/on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/rss 九一星空无限 Wed, 15 Oct 2025 18:25:26 Z en /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-does-public-tv-and-radio-need-all-our-money/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-does-public-tv-and-radio-need-all-our-money/ There was a bit of beltway excitement a couple of weeks ago when Winston Peters turned up on the breakfast show at the national broadcaster and got a bit bothered with the question line, so he threatened to cut the funding.  This of course, was hot air.  But many in the beltway, sadly, had their sense of humour, if not the absurd, surgically removed at birth, so took it seriously.  No such thing is going to happen for a series of pretty obvious reasons, none of which I will bore you with.  But the earnestness with which they grimaced was based on the idea that there are those who can, and do, threaten public broadcasters.  The latest is Mr D. Trump of Washington, who has signed an executive order to stop funding PBS, among others.  Like everything else, this is heading to court and may well win, because the argument of weight appears to be public broadcasting and its funding is a congressional thing, and therefore an executive order from the bloke in the corner office doesn’t count.  The Trump argument, and this is worth pondering, is that public money undermines independence, and the media is vastly changed in recent years, and a government operation isn't necessary.  I have some sympathy for that.  Public radio here has the Concert programme. It plays a lot of classical music and very few people listen to it. Why are we paying for it?  Commercial radio doesn’t cover everything, like children's educational programming for example. But having said that, I don’t think public radio does that either. In America, publicly funded television invented Sesame Street. That’s of value.  Here we have NZ On Air. Why do we have that, as well as publicly funded TV and radio? Why don’t we just have a funding system for product we want to promote and tender it to those who want to run it on their platforms?  Is it a fair question to ask here that although they claim neutrality, would a snap poll of people on the street suggest RNZ and TVNZ are neutral?  Is the BBC seen as neutral? Is the ABC in Australia a bastion of straight-down-the-middle balance?  As always with Trump the seed of a half-decent thought is lost in the noise and bluster.  But ask yourself the question - what is so unique about public television and radio, whether here, in America, or Britain, or Australia, that it needs so much of our money?    Wed, 07 May 2025 22:38:26 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mike-hosking-for-tohu-harris-it-ended-too-soon/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mike-hosking-for-tohu-harris-it-ended-too-soon/ I feel bad for Tohu. This is not the way to end a great career.  In life, once you have been around a while, proven yourself, developed a track record and a reputation that is admired, you reach a stage where you have earned the right to exit on your terms. An injury you can’t come back from is not that way. He deserves better. The trouble with contact sport of course is sometimes these things are beyond your control. Not that he didn’t look permanently injured. In talking with Harris in 2023, I joked about the tape and whether he had an endorsement from some bandage company given he covered himself to toe in the stuff in a “walking wounded” sort of way. Lord knows how long it took to put on each week. What surprised me was the revelation that most of it was for show. He didn’t need it but had got used to it so carried on with it each game. What the Warriors will miss is the leadership. Yes, he is a great player. Yes, he has a presence. Yes, he is respected, effective and probably feared. Imagine him coming at you full tilt and thinking about stopping him. But the greats also had the leadership quality about them as well - from Price to Wiki, Harris joined the group of big blokes who also led the way. In Harris’ case, he was eloquent with it as well. He always seemed to have something considered to say. He avoided the league wide passion for cliché and actually said something. When I watched Webster and him in the post-game presser when things hadn’t gone so well (and let’s be honest, there was far too much of that sort of game last year) you were left in no doubt that loss hurt, that lack of performance was unacceptable. Any number of professionals can explain away a bad day on the field, but you are never really sure whether it’s a line or they are out to make things better next week. Harris left you in no doubt. Given those skills, I hope he has some sort of future in the game if he wants it. It would be a shame to lose all that talent and experience, and 32 is too young to walk away with so much left to give. League or not, I hope he has a plan. I will miss his relentlessness - so many hard-fought yards when he had already run and earned so many hard-fought yards. When he played, he played a lot. On big guys, that drains you. On some, you can see the tank emptying in front of your eyes. Not Harris. Captain? That is for later this year. Fortunately, they have several good contenders but between the talent, the power, the pace, and the eloquence, he leaves big shoes. For Webster and co, what a blow. What an unexpected, unplanned surprise out of leftfield. With Johnson, it was a lovely send off, but he had done his best and the time was right. With Harris, fate intervened. It ended too soon. Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:06 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-bring-back-the-worth-of-a-uni-degree/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-bring-back-the-worth-of-a-uni-degree/ Can I thank Mike Grimshaw for saying what he said?  Mike is at the University of Canterbury, a university by the way with a very good reputation, according to the vast swathes of late teens we currently deal with in our lives. There is great demand among students from all over the country  Anyway, Mike is an associate professor and wants university to return to elitism.  He didn’t put it that bluntly, but he did use the word 'elite' and the word 'elite' is stoked with gun powder these days. It's full of charge in this egalitarian society.  I thank him because it isn't easy to speak your mind in this country. Just ask Mike King.  Grimshaw sees too many of what he calls "functionally illiterate" kids in classes. And classes is his other problem because no one actually goes to classes.  Covid taught us to isolate, not just from a virus, but from life.  He argues that because universities will fall over backwards to keep you enrolled, turning up is no longer a deal breaker.  His argument isn't actually new. The idea that kids pop out of high school completely unprepared for university has been an issue for years.  But once again, because we have decided university is a “thing” and you should go, you go whether you want to or are ready to go or not.  It's elitist nonsense of course that university is a path to success. It can be, but only if you want it to be and only if you are on a path that requires it.  Those of us that never went and never wanted to go have, many a time, made a go of life anyway.  So Mike wants a return to a form of elitism. In other words, bums on seats has led to a lot of people getting bits of paper called qualifications that lead not a lot of places and often leave you with a debt you resent.  He argues for a higher quality of learning. It should be a place you need to achieve to get to, not just turn up.  It's refreshing to hear it. Not just because he is right but because a lot of people think the same thing, but are just too afraid to say so, far less actually do something about it.  LISTEN ABOVE  Sun, 03 Nov 2024 21:32:47 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-chris-hipkins-the-opportunist/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-chris-hipkins-the-opportunist/ Here's a lesson for life - beware the opportunist.  In this case I refer to Christopher Hipkins, leader of the Labour Party and now, apparently, keen speculator and sports fan.  He is telling us it is time to bring the America's Cup back to New Zealand. Now why would he be saying that do you think?  Could it be that as we watch the action in Spain, we can mount an argument it should really be held here, like the good, old days?  Ahh, the good, old days. Remember those days?  This is where Christopher hopes you have memory loss. The reason the America's Cup left New Zealand is because of the dealings with the Government. And what Government was that, Christopher?  That’s right - it was your Government.  The dealings with the Government fell over. Now, this is not to say dealings with Governments had not been previously fraught, because they had.  But the last time the Cup was here and about to move offshore, the Government had offered Team New Zealand $99m. They had rejected that.  Part of the reason for the rejection was that it, allegedly, was mostly in kind of a “have some freebies” sort of deal from central and local Government. The actual cash came to about $30m, which wasn't enough for Team New Zealand.  It was suggested at the time that they were wanting $200m but could have/would have taken $150m or $160m.  Upshot was, it wasn’t enough.  You can go down a million paths - did Labour do enough? Stuart Nash, who was their point man, said yes and that it was in good faith, it just didn’t work.  So what is it Hipkins is thinking he can do this time? Has he got the $200m or, most likely, more needed now? Where is he getting that from?  Does he think he is competing successfully with Spain for the next round, or quite possibly Saudi Arabia?  Dare I suggest he is a small town opportunist who wants easy attention to look like a good guy at a time when the sport is back in the news?  Is he all mouth and no trousers?  How much do you want to bet if pushed he has given it not one second more thought than the bubble he uttered that led to the headline?    Thu, 17 Oct 2024 21:28:49 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-parliament-should-we-have-a-longer-term/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-parliament-should-we-have-a-longer-term/ I am excited by the prospect of a vote with my vote next election.  The suggestion from the Prime Minister is we could be asked whether we want a 4-year term.  Do we? Now, there is a debate.  Firstly we need to work out whether the Prime Minister is actually going to deliver it or whether in a Q & A session last week in front of businesses he was merely musing.  So is there a vote in 2026 or not? And if there is, if there is change voted for, when is the first 4-year term?  Could I suggest if we are having a vote, we vote for the status quo, a 4-year term or a 5-year term? If you are going to the people why not explore the options?  Assuming there is a vote, which way would you go?  Personally I know my answer. And the answer is, I don’t have an answer.  This is one of those areas where there is no right or wrong. Both can work, both can fail.  It's an MMP type debate. There are failings in MMP - list MP's like Darleen Tana surely are arguments for First Past the Post.  The slapdash, amateurish nature of so much of the political scene these days, perpetrated by radicals and single-issue crazies, is a good argument for First Past the Post.  But MMP has given us diversity in gender and race and age. It is a spectacularly diverse parliament and you would argue MMP is what gave us that.  Anyway, off the back of the Labour Government 2017-23, and particularly 2020-23, surely the shorter the better is the answer?  Imagine if they had carried on their carnage this year, given their term would have been 2020-24.  How could you possibly vote for more of that?  But good Government, and this current combination might just prove to be an example of that, would need and want as much time as possible to right the ship and get us back to some sort of semblance of what we once were.  Either way you can see good and not so good.  That’s what makes this one, one of your better debates.  WATCH ABOVE  Sun, 22 Sept 2024 22:51:16 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-does-luxon-regret-this-part-of-the-coalition-agreement/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-does-luxon-regret-this-part-of-the-coalition-agreement/ As I watch the Prime Minister, as I do for Post-Cabinet each Monday, I wonder whether he regrets ever entertaining ACT's Treaty Principles Bill.  Because every time he talks about it, he dances on the head of a pin.  It was suggested that the draft bill was headed to Cabinet for discussion yesterday. So a little bit of frothing at the mouth from the media as they fired off question after question as to where this thing might be heading.  Where it is heading, by the way, is to first reading, then to select committee and, if David Seymour can't turn the tide, it will die at that point.  For something that most likely won't see its conclusion, we have spent a lot of time and energy angsting over it.  It has been a long time, if ever, that we have waxed and waned and twisted and bent ourselves into a knot over something that is basically just a debate. It's an exchange of ideas driven by the concept that being equal based on race is something we should aspire to  To show you how mad it's all got, the Prime Minister was able to bat away virtually all questions by simply stating he doesn’t talk about what happens in Cabinet.  But then he said, I think mistakenly, that he hadn't actually seen a copy of the draft bill, meaning if he hasn’t seen a draft, it can't really have been talked about at Cabinet. Or can it?  Someone then asked whether there actually was a draft bill at all, at which point I think he had worked out his error and returned to talking about things that may or may not have been talked about in Cabinet and how he doesn’t talk about them outside Cabinet, or indeed whether anything to be talked about even existed.  The sad thing about all this is it shows we are not really up to much by way of big debates.  Big debates should not be feared. But when you have a three party Government with two parties seemingly against an idea from the start, and one in particular looking increasingly anxious, not to mention the wider panic from the Waitangi Tribunal to the churches, it reaffirms this is a country where bold thinking doesn’t often find a space to be aired.  Mon, 09 Sept 2024 22:09:43 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-the-ferries-could-cost-this-govt-politically/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-the-ferries-could-cost-this-govt-politically/ We currently have a small scuffle between Labour's Finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds and the Government's Finance spokesperson Nicola Willis.  Barbara thinks Nicola should resign. The precursor is the ferry problem, as in the Cook Strait ferries.  Nicola cancelled them by telling the KiwiRail board there was no way in hell she was buying into anymore of their cost, plus accounting, practices they seemed to be running the company with.  The multi-billion dollar plan of redeveloping berths and buying new ferries had exploded out to a farcical number and she wasn’t having it. And I think most people thought she had done the right thing.  What we don’t know is what it will cost us to get out of the contract with the Koreans.  Barbara says if it's more than it would have cost to buy the ships she should quit.  The nearest we have to a bill is the Prime Minister on this show, who said it won't be more expensive than buying them. In other words, yes they will need to pay a break fee but it will still save money.  Obviously the old "she needs to resign" game is stupid. But the part that makes this example more interesting is there is no room for debate, given we are dealing with numbers.  General scandal and the calls for quitting is often in the eye of the beholder - David Clark cycling during Covid, Iain Lees-Galloway not reading reports and Stuart Nash doing stuff he was told not to.  But in this case a couple of ferries comes with a cost, as does the cancellation of a contract, and those costs are indisputable. They are numbers on paper.  The fact is we need ferries. Cook Strait is State Highway 1 and we like State Highway 1, especially when it's made of tarseal. I can't see why the water bit isn't as important.  Yes, we buy ships fit for purpose and yes, KiwiRail seems spectacularly inept.  But, the cancellation comes at what cost? How much is literally flushed down the dunny?  That number might not need a resignation but it might, if it's bad, burn a lot of economic credibility and political capital.  Thu, 08 Aug 2024 22:08:32 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-the-warriors-are-back-this-is-our-year/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-the-warriors-are-back-this-is-our-year/ How long have we waited to start the week this way?  Last time we were here for a Warriors' Monday was the draw against Manly.  From then we've had four losses. And let's be honest with Penrith - who thought that was possible?!  Just to put it in context, they're not just the best side for the past handful of years, but also a side we have to come up against while battered by a succession of losses, mentally in a hole and with some big questions being asked about what has happened to them.  Add to that the injuries that produced a side that had limited NRL experience and then add the injuries during the game that had players off maybe to come back, maybe not.  Add to that the fact the kickoff sailed into the dead goal area and handed the Panthers the ball, who then took said ball and wandered up the field in the opening minutes  to score, setting the scene for what most of us would have thought would be an onset of a beating.  And yet by half time we were remarkably still in it.  Not that it matters, but as much focus as was on the Warriors and our issues, the Panthers made many a mistake. Now, was that an off day or was that pressure?  Who cares? What it was was something that kept us in the game.  We led, they replied. We were behind, we came back. It had that feel that in a good year it could be ours, but in any other year the best side in the NRL would come back and do what was required.  Yet they didn't. The penalty they had exposed the fact Nathan Cleary, who wasn’t there, doesn’t have a proper kicking stand-in. Question to Dad - why not?  So they kicked from in front of the posts and missed. They deserved to lose because it was a crap call that got them the penalty in the first place.  We have players you have never heard of, led by Taine Tuaupiki, who was a star when a star was most needed.  If you ever wanted to break a drought, this was the way to do it. Not just win, but win by beating the best.  Reminding yourself if in the darkest of days you can beat the best you can beat anyone.  And if you can beat anyone, then that means this is our year.  LISTEN ABOVE.    Sun, 19 May 2024 22:35:22 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-we-could-solve-our-winter-problem-but-we-dont/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-we-could-solve-our-winter-problem-but-we-dont/ To add to an already farcical set of circumstances as we yet again woke up to the fact we don’t produce enough power in this country and so will spend another winter playing stupid games around how to save and what to turn off, Vector entered the debate by announcing their frustration around EV's.  "We need regulation" they tell us. It's not really news considering they have been on about it for years.  They have been asking the Government for four years to make a decision around regulating things like charging stations, load spread, when to charge and how much to charge for charging etc.  Two issues came out of that. The first is the fact they had been asking for four years and, as they said, of the multiple people in Government they spoke to, no one had made a decision.  The second point is they sighted states in Australia who had made the decision and indeed passed the laws.  The irony of that is that no one outside America is further behind the EV discussion than Australia.  EV's have not been big sellers, the charging network is virtually non-existent and it's all predicated on the idea that mainly Australians like utes and it's also a really big country, so EV's don’t suit the landscape and distances. And yet, the laws have been passed.  That is called preparation and planning.  In the meantime, here in Dumpty Doo Land, the Government in question, i.e Labour, were busy spruiking the EV revolution, which as we have seen, is not really a revolution any more given sales have fallen off a cliff. It tells us to buy one, subsidising us into one, and at no stage, despite the energy industry asking, did any of them get around to the very obvious follow up work of making sure we have the resource to actually make it all happen.  It's like building a house and forgetting the windows, joinery and roof.  That is a specific example. Of the much bigger picture, the mistake that was made was the gap between leaving fossil fuel behind and entering the fulltime world of renewables.  The same way they didn’t think about resourcing EV's, they didn’t think about what would happen if they cut off the gas but didn’t have the windmills ready.  Now, none of that is about the RMA, or budgets or things beyond their influence or control.  It is just plain simple lack of prep, lack of acumen, lack of attention to detail and a lack of vision.  So the winter of 2024 is like the winter of 2023 - fragile, uneconomic, messy, backward and inept.  LISTEN ABOVE  Sun, 12 May 2024 21:59:52 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-sport-and-politics-shouldnt-mix/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-sport-and-politics-shouldnt-mix/ Sporting question - why are we angsting about Qatar and rugby?  Why won't Mark Robinson at the NZRU talk about the Middle East and whether we are going there, or expanding there, or holding tournaments there?  Why are we so edgy about Saudi Arabia and Qatar and all the other moneyed places that want to expand their sporting portfolios?  I know, I know, it’s the human rights record. It might be the way they treat women, or immigrants or plenty of others to pick on.  But here's a couple of critical things.  The horse has already bolted. Those countries have decided sport needs to play a bigger part in their tourism and cultural push into the wider world and they have the money to make it happen.  They are the Middle East Vegas. Build it and they will come.  Everything from football world cups, to boxing, to snooker - sport worked out a long time ago money is what pays the bill, expands the reach and pays for the noise that attracts the fans.  Secondly, why are we so high and mighty about human rights when it comes to sport?  Everything from holidaying in Fiji, where political and cultural skirmishes have flared for years, to China who remain our biggest trading partner by a mile; the world is full of people who do odd things.  Whether it's religion, culture, politics or law and order, if you want a list of stuff we have trouble with there is no shortage of regimes and countries. Yet we buy from them, visit them and befriend them.  Then for reasons that really highlight our hypocrisy  and inconsistency, we then go and get all exercised when it comes to sport.  That of course, is why sport and politics should never be mixed.  Because the only loser is the sport. As you object or withdraw or make your point, someone else is lined up to bank the cheque and the fans aren't far behind.  LISTEN ABOVE  Sun, 05 May 2024 23:04:38 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-the-high-court-gave-the-waitangi-tribunal-a-serve/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-the-high-court-gave-the-waitangi-tribunal-a-serve/ The High Court has seen sense and upended the Waitangi Tribunal's summons to minister Karen Chhour over her desire to remove a clause in Oranga Tamariki's terms of business.  Of course, this should never have got to where it has.  The High Court judge said the decision does not mean they can't summon people in future. That is the bad news. He also said it doesn’t diminish the tribunals standing.  That I am afraid, in my eyes, is wrong as well.  They tried it on and they lost. They overreached and in overreaching they were portraying themselves as more important than they actually are.  They forgot that at the end of the day two critical things are in play. The first is they don’t actually have the power to tell people what to do when it comes to their decisions.  The second is the Government is the Government and if they have the numbers, they are in fact the highest court in the land.  If the Government of the day want to remove a clause in the workings of a department they can.  As a tribunal, they can ask some questions if they want to. But they don't have the power, or the right, to demand stuff or boss people around, especially when it comes to a minister.  This is where the activism comes in. One can surely ask if what you come up with is nothing more than an observation or an opinion, why does the taxpayer continue to fund it?  How many lawyers for how many hours gather and pontificate to satisfy the whims of the agitators, who use the tribunal as a mechanism to make noise and stir trouble?  A Government must be allowed to govern.  It's also important to remember the name - tribunal. It's not the Waitangi Court, Supreme, High or district court. It is just a tribunal.  Crown Law, in challenging the summons, have clearly seen the overreach and as such did the right thing to look to hose it down.  Given the activism we are increasingly seeing in courts, especially the Supreme Court, this case might have been used as a bit of a test case to put the Government under pressure.  We can be grateful that didn’t happen. Karen Chhour can get on with her job.  The Waitangi Tribunal can hopefully read the judgement, take on board the intent and pull their head in.  LISTEN ABOVE  Sun, 28 Apr 2024 22:24:44 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-the-conspiracy-theorists-should-be-ashamed/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-the-conspiracy-theorists-should-be-ashamed/ You would like to think that the haters and the conspiracy theorists  felt sick to their stomach when the Princess of Wales went public with her cancer battle.  No, it wasn’t a Brazilian bum lift. No, it wasn’t an affair and yes it was her at the farm shop at Windsor.  I am not sure there is anything that can be done per se, but if you read the Australian E-safety Commissioner's report out last week Julie Inman Grant describes just how astonishingly relaxed the social media giants are when it comes to the filth they allow on their platforms.  Somewhere along the way we have decided free speech trumps all. Worse, the people who run the platforms have decided making money out of it is good business, while at the same time pretending they care and are working hard to be decent corporate citizens.  There are questions too I would have thought, to be answered by every advertiser, and that includes local advertisers in New Zealand, who spend millions on platforms that are largely unregulated and pedal the worst of us. How do you defend putting your product and brand next to the sort of muck so readily available on your nearest screen?  The Commissioner's report dealt a lot with paedophilia and criminal activity. The Princess of Wales doesn’t fall anywhere near that. Indeed, the sort of behaviour we have seen isn't even illegal, it's just stupid and nasty and low rent.  But it is a lesson in the human condition. When left to our own devices, collectively, we aren't up to much.  If I have one criticism of the family, the quid pro quo of who they are is there is engagement with the public and once you have set the precedent you can't manipulate it to suit your circumstances. The relationship is built through good times and bad.  You can't put out the Christmas message, then vanish. Look what happens. So they would have been wise to say earlier what they have finally got around to saying.  That doesn’t make the vacuum that got filled with filth right. But it is a two way street.  The King was praised for his forthrightness and the help and comfort it would bring to millions of fellow sufferers. The Princess will now most likely achieve the same thing.  But the King doesn’t have young children and the King doesn’t have the bulk of his life ahead of him. So you'd be heartless not to have given the Prince and Princess the room they needed to navigate what, for the rest of us, is often a deeply shocking and difficult time.  As much as they could have got out earlier with this, you were left with the impression they got flushed out by the onslaught of sheer horribleness that pervades too much of the social landscape.  Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:30:49 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-the-significant-natural-areas-decision-is-a-relief/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-the-significant-natural-areas-decision-is-a-relief/ Of all the things that the new Government has done in their first 100 days, the Significant Natural Areas decision might just have brought the most relief.  It's not a major issue in the cities, but in rural New Zealand it has been a nightmare.  It is like so many other ideas that on a piece of paper might have had some merit. But once out in the field it caused harm, worry and upset as officials went nuts. Now, post the instruction to councils to not bother carrying on, it was pointed out that there needs to be a law change and the Government might have got ahead of themselves.  But guess what? The Government make the rules and laws and if a law needs changing to enact their desires that is exactly what will happen, therefore the kerfuffle over the weekend is pointless.    A major part of the issue was, and is, it was councils who did the deciding and, given we have too many councils, we have too many interpretations.  Until you own a chunk of land, as in acreage, you don’t truly understand its effect and hold on you, and your investment and care of it.  That was probably  the most egregious part of the whole idea.  The people who came up with the concept were mainly from the city and, given it was the Labour Party, they had little, if any, real connection to farming or farmers.  It was predicated around the idea that somehow farmers are environmental thugs and their main objective in the morning is to ruin the landscape, abuse the stock and wreck the future of the property.  There was also an overlay of the cultural outlook that plagued so much of what Labour did. Was there something from years ago that may be of significance? Well, you can never be too careful.  There was no understanding that farming is hard work and farmers are professionals who take their job and their property seriously and, just broadly, the idea of setting out to destroy your business, which is what land is, is stupid anyway.  The bloke who made the announcement was Andrew Hoggard, the associate environment minister and a bloke who knows a bit about farming. He, by the way, is the sort of person we need more of in life and politics - people who speak from experience and have been there and done that.  A person's land is sacred. Its ownership, and therefore stewardship, is intricately tied up in who they are.  But then along came Wellington, via a local council, and started telling you what you could and couldn’t do with what you had forked out for and put toil and sweat into.  The fact the inventors of that idiocy couldn’t see the practical and real world outworkings of their ideology is why they are now no longer running the place.  Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:30:27 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-the-country-is-fragile-no-pressure-luxon/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-the-country-is-fragile-no-pressure-luxon/ I watched the Prime Minister's State of the Nation speech yesterday. It's one of the advantages of modern communications. The livestream brings a level of detail and information to us on any given day that used to be the domain of the six o'clock news. In its own small way, it’s the devolution of the wider media and its years long role of telling us what happened from their cut down "we wont bore you with too much detail" view of the world. Anyway, Chris Luxon rolls out the line about $200 billion worth of unfunded projects left from Labour. All of this may well be true. But the trouble he increasingly faces is the conversation he needs to have with the country as to just how much trouble we are in. The answer, is a lot. As I have said any number of times over the years, history will show the previous Labour Government was one of the most ruinous of the modern age. Although the polls tell a good story for this current Government, they had two in the past week both showing postive signs for all parties and National in particular, plus they are also backed up by the confidence polls, both for the public and business. It's off a low base and remains constrained, but they are trending up. Despite that, political honeymoons always end, like 100 day plans end. Rubber hits the road and at some point we turn our attention to those making the decisions here and now and start to wonder out loud how come things are still broken. So Luxon's job is to explain just what sort of mess we are in and, more importantly, how a lot of this is a long way from being fixed. You only have to look at Auckland or Wellington with the pipes, the transport and the general carnage to know this is an increasingly backward country. Look at the ferries we can't afford, the deficit that becomes a surplus Lord knows when, the inflation Adrian Orr keeps making speeches about, the power system that can't handle a cold morning, far less an surge of EV's, the roads that still aren't fixed a year after a storm and the towns that still aren't fixed a year after a storm. There is little in this country that is future proofed. There is little in this country that gets done without a budget and timeframe blowout. We have many, many areas in a parlous state and fundamentals take time. The danger of the political cycle is people tend to think in three year blocks. This is no time for three year thinking. What this is, is a time for genuine, clear-headed, bold leadership involving some very hard decisions. That’s Luxon's job this year. No pressure then. LISTEN ABOVE Mon, 19 Feb 2024 01:27:18 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-change-is-coming/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-change-is-coming/ Let's just start the week with a “for the record”.  For the record the Deputy Prime Minister job got split.  To all those who owe me money, I take all currencies and Graham Street, Auckland is the address.  As regards the announcement, what an uplifting experience.  Didn’t Chris Luxon look like a real Prime Minister? He was straight to the point, a list of ideas, plans and action, clearly a deal well-thought through and a tangible display that what had been said throughout the negotiations was true.  There is way more that brings them together than keeps them apart, which only then reminded me what a charlatan Winston Peters is.  His going with Labour in 2017 was all about hating on National. Peters is a conservative, always has been, but sadly he's a conservative who carries a grudge.  The great hope this time around is he finally gets it. This is his last rodeo, as he would say, and if he's interested in his party's future and any sort of legacy he will knuckle down and look like a professional.  David Seymour as Minister of Regulation is a stroke of genius. If you don’t think change is coming, you're not breathing.  We'll talk about the portfolios later but they too, in many respects, show just how much experience and expertise these three parties have in various aspects of economic and political life.  Overall, the presentation of the deal, the words spoken, and the inferences and promises made gave you an unmistakable impression that Luxon is a professional.  He has been shockingly underestimated by most of the media. And if you thought Luxon was serious in intent, Seymour was serious to a new level with a lengthy dissertation as to just how much was going to get upended.  Which left of course Peters who, true to form, had little specific to say, indicating he really only got re-elected on the slimmest of manifestos and a lot of reliance on the bewildered and angry voter.  Starting a fight with the media, unfortunately, made him look like the weak link and the clown of the trio.  When he was the last Foreign Minister he actually got kudos and the racing industry loved him. So, more of that and less of the idiocy.  That’s where Luxon will serve us all well. Good leaders are top-down expectation setters, and the expectations are high.  We are on our way. Change is coming. The country is a mess. The job is a big one.    LISTEN ABOVE Mon, 27 Nov 2023 00:14:07 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mike-s-minute-the-poll-measure-that-will-guide-this-election/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mike-s-minute-the-poll-measure-that-will-guide-this-election/ Although there is too much variation in the current polling to be confident of what specifically will happen on election night, we can say, with some certainty, a change of Government is coming.  We can say that because, if for no other reason, we have yet another poll that asks the questions that give it all away - is the country going in the right direction? Is the country on the right track?  The Post/Freshwater Strategy poll says 'no'. Not only does it say no, it tells us 63% think it's going the wrong way. 21% think it's OK and 15% aren't convinced either way.  Here is the critical point; even if you allow for plus or minus, even if you asked the questions a different way, even if you did the poll over again, the number for the wrong way is so large it can't be wrong.  It might be 61% or 59% or 66% or 68% but it is indisputably the majority of the country thinking the same thing.  We are not heading the right way.  There is only one group responsible for that sentiment and the people who delivered that view never survive a vote.  Now, you can argue, and we will over the next several weeks, where exactly that desire to change Government goes and how it plays out. But what we can't argue with is the vote away from the status quo is so large that a change of Government is now a forgone conclusion.  People don't sit around miserable, angry, angsty and upset and then, when asked, want more of it.  In a way, it’s the ultimate humiliation for a Government. It is such a broad-based rebuttal and rejection of a programme, or ideology, that there is no hiding from it.  You can argue about personality, or specific policy, or a mistake, or a back down, or some nuance around minor party support or policy. But when the majority, and a large majority, collectively speak so decisively as one voice, you are toast.  Making it worse, unlike the other polls that will bob around a bit and each time they do open up a whole new line of debate and speculation, this particular question has provided pretty much the same answer all year.  The tipping point came many months ago when the majority decided we are on the wrong  path. Once it tipped, once it got above 50%, it showed no signs of changing. In fact, it's gotten worse.  If you want to bet the house on the outcome of October 14, this is the poll that will guide you better than any other.  Mon, 11 Sept 2023 22:29:08 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-valedictories-the-great-the-good-and-the-has-beens/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-valedictories-the-great-the-good-and-the-has-beens/ For me, it was the tale of the two valedictories. If you are not aware, it's valedictory season, as they great, the good and the 'has beens' line up to leave Parliament.   This week we have had Elizabeth Kerekere, Jamie Strange and Stuart Nash to name a couple. There will be more next week. It's sort of like a public morning tea shout at the office, the bit where you thank some people and talk about your time and how you will miss it. The difference is we have put MPs on this weird pedestal and allowed them to run rampant with our money and their ideologies. They turn out to have an exalted status and their final utterances are not in the staff cafe but the house of Parliament, televised for all to see. The trouble with MMP is it has allowed an increasing number of these people to be unaccountable. They don't have electorates, they don't knock on doors and, as it turns out, they don't have any sort of record to talk about when they leave. The leaving is the other part. A number of them are swept in, and therefore out, on the whim of the political tide. Watch out post-election as literally dozens of labour MP's who got a job they never thought they would get, lose that job in October. They have to traipse back to the capital to pack up their office and work out what they do next. The ones we have seen this week have largely been the ones who already know they are toast, or the ones who leave under a kind of cloud. Stuart Nash is one of those.   It's sad it ended the way it did. If you heard the speech you can't doubt his love for the job and you can't doubt his dedication to the work and the portfolios. His speech was good, not only in its wording and delivery but also because he had something to say. He said it was time judges were held to a greater account. Who, apart from the biggest of judicial apologists, could possibly argue with that? He listed the things he had done. I noted in the two other speeches I saw, Kerekere and Strange, the list was absent. So the question remains - just what is it you did?   Is there a marker at all, anywhere that will show or preserve your presence? The irony was this week we also had Steven Joyce in the studio as he released his book called 'On The Record'. Forget your politics, forget whether you ever voted for the John Key Government. What you cannot argue with is the record. Joyce, like Nash, has a list. You can tell they were there. There are things, decisions, actions and outcomes that the record shows that they turned up and actually did something. The only valedictory I ever actually went to was David Lange's. Now that was worth the price of entry and represented a time of real contribution. The contrast between Lange and what we have seen this particular season is a different game. The real contributors are few and far between. I don't think we are better for it. Thu, 17 Aug 2023 22:03:50 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-this-budget-wont-save-the-government/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-this-budget-wont-save-the-government/ I am somewhat bemused at all the Budget commentary. A lot of it is written up as some sort of Last Chance Saloon. The Government know they are in trouble come the election, so this is their last chance to rectify matters, turn the tide and to right the ship. Do those who write this stuff honestly believe we are that stupid? Their logic is that a Government gets almost six years to run their agenda. And when that agenda hits a massive wall, somehow the power and magic of a single fiscal document on a Thursday afternoon can be enough to save them? Just what can possibly be in this document of such extraordinary and gargantuan proportions, that vast swathes of the doubtful can be swung in the matter of, perhaps, an hour's worth of delivery from the chambers of power? If, per chance, the document has the fairy dust to wake us from a six-year slumber, where we had been tossing and turning and dreaming about our kids not going to school, and recession sweeping the land, and our current account deficit being the worst in the world, and the access to health care being farcical - and we all woke up to realise none of it was true and we did in fact live in Utopia, then maybe some of this far-fetched forecasting might carry some weight. But we all know differently. You can't have a last-gasp Budget able to turn night to day when you have the polls telling you the majority of the people think this country is going in the wrong direction. Budgets, as single documents on winter afternoons in May, don’t take a country going in the wrong direction and fix that. Or indeed anywhere close. Even on the best of days, a budget has limited impact. Even when a Government is rolling in surplus and they hand out tax cuts and forecast full employment and plenty of future growth, that single document does not an election victory guarantee. Far less a Government that is drowning in debt, having spent a fortune to no obvious material benefit. Sure, if Grant Robertson stands up this week and literally goes "look, we are stuffed" that will be received fairly poorly, so he won't do that. He will do his usual thing where he says it's everyone else's fault, the war, the price of oil, everyone is in the same boat, we are well placed blah, blah, blah. And he will hope that most voters aren't paying enough attention to call him out. But the reason all the pre-budget rhetoric is wrong, is Governments lose elections. And they lose elections because the die is cast and once it’s cast, it's over. And for this lot, it's over. The reason it's over is because of the economic mess we are in. And it's from that very mess that Grant is looking to pull a rabbit. Quick clue - there is no rabbit. Tue, 16 May 2023 21:57:15 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-australia-can-see-what-needs-to-be-done-why-cant-we/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-australia-can-see-what-needs-to-be-done-why-cant-we/ Australia has had a week to remember. Say whatever you want about war and conflict, but Australia entering the submarine club is major. Very few countries have them and those that do are large, with correspondingly sized economies. Australia is the smallest by a mile and yet there they are, now in a partnership with the United States and Britain in a deal that is specifically designed to manage our part of the world against China. And where are we in this? The answer is nowhere. And our reaction to the Australian news was that we are still nuclear free, and apparently proud of it, and the subs aren't coming here. In that comment is everything that is wrong with us. Since we made the nuclear stance the world has changed, and dramatically. No one cares whether we are nuclear free and it's entirely possible they never did. We now look introspective and hopelessly naive. Here is the thing with Australia - this has come about under a Labour Government, proving that you don’t have be run by war-loving conservatives to make decisions like this. In fact, Anthony Albanese is a socialist. He is a hard lefty, but realism is realism and he sees what we are choosing to ignore. Which is not to say we want submarines. But what we do need is a sense of realism and what we do need is a reputation that might involve us looking just a bit more interested than we are. We need America and we need Australia and we need to be seen to be doing our bit, which we aren't. Then we come to coal and more realism from a Labour party leader. While we ban mining and exploration for anything that remotely looks fossil, Australia continues to make a fortune. So, we've got a Labour leader but an economic reality resulting in $24 billion worth of coal being sent to India. India was where Albanese was before he went to the U.S this week to buy subs. How is it a left leaning Prime Minister, in a very left leaning Government, can support his economy and economic future by understanding the cold hard truths of the world in which we currently live? And yet the Labour Government on this side of the Tasman is wedded to thought-bubble theory that achieves nothing tangible. And certainly nothing to the bottom line. They're cut from the same ideological cloth. And yet one gets it and the others are in fairyland. Thu, 16 Mar 2023 21:34:34 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-national-have-the-key-to-an-election-win/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-national-have-the-key-to-an-election-win/ What Christopher Luxon got right in his state of the nation speech was severalfold. You have to accept that Governments lose elections and the current Government will lose this election in October because of some of the stuff Luxon outlined yesterday. It is hopeless at delivering stuff and the stuff it did deliver very few wanted, or even asked for. It's easy pickings for an opposition to outline a litany of failure and it will serve them well if they keep reminding voters just how bad it has gotten —from the MIQ debacle to the vaccine roll out, to the Kiwibuild shambles, to the light rail waste to the cycle bridge— and Luxon spent a decent amount of time on wastage, of which there is mountains. It's one of the advantages they have in announcing policy. The obvious question as to where the money is coming from is easily answered - consultants and waste. The actual policy they announced will appeal because childcare is ruinously expensive and by taking money off consultants and giving it to low and middle-class parents, it can't do anything but be popular. But the bits that will really resonate is the message of hope and aspiration. This country, not so long ago, was winning. It had a rock star economy and a spring in its step and was a can-do country. In five and a half years it's been trashed. Those who want better have been side-lined for those who don’t care or can't be bothered. It's a very good example of how hard it is to do well but how easy it is to give up and let it all slip. This is a country riddled with malaise, there has been an avalanche of working groups and committees that have twiddled and tinkered and thought-bubbled - and come up with next to nothing. Those health stats we talked about last week are all the proof you need. 67,000 waiting longer than four months for an appointment, the four months this Government set as unacceptable, and yet the numbers grow. Only 71% are being seen in ED in six hours. It used to be 76% but under National it was 95% - you can't hide from those stats. And yet to get there they have spent hundreds of millions to re-organise the letterhead and introduce some co-governance. In some respects the pressure is on National. Not only is the victory there for the taking, it's just how large the thrashing is going to be. But the trick is to keep reminding us what a mess it is and keep telling us how much better it used to be - and will be again. Sun, 05 Mar 2023 21:07:04 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-maureen-pugh-was-ill-informed-but-shes-allowed-her-opinion/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-maureen-pugh-was-ill-informed-but-shes-allowed-her-opinion/ As bad as Maureen Pugh's attempts at climate change debate may have been, on balance, the media behaved worse. TV3 made it a lead story, which was bad enough, given it wasn’t. And they made it a lead story not only because Pugh is easy pickings, but because they so obviously and overtly and unprofessionally hate National, even when they keep telling us they are balanced. But even their efforts were overshadowed by the headline in the 九一星空无限room blog site; 'Climate deniers should not be MP's'. Really? What condescending tosh. The media are so far up their own jacksie at times, they have no idea how out of touch they are and how dangerous that is. If climate deniers can't be MP's what's next? Thick people? People the media don’t like? Boomers? When you start seriously suggesting such things you are in fact arguing against democracy. What makes democracy so valuable is it is, allegedly, a representation of all of us. The good, the bad and everything in between. It's not perfect, but it's better than anything else they have been able to come up with. The truth of it is, Pugh is not alone in thinking climate change is not man made and you can yell the science is settled all you want - they don’t believe you. The truth is there are scientists who argue a not dissimilar line to Pugh's. It doesn’t make them right; it doesn’t mean you have to agree with them. But you can't cancel them because in a democracy they have a right to a view and a right to a vote. And I would defend their right to be wrong and ill-informed, in my view, more than I would ever defend the right of some jumped up journalist prescribing who should and shouldn’t be allowed to represent us. Rawiri Waititi on Valentine's Day was celebrating the death of Captain Cook and I found that offensive. But he went to the local electorate and got enough votes to get to Parliament and you have to respect that. Imagine if I had said radical Māori should never be allowed to be in Parliament. How do you think that would have gone for me on Twitter or the socials? How many formal complaints do you reckon that would have drummed up? Maureen Pugh was, at least, honest in her view and for that she was ridiculed by a channel that hates her party and a journo who thinks he's superior. I don't think, at the end of it, she was the worst of the offenders. Wed, 22 Feb 2023 20:38:02 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-cyclone-looting-was-inevitable-so-where-are-those-in-charge/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-cyclone-looting-was-inevitable-so-where-are-those-in-charge/ It doesn’t take long for the ugliness to surface in a crisis. We have friends in Auckland who have a visitor from Hawkes Bay staying with them because she is afraid to be alone at night. She is afraid to be alone at night because her neighbourhood is getting ransacked by gangs stealing stuff. It is the latest chapter in the Hawkes Bay tragedy. A tragedy that sadly is also obsessing the media to a point they have forgotten other parts of the country, like Gisborne, who at one stage were the centre of the drama, until they weren't. I note over the weekend the growing anger in Auckland of the 5000 or so who still don’t have power. Auckland is, comparatively speaking, untouched but the bit that got hit is watching and wondering. But back in the Bay - as the gangs turn up and the locals form street blockades, the first question you obviously ask is - why do the locals have to form street blockades? Where are the police? An even more interesting question is, where is the Police Minister? The Police Minister has been an issue for this Government. When Poto Williams got appointed she turned out to be a shambles. It was Jacinda Ardern's fault. Like the appointment of Andrew Coster, Williams was a touchy feely sort of idea. The kind of idea Ardern specialised in, until the polling got so bad they had to move her on. Anyway, once they rolled Williams, Chris Hipkins got the job and watched a lot of ram raiding go on. Fortunately he was saved by the Ardern exit, and once becoming Prime Minister, he handed police back to Stuart Nash. Who, as luck would have it, is a Napier local. But, sadly, in the part that clearly isn't being attacked by the gangs, because he knew nothing about it until the media told him. Once the media told him he said they should, and I quote, "pull their heads in". He didn’t stop there. He said the leadership of the gangs should tell their people to get out of their cars as now is not the time for this behaviour. Sadly no journalist present had the wherewithal to ask, when is the right time for this behaviour? And dare I go down the track of this Government's record on gangs generally? So once again, once the hi-vis is no longer needed and some action is, the Government haven't got a clue. Grant Robertson was also in the Bay, in hi-vis looking at the Redcliffe substation that was known, apparently, to be a sitting duck for years. And his conclusion was they needed to have some talks about what to do. But talks don't turn the power on and it certainly doesn’t stop it going off. This Government is good at emotion. As was pointed out various times last week, it does disaster politics well. The Ardern years have been saturated in it. What the country needs now though is action. This lot, if the gang looting and the Police Minister's vigilance on it is an example, will once again talk big, but deliver little, if anything   Sun, 19 Feb 2023 22:35:58 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-we-are-liable-for-the-three-waters-debt-not-the-government/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mikes-minute-we-are-liable-for-the-three-waters-debt-not-the-government/ I've been reading about Three Waters over the weekend. It’s a mess. We knew it was a mess but the headline grabbing aspect of the mess is around co-governance and how unpalatable that is to most of us. Willie Jackson said as much last week. The argument has been lost, David Seymour and Christopher Luxon have successfully driven the discussion to a point where the Government doesn’t stand a chance. So Kieran McAnulty is now in charge of, well, no one knows exactly what he is off doing, given he won't talk to us. I assume it's dropping the co-governance part and trying to resurrect the water part. But here's your next big hurdle, and it's what I think most of us haven't understood, who is liable? You know, for the bill. We haven't understood because the question hasn’t been answered until now. But also, I suspect even if it had most of us haven't wandered into the weeds of this thing and got our head around it. Some of the local bodies have, hence they’ve never liked it. And the answer around the liability issue is now to be found in the Water Services Legislation Bill, it was stuck into Parliament just before Christmas. Remember, this whole project is covered by several bits of legislation The answer around liability is another crime in a series of crimes. It'll cost, by Government estimates, up to $180 billion. To borrow that you need some sort of assurance. And this is the rub - the Government wants to stick it on the ratepayer. The Government covers none of it. Think about that. The four water bodies simply tell lenders if it all goes wrong, we will use a property rating mechanism - in other words, you and me. So the council have had their assets taken off them but the public are on the hook for the debt. And you wonder why councils don’t want a bar of it. That’s before you get to the councils that have already invested in water and carry debt because of it, those councils that don’t actually have water issues at all. What fool unilaterally has their investment and assets removed from them, handed over to a new body, partially or not, we are yet to see, run by Māori and then the debt liability is handed back to you. On top of the fact that the pricing of the project you have no control over. And then you, as the council, are charged with collecting the money from the punter at a price agreed to with the water authority that may or may not suit you. Have you ever seen a more bewildering one-sided cock up of an idea? This alone is every reason you need to get rid of the Government. They're insane. Sun, 12 Feb 2023 21:44:10 Z /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mike-hosking-the-cost-of-our-covid-response-is-only-going-to-grow/ /on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/opinion/mike-hosking-the-cost-of-our-covid-response-is-only-going-to-grow/ Almost heartbreakingly and yet entirely predictably, a bunch of media outlets have gone back to that tired, old, and lazy approach to Covid reporting. That's asking Michael Baker what he thinks. Desperate to drum up yet more alarm and fear, he wants a return to the alert level systems because we have new variants and death is coming. What wasn’t covered to the extent it should have been, was the government's announcement of the extension to their health and wellness support package, First Steps. It was a $10 million programme rolled out to deal with the stress, anxiety, fear, depression, and general mental health damage that was inflicted upon us by the government through their approach to Covid. Why do you think it's being extended? Demand is the answer. What we should be focusing on is the damage. Not more fear, speculation, and modelling. The Reserve Bank's unfolding $9 billion dollar fits into the same category. You and I are paying for Adrian Orr's printing spree and Grant Robertson's almost inexplicable desire to indemnify him for the damage he has done. The trouble with mental health is it’s not as tangible as a $9 billion hole. Or a bit of titillation around variants, cases, death, and everything else we got obsessed with in the dark days. And because it's intangible, it's also hard to measure in terms of length. How long does the damage go on for and in what form? Did the business go bust? Or is it still operating but the owner is just a shell of what they once were? Does the malaise that sits over the country in terms of fear, violence, truancy and crime get measured as part of our Covid response? This country, as a whole, is a shell of its former self. We are inward-looking, angry, and unsettled. It’s a direct outworking of being a hermit kingdom and being so tragically slow to reopen to the world. Yes, the whole world has issues. But we have a bad case of those issues and the mental health damage done as a result has not got the attention it deserves. Nor have the Government been held to the level of account they should have been. Because, instead of holding a few feet to the fire, when Stuart Nash announces an extension to a mental health programme the media, as they so often do these days, simply reprint the press release, as opposed to asking why, and making the Government explain whether they think the ongoing cost and damage is a reasonable price to pay for their world-leading door locking exercise they put us through. Sun, 16 Oct 2022 20:39:40 Z