Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones says we live in uncertain times and, because of that, we need to crank up the Marsden Point oil refinery again.

I agree that we live in uncertain times, but I certainly don’t agree that we should pour time and money into something which has had its day.

Shane Jones isn’t the only person talking about it though. The Prime Minister has said too that the Government is considering reopening Marsden Point as part of its plan to strengthen the country’s fuel and energy security.

Because, since it was closed in April 2022, we’ve been importing all our refined fuel.

We’ve also been importing all the bitumen we need for roads as well since the refinery closed. Before then, 70% of the bitumen used in New Zealand for roads was produced at Marsden Point, with 30% imported. Now 100% is imported.

But let’s not forget some of the nonsense that gets trotted-out about the old refinery. Which, once you cut through and dismiss, shows just how crazy it would be to try and get it up and running again.

First up: it wasn’t the previous Labour government that shut it down – the Associate Energy Minister was trotting out that line again this morning.

It was actually shut down by the private company which owned it back in 2022. The company was known as Refining NZ, these days it’s known as Channel Infrastructure.

I think the Government needs to drop this idea of looking into reopening it. Because if the people who know a thing-or-two about running a refinery think it’s a stupid idea, then who am I going to listen to? The people who know what they’re on about?

Of course I am. We all should, including the Government.

Because all this is, is another one of those desperado elements of the coalition agreement between National and NZ First.

Shane Jones is from the north and he’s just doing what any MP would do for their region.

And, before he continues with all this bluster about geopolitical clouds casting doubt on our future fuel supply, he should listen to what Refinery NZ said a year after shutting down the refinery.

They said it would cost billions to reinstate and take at least a couple of years to do it. So why would you? Especially, when you consider who might run the thing.

Because if the private outfit that used to run it wanted out, I don't see anyone else putting their hand up to take over.

What’s more, generating electricity is the future. Refining oil isn’t.

Even one of the union people who fought against the closure thinks we’d be flogging a dead horse trying to reopen it.

Justin Wallace is First Union’s oil and gas co-ordinator and he’s on record as saying that it would be unrealistic to expect the refinery to be cranked into action again.

He has said that although the footprint of the refinery is still there, the company that shut it down dismantled its key components as soon as they were able, and 80-90% of the staff who had worked at the refinery have left.

He says: “They've gone overseas, taken redundancy, or retired. Unless the Government is willing to tax more people to find more money to rebuild it, I think it's a pipe dream.”

Can someone please pass that on to Shane Jones?

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How about this for an idea?

Instead of the tax people pay on the first $60,000 of their income going to the government, what if it went into a savings account to pay for healthcare and put food on the table when they retire?

It’s an idea being pushed by former finance minister Sir Roger Douglas and University of Auckland economics professor Robert MacCulloch which, they say, is needed because of the ageing population.

They reckon people could save as much as $21,000 a year, with some of the money going into a health account, some going into a superannuation account, and the rest going into a “rainy day” account.

There are some bits about this that really I like, and I’m not so sure about other aspects.

The thing I like most is that —for pretty much the first-time ever— we would have tax money ringfenced for specific things.

Whether we can describe it as tax money I’m not sure, because it would be money not going to the government but going into these individual bank accounts instead. But we’ll call it tax money.

Sir Roger and Professor MacCulloch have done the numbers and they reckon that —if the government didn’t get its hands on the tax money from the first $60,000 of everyone’s income— on average, people would end up with just over $20,000 in their account each year.

Breaking that down, they say we’d have about $9,500 going into the health bucket, just under $7,400 going into the superannuation bucket, and $4,200 going into the “rainy day” bucket. That’s each year – providing you’re working, of course.

So I like it for the ring-fencing and how we would know exactly how much we have up our sleeve.

And if you do the numbers over the course of someone’s total working life —that’s assuming that they start work at 20 and stop working at 65— the average person that Sir Roger is basing his numbers on could have about $950,000 in their account.

That’s without interest being factored in. So they could retire with more than $1 million in the bank to pay for healthcare and to live off.

And if you’re thinking we’ve got KiwiSaver, so why would we need this extra savings account? If you’re thinking that, chances are you’re well-off enough to afford KiwiSaver.

Because Professor MacCulloch is saying today that many low-income earners just can’t afford KiwiSaver and they would benefit big-time if most of their tax actually went into a savings account. Which makes sense to me.

Dig a little deeper though and Sir Roger Douglas’ old ACT Party ideals start to come through, with him saying today that this approach would give people the freedom to choose whether they get medical treatment, for example, in the public sector or the private sector.

But what if every Tom, Dick, and Harry had all this money and decided to get their hips done privately? That would be boom times for the private hospitals, but what would it mean for the public hospitals?

Possibly less government investment.

And what if a model like this was adopted and we had politicians down the track letting people use the money in these dedicated accounts to pay for first-home deposits and all that carry-on? Which has happened with KiwiSaver.

Sir Roger says he’s been banging on for ages about what he and Professor MacCulloch are calling an “economic car crash”.

They say governments over the years have chosen to ignore the looming health and welfare crisis that we’re heading into, if we haven’t reached that point already.

At the root of it is the ageing population. And they’re saying today that we just can’t keep on keeping on the way we have and the way we are.

And I agree with them. Which is why —even though I’ve got some misgivings about the impact this could have on things like government investment in the healthcare system— overall, I think it’s a brilliant idea.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We can safely say that someone who rides their motorbike at 110 kph in a 50 kph area is a threat.

We can also safely say that someone who rides their motorbike at 110 kph in a 50 kph area and runs a red light is a danger.

We can also safely say that someone who rides their motorbike at 110 kph in a 50 kph area, runs a red light and kills two pedestrians is a menace.

This is a real-life story. And, upfront, I’m going to say that the person responsible is someone who should never be allowed to ride a motorbike or drive a car again. But under current laws, he can. And he is going to be allowed to.

The person I’m talking about is Mark Kimber. And, in July 2022, he was doing exactly what I’ve just described. On Friday, he was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison for the manslaughter of Karen and Geoffrey Boucher. And when he gets out of prison, his licence will be taken off him for three years.

The Bouchers had been out for dinner at a restaurant in Bethlehem, about 8 kilometres from Tauranga, and were crossing the road when they were killed by this guy. Both of them died at the scene.

But here’s where it gets worse. If it could.

Before the crash, he had 11 prior convictions for bad driving. These included careless driving, speeding, drink-driving, dangerous driving, failing to stop and driving while suspended. He also had 70 driving infringements on his record.

What’s more, in the time between the fatal crash and his appearance in court, he was done for speeding twice.

Which tells me that this guy has proven that he will never change and he should never be allowed to have a driver’s licence again.

Tell that to the sentencing judge, though. Who seemed to think that this guy's childhood needed to be taken into account when she was sentencing him for the manslaughter of this innocent couple.

I’m not going to get too bogged down on that side of it. Because it’s the fact that this judge thinks losing his licence for three years is a tough enough penalty.

At the moment, someone in New Zealand can lose their licence indefinitely and can only get it back if they've proved that they've done something about their drinking or drug-taking.

But I don‘t think this guy should ever be allowed to drive again. Because he has shown time and time again that he doesn't give a stuff about anyone else on the road.

If anything, it’s the two speeding offences he committed between the time of the crash and his day in court that ram it home for me.

When someone kills two people like this guy did, you would think that they might be a bit more cautious on the road.

Especially, knowing that're going to be hauled through the court for it.

But Mark Kimber didn’t take his foot of the pedal. And it’s my view that people like him need to be kept off our roads for good. And, instead of “indefinite disqualification” being the strongest punishment we hand out to repeat offenders like him, we should be taking their driver’s licences off them for good.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.