-the-week/ At the end of each week, Mike Hosking takes you through the big-ticket items and lets you know what he makes of it all.    Visas: 7/10  One of the bright spots of the week. Two more visas and access to labour that solves problems. More please.    Recognising Palestine as a state: 3/10  Talk about angst for no result. Around and around we go.    Disney Cruises: 4/10  Can you blame them? You make this the most expensive place in the world to bring a ship – who needs to deal with that?    Mystery meat: 3/10  What idiot thought of that?    Ardern and her henchpeople: 0/10  I don't know what else there is to say when you have sunk that low. More fool us. I can only imagine what the 50% of voters who wanted a chunk of that arrogance in 2020 think now.    LISTEN ABOVE FOR MIKE HOSKING'S FULL WEEK IN REVIEW  Thu, 14 Aug 2025 22:14:44 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-central-govts-differing-approach-to-local-govt/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-central-govts-differing-approach-to-local-govt/ The battle of duelling responsibilities is unfolding before our eyes and I can't work out whether it will all end in tears.  On one hand you've got the Local Government Minister off to Cabinet with his rates cap plan for councils. The average rate rise is almost 10%. Inflation isn't.  It's not good enough. They are out of control and Wellington is going to do something about it.  But then on the other hand we have Local Water Done Well, the new Government's replacement for Three Waters.  You can buddy up with a group of councils and areas, or you can go it alone.  For example, Gisborne District Council has decided to go it alone. Is that a good idea? Not according to Internal Affairs, who have written to them, having seen their plans.  They have also written to five other councils with similar ideas and said to them that you don’t seem to have the capacity and wherewithal to pull this off.  So, what if they're right?  What if they don’t and the whole thing goes tits up?  How is it a Central Government on one hand is setting the rules of engagement on rates for fear of things getting out of control, yet letting councils, who their own people are suggesting aren't up to it, loose on water infrastructure that may well end up putting them in the poor house?  It's that complex, angsty line between freedom and control, local and central. Where is that line drawn?  If you don't trust them on rates, is water so simple and cheap and easy that they should be fine?  Then you get to the bit about voters and local democracy. Gisborne claim they’ve consulted and the community is behind them.  That almost certainly isn't true, given the consultation would have involved the usual handful of those actually interested, as opposed to the majority who wont be remotely aware, or care, until of course it all goes wrong. At which point there is all hell to pay.  So who is right?   Central Government getting control of the out of control, or letting the out of control dabble elsewhere and going into it with a red flag?  There seems a stark inconsistency in approach from Wellington because both approaches can't be right.  Thu, 14 Aug 2025 22:12:19 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-ardern-hipkins-robertson-they-should-be-ashamed-of-themselves/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-ardern-hipkins-robertson-they-should-be-ashamed-of-themselves/ I'm assuming the instigators of the second Covid Inquiry are deeply disappointed in what is unfolding, in terms of accountability.  Inquiry Part 1 was a Labour Government stitch up. It was an exercise in smoke and mirrors.  Inquiry Part 2 is a coalition deal driven by ACT and NZ First, and was designed to look into areas not touched on in Part 1: access to vaccines, lock downs, economic damage, and so on.  I have argued since the start that we needed an advisorial approach. In other words, we do it like the Brits, who called people to a witness stand and held them accountable.  We didn’t do that and now we're paying the price.  Ardern and Hipkins, along with Robertson, have declined to appear.  No kidding. What a surprise. I wonder why?  Grant Illingworth KC, who is in charge of the current work, has the power apparently to pull them in. He is choosing not to do so, hence my assumption of disappointment at political party level.  The Illingworth justification is the aforementioned operators are cooperating with proceedings.  That's not good enough in my book, or indeed anywhere close.  Simple question: is there a broad expectation among ordinary, everyday New Zealanders that those who made life-changing calls in a life-changing period of New Zealand owe it to us all to front and be questioned under oath about why they did what they did?  Another question: what does it say about the morals and characters of said people, who seek public mandate and public support and approval, that when things get a bit awkward they are nowhere to be seen?  Where is the courage of their conviction? Where are their spines and gonads?  Can a person like Hipkins, and indeed Verrall, who I also understand is refusing to front, possibly present themselves to the voting public next year with a straight face and ask once again for the power to run the land, having been the same people who in august of the year before ran for the hills when accountability came calling?  The rules of engagement were lacking. We were let down.  As the head of this with power to do better, Illingworth is letting us down.  But nowhere near the level of Ardern, Hipkins, Robertson, and Verrall, who should be ashamed of themselves.  Wed, 13 Aug 2025 23:01:24 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-two-obvious-tips-for-chris-hipkins/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-two-obvious-tips-for-chris-hipkins/ Chris Hipkins came undone yesterday, twice.  You would hope, given there is literally no pressure on him right now and he basically gets to spend his days bagging the Government, he might want to sharpen up, given next year is a whole different kettle of fish.  Mistake number 1: He attempted to gain points on Palestine by suggesting David Seymour was holding the Government to some sort of ransom and if it wasn’t for the veto they would have declared support for statehood by now.  What Seymour said was Hamas would need to be demilitarised.  Now, apart from the fact that’s not radical, new, or an already widely held view by many who want to recognise Palestine – what is it Hipkins is saying?  He doesn’t mind Hamas or Hamas being a terror group? Would he be happy with the two state solution, with Hamas at the control panel? If he does, no problem, just say so.  Mistake number 2: For reasons best known to himself he got trapped in a discussion about his tax policy. What tax policy, you ask? Exactly.  But he somehow managed to suggest that even though there isn't a tax policy, what there is, is broad agreement around a wealth tax and a capital gains tax.  And then the bullet in the foot – he couldn’t rule in, or out, the possibility that the family home was part of that tax capture.  Tip number 1: Drop the Middle East. No vote is moved in this country on a place that has been a disaster zone for decades and the more you look like you tolerate terrorists the more you put middle New Zealand off you.  Tip number 2: If you are stupid enough to even hint that a family home could be part of a new tax, give up right now because you are toast.  As history shows, a CGT with the family home exempt has been trialled and rejected multiple times by his own party. The irony of ironies being it was Hipkins himself with a captain's call that dropped it last time.  So not only is he clearly not committed or convinced, he seemingly may have been hijacked by some left-leaning radicals inside his own camp to get the family home involved.  So, a party that can tolerate Hamas and tax your family home.  What could possibly go wrong?  Tue, 12 Aug 2025 22:39:36 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-you-need-an-open-mind-for-the-pilot-military-academy-programme/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-you-need-an-open-mind-for-the-pilot-military-academy-programme/ Perhaps the biggest problem with the military-style academy and the ensuing pilot report is not the number of people who re-offended.  Hell, I thought they all would.  But rather it was the fact it was, in the minds of too many, predetermined.  Those who called them boot camps are in the invidious position of bagging the idea but not having a solution, which is an awfully easy position to be in.  Labour and the Greens hate the idea of this sort of thing. It's unkind, it doesn’t involve sitting around talking about your feelings a lot, it's not forgiving and it doesn’t recognise trauma and your past.  That’s why crime got as hopelessly out of control as it did in the past handful of years.  Their policy was to have fewer people in prison, a lot of judges offering massive discounts, and just an overarching view that, short of the super serious stuff, a bit of smash-and-grab, or biffo, was somewhere between teenage high jinks and loutish behaviour that a good telling off might address.  In the meantime, back in the real world, we were completely sick and tired of the Toyota Yaris in the shop windows and layabouts wandering out of Woolworths with legs of lamb and a slab of beer, having not paid.  So, back to military academies. Ten of the worst were given a few months with rigorous oversight, hopefully to be let back out and wrapped up with the support of some expert guidance and, fingers crossed, a life changing experience.  In many respects the Government were on a hiding to nothing when you take ten of the worst. What have they got to lose? The fact two didn’t re-offend, I would have thought is little short of a miracle.  Those that did offend, by the way this wasn't widely reported, offended at a lesser level and do not forget the trial is ongoing. The guidance and wraparound mentorship is still in action.  There is hope.  Criticism around the cost is fair enough. But like most problems, when its been allowed to get progressively worse, whether it’s a car, or a paint job, or a kid on the skids, the bill goes up.  This most likely won't be a miracle. But it might be a dent. It might, for some, actually work.  It might be better than what we have done, which is little to nothing.  But you would need an open mind to come to that conclusion.  Mon, 11 Aug 2025 22:38:32 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-the-problem-with-local-body-elections/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-the-problem-with-local-body-elections/ I don’t know Elisha Milmine and I wish her nothing but the best. But as it turns out, she is your new councillor in the Kahuranaki ward for the Hastings District Council. She was standing against one person, that person withdrew, so she wins by default. She has no experience. She put her hand up, was the only one standing so, congratulations, the job's yours. What a stupid system. This story is far from unique. Plenty of elections aren't even held because no one stands, or people who may or may not be any good don’t get opponents so they win by default. So, here is an idea. Accepting we are fantastically over-governed and clearly there are nowhere near the number of people interested in filling the jobs, how about we run a system whereby you have a minimum number of candidates, like a quorum? If you don’t get that number then the vote is off. The people, if there are any, don’t contest and either the seat is vacant for a term and/or a commissioner or overseer is appointed, like they have done in Tauranga and other places when the council falls apart. In other words, you bring in an experienced expert. Having a vacant space might lead to more interest next time, or the realisation that there are too many seats. Having an expert or commissioner might lead to a realisation that amateur hour is no way to run a city, town or district. We don’t hand out regular jobs by default. Why on Earth do we do it at the highest level of civic leadership? The scenario is so desperate we literally take anyone. That’s not smart when you're running a raffle, far less a population. And yet here we are with any number of councils mired in debt and handing out cost-plus-accounting rate rises because they don't have a clue how to run anything properly. If someone from Mars came down to review the way we do this they would fall over laughing at our stupidity. So, it’s a contest, it’s a quorum, or we do some appointing of some actual talent. Tell me it isn't a bad idea. Sun, 10 Aug 2025 20:26:00 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-why-not-charge-tourists-to-visit-our-hot-spots/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-why-not-charge-tourists-to-visit-our-hot-spots/ I have at least partially changed my mind on charging tourists.  The idea that you can wander around our conservation estate for free is, of course, nuts.  Like the various charges that we have placed on tourists, whether it be at the border, or potentially in a hotel with a bed tax, the simple truth is if we got our act together in terms of marketing and seat capacity to the country, people would be happy to pay them.  Why? Because everyone pays for everything all over the world and if post-Covid travel has taught us anything, it's that you can basically rob a tourist blind and they are still happy to pay.  That’s before you get to the bit where our dollar is so pathetic that most people coming here can't believe what they get on the exchange rate.  But as part of the conservation announcement over last weekend what we also got was New Zealand's other great problem – the negative reaction.  As much as we love our open spaces and clean air and national parks you have never seen a group of people more determined not to have anyone touch them.  God forbid we should open the place up to a bit more business. We have seen it for years in the RMA and groups like Forest & Bird, who must have spent millions on lawyers in the environment court looking not to change anything.  The Quiet Sky group at Waiheke and various other locations are determined never to see a chopper polluting their environment ever again.  There is this default position whereby we are happy to be left alone, we don’t like interlopers, intruders or *ick* tourists. And we certainly don't want them tramping over our stuff, far less *ick* landing a helicopter and then tramping over our stuff.  We don't like cruise ships either so we have made them ruinously expensive to park here. So, they don’t.  Yay, a win for the greenies.  What we do like though is lots more pay, lots more hospital beds, much better education, lots of welfare and generous dollops of free stuff, all paid for by the money tree in Wellington.  The fact tourism, the conservation estate, ships and rich Americans in E130's pay for a lot of it doesn’t seem to have registered.  Fri, 08 Aug 2025 22:51:02 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mark-the-week-15-tariffs-are-the-biggest-blow-of-the-week/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mark-the-week-15-tariffs-are-the-biggest-blow-of-the-week/ At the end of each week, Mike Hosking takes you through the big-ticket items and lets you know what he makes of it all.    Sheds: 8/10  The new garden shed rules are what good governance should be about – simple and common sense. How hard can it be?    Local body elections: 4/10  Nominations close and, once again, a whole bunch of races are not being run because we don’t have enough candidates.    15% tariffs: 1/10  Biggest blow of the week in an economy that needs it like a hole in the head.    Coal: 7/10  Good cooperation with the gentailers, some cold, hard reality at last, and a good kick in the pants for the idiots who closed the oil and gas.    Downtown Auckland: 3/10  Wake up call of the week from the real estate bloke who said we look more like Suva than Sydney. Ouch.    Jobs: 4/10  Because the simple truth is this aint over. There is more where that came from in a year that was supposed to be showing real signs of recovery.    LISTEN ABOVE FOR MIKE HOSKING'S FULL WEEK IN REVIEW  Thu, 07 Aug 2025 23:51:55 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-the-treasury-report-shows-why-labour-wont-win-the-election/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-the-treasury-report-shows-why-labour-wont-win-the-election/ I said earlier this week that the Government will be re-elected next year because, all things being equal, history tends to show you get two terms.  Plus, the Opposition remain the same people who stuffed the place a year and a half ago and the pain of that, the closeness of that, is still real for too many of us.  Unless of course they rejuvenate the party or say sorry – none of which is going to happen.  This was all backed up by Treasury who, in one of their latest papers which is well worth reading, basically says the Government overspent. They were told not to overspend.  And whatever spending they were doing should've been targeted and directly linked to Covid. None of that advice was followed.  They sprayed money at a rate that equated to $66billion, or 20% of GDP, and when the worst was over they kept spraying.  And here we are a couple of years later bogged down in their economic incompetence.  The politics of it all is in full swing as Labour tried to blame the current Government for the mess. What's making that argument slightly complicated is the ongoing criticism, which is justifiable if you ask me, that for all the announcements and noise, this is a timid Government that really had licence to go for broke and they have largely chickened out.  They have dabbled and poked and prodded and done some decent, common sense stuff. In just the past few weeks we've had changes to building products, garden sheds, speed limits, RUC's and NCEA.  There is no shortage of bits and pieces but it's not transformational, hence the slow progress and the opening for Labour to have a crack.  Labour are praying you forget all this is on them. But it is and the Treasury paper very clearly says so.  They told Grant Robertson to tighten it up, to be disciplined, but socialists with majorities and egos are not for turning and so the ruinous money party was on.  Writing about it doesn't fix it. But it is proof positive that this lot inherited one of the most ill-disciplined, ill-advised, arrogant, bungling, fiscal messes of the modern age and if you don’t believe the National Party, believe Treasury.  Labour don’t have a leg to stand on.  And the same people who did that to us are still there wanting you to forget and give them another crack in a years time.  That is why they will not win.  Thu, 07 Aug 2025 23:00:20 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-shane-jones-can-help-the-govt-shift-up-a-gear/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-shane-jones-can-help-the-govt-shift-up-a-gear/ Shane Jones is fast becoming my favourite politician.  And he might have summed up the Government's issues with one on of his increasingly famous quips.  "The Ruth Richardson bare austerity approach is not delivering the economic growth we need."  He is right, isn't he? Classic liberal politics, trimming and cutting, is not the massive bomb we need under us.  As Chris Bishop yesterday was offering more detail on RUC rates and a move away from petrol taxes, all of which is fine, Shane and his mate Winston were wandering around Marsden Point and talking of making it a special economic zone.  It'd have tax treatment and incentives to get people to invest and do things. Marsden has got land and a port, it's close to shipping lanes, etc.  Ireland has made these things famous. They cut a deal on rates, or tax, bring 'em in, stoke 'em up and watch the growth explode.  Image might be a problem. Shane and Winston both come from, well, Marsden, so it’s a bit nepotistic. But the idea is sound.  Shane has also this week announced a massive upheaval of fishing, the biggest in decades. So it’s the big stuff that we may need because the regular size stuff hasn’t provided the heft we hoped for.  Yes, yes, yes, they inherited a mess, we get that, but the results are what count.  As ACT changed the laws around garden sheds and Nicola talks about supermarkets, it might just be ideas beyond our normal comprehension are what are actually called for.  The irony of the Jones' idea is it's not part of the coalition deal. I could ask, why not?  Is the Ruth Richardson line an acceptance that what they thought would work, hasn’t?  Another irony – I'm not sure how Shane and Winston can wander around Marsden blue-skying their way out of recession, when it's them that’s holding up the foreigners from buying a house after they have invested tens of millions into the country.  But credit where credit is due, Jones seems to have taken on the mantle of the arse kicker. He is where a lot of us are at.  This is not a bad Government, far from it.  It's perhaps just a timid Government. And with October 26 and a ballot box getting closer, maybe we need to shift it up a gear.  Wed, 06 Aug 2025 23:35:22 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-linear-tv-in-nz-is-in-trouble/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-linear-tv-in-nz-is-in-trouble/ The stark reality of linear TV in New Zealand, if Irene Gardiner was right on yesterday's show, is fairly simple.  Here is how the calculation works: you make a product, you stick it on air, you get an audience, and you sell advertising based on that audience.  Some programs can never hope to get the sort of audience to pay for the cost of the show. Enter Government support or brand sponsorship – in other words, a financial support mechanism to make a show that would not have otherwise been made.  I made a show called ‘Sunday’ years back. It was on TV3 on the weekend off peak. It didn’t rate very well, but it was never going to, but it rated fairly well for what it was, which was a niche program talking about the arts.  It was made with NZ On Air money.  Now, does Treasure Island attract more viewers than that? Yes.  So if you are going to toss money at something why not that? You get more bang for buck.  But the money tree hasn’t got more money, so someone loses. Maybe it's an arts program.  The really scary thing is the calculation around peak time i.e. prime time.  This show makes money and quite a lot of it. 九一星空无限talk ZB is profitable. TVNZ and TV3 are not.  So what about pay-per-view? SkyTV is profitable, but they have sport.  What does TV3 or TVNZ have that you would pay for? Would you pay to watch Treasure Island? Of course you wouldn’t.  So prime time linear TV is not profitable because the advertising dollars have vanished to Google and TikTok and Meta.  That is not changing and that’s the problem, because all that's left is the taxpayer.  The big question is to what extent should the taxpayer fund your evening's entertainment? And when I say you, I mean those who are left watching the TV as opposed to YouTube or Netflix.  If linear TV can't make a buck at 7.30pm on a Wednesday, how long before the lights get switched off?  Tue, 05 Aug 2025 22:22:50 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-my-thoughts-on-the-ncea-changes/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-my-thoughts-on-the-ncea-changes/ Several interesting bits out of the NCEA changes for me.  Firstly, the "New Zealand Certificate of Education” actually sounds like something, doesn’t it? The same way an “A” tells you something.  The New Zealand Certificate or Advanced Certificate of Education is a “thing” you can get your head around, as in do you have one, or do you not?  NCEA is an acronym.  Under the changes you need to pass things. How wonderfully old-fashioned.  If you don’t pass you don’t advance, therefore when you do pass it actually counts. It means something and you have achieved something.  Having watched NCEA in action with five kids, it has been shocking. Virtually anyone could get it and that was, and is, never a good thing.  Under the new regime you take five subjects, and you need to pass four. There's nothing too complicated about that.  The compulsion around maths and language I am, in a way, sad about.  Choice is good and freedom is good, if you know what you are doing. If you're aiming somewhere specific a tailored approach is vastly more appealing.  But in a mass system you are vulnerable to chancers and the weakest links, and they were always going to take the joke subjects, the easy gets. And as such, wreck any reputation you might have hoped for around your qualification.  The vocational aspect is years overdue. Gateway and versions like it sort of touched on the trades and specific careers or jobs. But this fascination, if not obsession, we seemed to have had with university has been ruinous for too many.  Being a tradie is actually to be admired. It is not second place. The snobbishness around a university degree has got so absurd, you’ve ended up with any number of bewildered teenagers chasing arts degrees and Bachelors of Communication for no discernible reason other than that’s what they thought they should do.  I'm dreadfully sad though for the thousands of kids who have been messed around with NCEA. What's its value? What weight does a generation of kids place on a thing that’s been binned?  For some they got locked down in Covid and given a crap qualification, thanks for coming.  But onwards and upwards. It's a little bit back to the future.  But along with the mad open classrooms, isn't it fascinating how forward the old days appear now to be?  Mon, 04 Aug 2025 22:42:21 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-should-we-break-up-with-property/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-should-we-break-up-with-property/ We are being urged, again, to "break up with property".  We are urged this way once every few years.  It's based, not unreasonably, on the idea that we could take our money and make it work differently, if not more productively, than it does stuck in a house.  The latest iteration comes from a bloke at Craigs Investment Partners, who suggests if you put $100 into a house, in 30 years it's worth $600. But if you had done it with shares, it would be worth $1,100.  Not just that, but the country would be better off. Those dollars would have been out and about investing in stuff, growing stuff, creating jobs, opening markets, and making the world a better place.  That may well be true.  Trouble is, that’s a long-term view and most of us don’t have long term views.  The view most of us have is: what's happened to New Zealand shares so far this year? Answer: they have gone backwards. In the year to date they are down 1.4%.  Mind you, housing is hardly booming.  And if you want a glass half full, shares in New Zealand in the last five years are up almost 10%. Houses are most certainly not up 10% in the past 5 years.  It may change with the time. One child of ours started buying shares while at university. They are of the generation that believes they will never own a house.  That’s not true of course – they will, but they also have a portfolio.  But the perception could be the key. If housing is perceived to be unobtainable, what is obtainable? Maybe shares.  But credibility is also an issue. Shares can be blue chip or meme-type stock. You can invest, or you can punt.  Stock can be priced to perfection, or it can be solid as a rock. You can be in Fisher and Paykel Healthcare when Covid arrives, or Air New Zealand when Covid arrives.  It requires a lot, whereas a house is a roof and shelter and a thing you can show your mates and have a BBQ at.  Houses are easy and they hardly ever lose you money over time.  To get people to shift, especially when it comes to money, the pitch has to be compelling.  In an uncertain, crazy world, is a stock market compelling?  Fri, 01 Aug 2025 22:29:31 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mark-the-week-im-still-a-believer-in-the-warriors/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mark-the-week-im-still-a-believer-in-the-warriors/ At the end of each week, Mike Hosking takes you through the big-ticket items and lets you know what he makes of it all.    August: 6/10  Is it just me or is this year moving at pace? Where did seven months go?    The recovery: 4/10  Yes, by August the recovery was supposed to be here. The greens shoots were to have flourished, and stuff was supposed to be better.    The payWave charge ban: 6/10  Not perfect, but a practical move that should help.    Rob Penney: 7/10  Glad he is back, and why not? One bad year and one great year. You want another dose of great, don't you?    Shane Jones: 8/10  Move of the week. Had a couple of glasses of red, turned his phone off, and missed the alerts. Now that is a plan.    The Warriors: 7/10  A loss to the Titans and we lose James Fisher-Harris for a couple of weeks as well. If you are a doubter there is a bit of material for you to angst over. But I'm still a believer and this is our year.    LISTEN ABOVE FOR MIKE HOSKING'S FULL WEEK IN REVIEW  Thu, 31 Jul 2025 23:10:24 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-cycleways-hype-over-reality/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-cycleways-hype-over-reality/ If a council gives a media outlet some numbers and the media outlet simply re-posts those numbers, is that reportage? Or propaganda?  The headline was "more cyclists get on their bikes", which is true. But at no point in my reading of the cycleways of the nation's major cities, was any definitive analysis done as to whether the cost of the infrastructure to get people on their bikes was worth it.  In Christchurch some popular routes clocked 2000 trips a day. Is that a lot?  Well, remember to halve those numbers because trips are each way. So it's 1000 trips going to and from something, and this is in a city of 400,000.  In Wellington there are four key corridors. They racked up 87,000 trips in a month.  So if you have 87,000, you actually have roughly 43,000 trips to and from. Divide it by four for the corridors and you have roughly 10,000. Divide that by 30 (for days of the month) and you have 333 people a day.  That's not a lot of people for cycleways that would have cost many millions of dollars.  In Christchurch they were claiming a 40% increase in usage, except that was from 2017. So in eight years it's about 5% a year. Not really a booming number.  Newtown in Wellington is one of their most popular routes. They do, they claim, between 8,000-12,000 trips a month.  So let's average that. It's 10,000 divided by two so we are down to 5,000. Divide that by 30 and we end up at 166 a day for one of the most popular routes.  So is cycling booming, or has the council PR department cobbled together their best numbers and passed it off in press release form to a gullible newsroom in the hope no one has a calculator?  Don’t get me wrong – there's nothing wrong with cycling. Cycling is fun and good for you, but when you add the cost of specialist infrastructure and do the math, it's got a very EV-type vibe about it, doesn’t it?  It's a lot of hype that is never quite matched by the reality.  Numbers and percentages are easily messed with to paint the sort of picture you want.  The favourite is the huge percentage increase, but you're not supposed to ask from what, to what. One to two is 100%, but it's still only two overall.  Beware the bandwagon and the machine, normally tax or ratepayer funded, that pushes this stuff.  And, sadly, the media who peddles it. No pun intended.  Thu, 31 Jul 2025 22:21:30 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-its-oil-and-gas-ban-repeal-week-hooray/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-its-oil-and-gas-ban-repeal-week-hooray/ If you want to talk about doing stuff that matters, this week will produce one of the great ones.  Repealing the oil and gas ban, as the Government are about to do, puts right an egregious wrong – possibly the most egregious wrong of the last Government.  What gives this current Government a better than even chance of a second term is the fact the damage done to the economy was done by the very same people who are still in Labour, still running Labour, and presumably will still argue for the same recipe of destruction next year.  Megan Woods drove the oil and gas ban under the instruction of you-know-who. There was no warning, no consultation. Just a fateful announcement in Taranaki.  It was idealism at its very worst. If we had all the windmills and solar panels and batteries in place it might have made more sense.  But as we have seen and felt for the past handful of winters, we don’t. Not even close.  What has made it particularly galling is that Australia has doubled down on gas. It understands gas is the transition fuel, while the so-called renewable transformation takes place.  Australia's gas industry is run out of Western Australia, which is run by a Labour Government, and fed to the rest of Australia, which is run by a Labour Government.  And that, as I have said before, is what can make Labour palatable. A centrist Labour party is electable i.e. Albanese's version or Hawke's.  The Ardern and Hipkins version look like a bunch of wonks who never met an economy they couldn't wreck.  Now, the repeal won't solve everything overnight. Our reputation is so damaged that a lot of face time and explaining has had to be undertaken with potential investors, hence the Government's $200m stake in the game fund.  If you ever wanted a living, breathing, tangible example of a Government that simply didn’t get it, think back to your last couple of winters where the coal pile is a mile high, the rain may or may not have come, the gas reports keep getting worse, the spot price heads to the stratosphere and your power bill continues to head to the roof.  That is Labour's energy policy.  That is the Labour Government's idea of a fun winter.  Getting that repealed is rectifying a shockingly shallow, ill-conceived idea and a monumental mistake.  Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:17:25 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-sir-michael-hill-will-be-missed/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-sir-michael-hill-will-be-missed/ One of the more memorable days of my life was spent at Michael Hill's house at Lake Hayes in Central Otago.  He showed me his art. There was a lot of it and it was eclectic.  He had his own nine-hole golf course, and it was all par 3s. This was in the days before The Hills, which in many respects was what Michael was all about – vision.  He took his par 3s and then turned it into one of the best golf courses in the country. Watching the New Zealand Open each year is worth it just for the views of his course.  When I was there, the charity event he ran started at Millbrook just across the way. Millbrook was new then and you wondered whether it was one of those investments that would grow to be the success it has or turn out like Formosa or Gulf Harbour.  I had won the pro-am that day. He presented me with a ticket to Australia, a few thousand dollars, and various bits and pieces from his jewellery business, that I ironically couldn't accept, given I wasn’t a pro, and amateurs were banned from winning stuff.  But I had beaten Sean Fitzpatrick, Andrew Mehrtens, Peter O'Malley, and Greg Turner, so what did I need prizes for?  Michael never forgot the day and reminded me each time I talked to him that I should give golf a go again and to come and play at his place anytime I liked.  I first interviewed him in the 80's. He was newish then. The story of the Whangarei shop, the fire, setting up his own business, it became New Zealand business folklore.  I did one of those motivational events with him, where I hosted. He and other success stories told paying guests how they did it, what the tips were, and how to never give up.  He was big into classical music and was a philanthropist in that area.  His company became a household name, expanding into Australia, Canada, and the US.  The advertising was genius.  He revelled in the personality thing. He was a health nut, doing a lot of juicing, probably before his time in that sense.  Like most success stories, he had a magnetism about him. He was very likeable, had good stories and was funny with it.  He was in many respects the quintessential New Zealand success story – hard working, self-made, and deprecating.  He was a memorable, inspiring Kiwi. He will be missed.  Tue, 29 Jul 2025 22:11:47 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-we-changed-the-election-laws-because-were-hopeless/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-we-changed-the-election-laws-because-were-hopeless/ If you want to get a bit angsty about the voting changes, the one everyone seems to have missed is the one about how it's being changed because we are so hopeless.  On the “disenfranchised” side of the equation, I have little, if any, time for it.  An election is held every three years. Between the last one and the next one that’s a lot of days to, at some point, stick your name down for another crack.  The fact you can't rock up on the day is only going to “disenfranchise” you if you are a bit disorganised.  Everyone loves a conspiracy theory so a few jumped on the old "it will favour the right" line. It won't.  But here is the bigger question: why can't you enrol on the day? Because we can't cope.  Why can't we cope? Because we are a small island backwater with a technological mentality to go with it.  I asked Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith last week why we aren't like the Germans. The German elections have their results as the polls close. Watch them next time, it's awesome.  We don’t, he said, because they're efficient. Why aren't we efficient? He laughed, as well he might.  Elections, technologically, are the thing time forgot. Years back we talked of phones and votes and electronic registration. None of it has happened and none of it will.  We can't conduct a Census properly, we make a marae a polling station where the CEO is also the candidate and we still have rules being changed around food and drink, despite the fact that got first raised as an issue 100 years ago when they called it treating.  We have mail votes at local body elections, despite the fact no one uses mail, so the post office is besides themselves.  Our rules around political donations are constantly tinkered with.  Elections just appear a bit hard for us. It's true there are issues elsewhere - we don’t seem to have the waiting times many do, we are corruption free, and participation is high.  But the fact you can't execute a fairly simple and logical idea like same-day registration does remind you that when it comes to modern day efficiency, it's not a “disenfranchising” scandal that did us in.  It's the gliding-on nature of how we run things.  Mon, 28 Jul 2025 22:24:10 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-who-id-have-for-the-governor-of-the-reserve-bank/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-who-id-have-for-the-governor-of-the-reserve-bank/ Can I suggest Jarrod Kerr for Governor of the Reserve Bank? Jarrod is Kiwibank's Chief Economist. He has been completely consistent in his ongoing commentary around interest rate cuts and the Reserve Bank's need to do more. To be fair, our own Greg Smith at Devon Funds Management has told us, and argued, a similar story. The Kiwibank economic report that got a decent amount of coverage over the weekend is Jarrod's - proof positives that he is right and Adrian Orr and Christian Hawkesby have been, and are, wrong. As long as they continue to be myopic and look at nothing but inflation they can argue two things. 1) It's in the band, even though it's dangerously close to not being, and will most likely breach it this year, 2) This ongoing, but increasing false, idea that they have cut enough and the efforts of that will flow through eventually. We are virtually in August and the 25 points cut in the latter part of this year that's supposed to be lift off is nothing of the sort and the Kiwibank report confirms it. It tells us what we know already - the further south you go the better it is. But here is the real news; even in the best, most lucrative, optimistic part of the country i.e Otago and Southland they only get 5/10. A half mark is as good as it gets. The rest of the country is miserable. Are there signs? Yes, but how long do you want to squeeze the economic lemon looking for juice? Dairy, meat and kiwifruit - all the stuff we have talked about, and celebrated, is not only doing the heavy lifting; it's doing almost all the lifting. Tourism is there in Otago. But its still only 86% of what it was six years ago. Confidence is hard  to find, foreigners still can't buy a house when they invest millions, and for every dollar you get from lower interest rates you pay $2 more for your power and insurance and rates, which have become the new version of highway robbery. The economy needs help. It needs a major enthusiast, it needs a circuit breaker and the Reserve Bank and their view and actions are potentially it. Jarrod sees it, Greg sees it, John Key sees it and wants a full 100 points drop. But until anyone of them is Governor, we rely on Christian and his committee and that is where the problem lies. LISTEN ABOVE Mon, 28 Jul 2025 01:11:26 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-orr-has-shown-his-lack-of-professionalism/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-orr-has-shown-his-lack-of-professionalism/ Michael Reddell, who appears on this show a fair bit, has put the Adrian Orr resignation back in the news. He has a source close to the action that, in simple terms, suggests that Orr packed a sad at a couple of meetings, one of which was with Nicola Willis, the chair of the Reserve Bank Neil Quigley wrote to Orr with a list of concerns over that behaviour, and Orr quit. The underlying issue appears to be the fact the Government were determined to cut the Reserve Bank's budget, which ultimately, they were successful in doing. Why? Because like everything else under the Labour Government, too much money was spent, things blew out and the Reserve Bank had wandered off into new and expensive areas they didn’t need to be in. The main point being: essentially what we thought happened, did. Adrian Orr has a short fuse, a fairly elevated sense of entitlement and importance, and didn’t like what was unfolding – which is fine. He didn’t have to like it and if he disliked it so badly, he could walk, which he did. But, and here is where this is important, he held a critical role in all our lives. People in jobs like that need to exemplary. Exemplary in execution and exemplary in person. He wasn’t. He was a failure. Which then takes us back to how he got the job: through Grant Robertson. Not only did Robertson appoint Orr, he reappointed him. Bad people make bad decisions, and those bad decisions go on to have consequences. By way of contrast what do you reckon the pressure on Jerome Powell is like right now? Is Powell yelling and packing a sad? Is Powell going to quit in a massive hissy fit and vanish from the face of the earth without a word? I have a dollar with anyone who wants it that the answer is "no". Maybe Orr doesn’t give a monkey’s. Maybe Orr is that sort of bloke who's so inflated and mesmerised by himself that he is well past any reputational reflection. Maybe Grant is too. But the damage still sits in our bank accounts and rates bills and economic funk to this day. The bloke who stuffed the joint, packed a sad and stormed out, never to be heard from again. It’s a sad indictment on a role and influence that should have been handled a great deal more elegantly and with a mile more professionalism. Fri, 25 Jul 2025 21:58:30 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mark-the-week-trump-has-had-a-significantly-positive-week/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mark-the-week-trump-has-had-a-significantly-positive-week/ At the end of each week, Mike Hosking takes you through the big-ticket items and lets you know what he makes of it all.    Trump: 7/10  He has had a significantly positive week: SCOTUS sacking people has gone his way, deals with Indonesia, the Philippines, and Japan, and Australia flipped on beef. Only downside is he's stuck in the Epstein files, and he has cankles.    Nicola “mainland” Willis: 4/10  The old "I'm going to teach them a thing or two" trick blew up in her face.    NCEA: 6/10  We will wait for the detail, but the idea that the joke that is NCEA gets blown up is no bad thing.    Colbert: 7/10  The defence was "but he is number one". But the reality is being number one only counts if you're making money. He wasn’t.    The helipad appeal: 1/10  This country is too full of timewasters. We had a hearing, everyone had their say, someone won and someone didn’t. That’s life.    Sky TV: 8/10  A small bag of lollies for a buck is good enough, far less a whole TV station.    LISTEN ABOVE FOR MIKE HOSKING'S FULL WEEK IN REVIEW  Thu, 24 Jul 2025 22:28:32 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-coldplay-kiss-cam-its-none-of-our-business/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-coldplay-kiss-cam-its-none-of-our-business/ In a way it’s the sort of response you would have expected from Liam Gallagher.  He's back on stage, and seemingly lapping it up, and asked about the love birds in the audience.  He said "don't worry, we ain’t got any of that Coldplay snidey f***ing camera shit. Doesn’t matter to us who you are mingling with - or tingly with, fingingly with.”  “None of our f***ing business".  My gut says the majority of the audience, indeed the world, are with Liam, not Chris.  This has been the biggest story in the world for two weeks now. It has crossed barriers, continents, and age groups in a way few stories do.  It's that rare mix of mirth, horror, and carnage.  Yes, it's funny. Yes, you can decipher the reaction, and how they reacted, and why they reacted, and how dumb the reaction might have been.  But then in real life, jobs are lost, families and friends and relationships were upended. It's a level of personal upheaval we don’t, and won't, know about.  There's a very real question, I would have thought, around morals and business. The business was very quick to publicly talk about standards.  Now he might, as CEO, have had a clause in his contract about public activity or behaviour. But business and morals are a fantastically complicated area I would have steered well clear of.  What about legal action? They have to sue.  Yes, tickets and venues have warnings about CCTV and filming, but this wasn’t about crime or publicity. It went a mile beyond that. It blew up lives and it destroyed things.  What about the mental consequences? How do two unknowns handle global fame, opprobrium, celebrity attention and notoriety all at once?  Yes, it's easy to say, "well they shouldn’t have been there, should they?". What if they are in love, about to be married and starting afresh? As opposed to say, him being a shagger and this was his third fling this year.  Lives are complicated and we have little, if any, business passing judgement.  Or as Liam would say - it's none of our f***ing business.  Thu, 24 Jul 2025 22:18:35 Z