I am liking the sound of a law change being introduced in New South Wales, where they are no longer going to allow good character references to be factored into court sentences.

You know the drill. Someone is found guilty of a crime, they get their mates to write to the judge saying what a great person they are and how they’ve done all these good things.

The judge reads all these glowing references and, when it comes to handing down a sentence, gives them some sort of discount because of their “good character”.

The New South Wales government has decided it’s not having any more of that. And I think we should do the same thing here. Because someone’s so-called good character means zilch to their victim or their victims, doesn’t it?

If we’re going to make noises about the criminal justice system needing to be more victim-focused, then this would be a pretty good start. Because how galling must it be for the victim of a crime to turn up at the sentencing and hear about all these wonderful things that have been said about the person who offended against them?

What’s more, how galling must it be to not only hear how wonderful this person apparently is, but to also then witness the judge discounting their sentence because of these glowing reports.

Even if someone has done amazing things in the past, that doesn’t make their offending any less serious. It doesn’t diminish the impact of their offending on their victim or their victims, does it?

Not that good character references are going to disappear altogether in New South Wales. They’re still going to be allowed during the trial process. But they’re not going to be coming across the desk of judges when they’re about to dish out sentences.

The change follows a report by the New South Wales Sentencing Council which said the references are based on a vague and uncertain concept.

It said just because someone has a good character reference, that doesn’t tell the sentencing judge anything about the likelihood of someone re-offending or the likelihood of them being rehabilitated.

Which makes total sense.

It also says that good character discounts are traumatising for victims.

I couldn’t agree more.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Talk about déjà vu.

The smell from the burnt-out wastewater treatment plant at Bromley has been a shocker this week and people have had a gutsful.

City councillor Yani Johanson says making people wait for another three years is totally unacceptable and the council needs to get it sorted sooner.

I think it’s ridiculous that it has taken over four years for the problem to still exist. I agree that it should be fixed sooner. But I don’t have any hope of that happening.

Because the council has cocked this up from the outset and seems incapable of doing it any faster. Which tells me that it has learnt next to nothing.

Remember it did the big mea culpa and admitted that, at the very least, it could have communicated better with people living in the area? And how it was going to do a better job blah blah blah.

Right from the start, the council had this “we know best” attitude and was very dismissive of people’s concerns. And it’s still at it. It’s doing a very good job of explaining why it’s so bad this week - that the recent heavy rain seems to be behind it.

Which is all very well. But, as I’ve said many times, people don’t care what you know - until they know that you care.

And I don’t see the council showing too much care. Did you see the council guy on the news last night go all sheep-ish when he was asked about compo or support for people living with the stench?

But it’s not just Bromley that’s affected.

I was in Mairehau yesterday and the smell was really bad.

But I’m not living with it all the time. Unlike Gaylene Ratima. She lives in Bromley and she woke up at 4 o’clock the other morning thinking the dog had done something on the carpet.

She soon realised that the rotten egg smell had nothing to do with the dog and that it was coming from outside the house.

It was the stench from the wastewater treatment plant seeping-in through the windows and doors - which were all closed.

Imagine what that must be like.

In fact, she reckons the smell this week is worse than it was after the treatment plant fire back in November 2021.

Which is why councillor Yani Johanson is saying today that making people wait for another three years for the smell problem to be fixed is totally unacceptable and the council needs to get it sorted sooner.

As he points out - the way things are going, it’s going to take longer than it took to build the new One New Zealand stadium.

The fire was in November 2021 - over four years ago - and the council’s going to take another three years to fix it.

Totally unacceptable.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Before the weekend, questions were already being asked as to why the campground at Mt Maunganui wasn’t evacuated before last week’s devastating landslide.

That will be one of the things looked into as part of this independent investigation the local council is initiating. There will be all sorts of questions and, hopefully, a lot of answers.

But there is one thing we know for sure already. We don’t need an investigation to tell us that what happened on Thursday is a wake-up call for all of us.

As tragic as it is, it is a wake-up call. But will we learn from it?

I'd like to think so. But, based on history, I’m not so sure. Because I was very surprised to find out over the weekend that, historically in New Zealand, landslides have been more deadly than earthquakes.

Tom Robinson is a senior lecturer in disaster risk and resilience at the University of Canterbury, and he was saying at the weekend that landslides have claimed more lives than all of our earthquake disasters.

That landslides are our most deadly hazard. I had no idea.

Which tells me how little we have learned from previous landslides. And, even though we’re all gutted by what’s happened at Mt Maunganui, chances are we’ll all move on.

We’ll keep doing things like removing trees from hillsides - something that people in the Mt Maunganui area are already making noises about.

We’ll have this council review and we’ll hear that, yes, perhaps the early warnings raised by locals on Thursday morning should have been acted on sooner. But that will be about it.

I remember growing up in Dunedin when the Abbotsford landslide happened.

It was 8 August 1979. That was major. More than 60 houses lost. 600 people evacuated. Thankfully, no fatalities or major injuries.

The Abbotsford landslide happened after people in the area had been saying for years that there were signs of land movement. Cracks on people’s properties - inside and out. And then, on the night of 8 August, away it went.

That was 46 years ago. So, if we didn’t learn anything from that experience, what hope that we’ll learn anything from this?

Or more to the point, what hope that - whatever we learn - leads to the kind of change and accountability needed to, at the very least, limit the chances of it happening again?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I reckon we should have signs up at our international airports saying: “Welcome to the people’s republic of pushovers”.

Because of our crazy ACC system which, a lot of the time, makes those of us living here fight tooth and nail but tells anyone coming here for a visit that they can tie themselves to bungy ropes, jump on skis, do whatever they want - and we’ll pay for their treatment.

It seems even crazier when we’ve got ACC announcing today that it’s got a plan to become more financially sustainable, after that big loss last year and a projected $26 billion deficit in four years’ time.

ACC says it’s going to focus on getting people back to work quicker after an injury. But I think it also needs to think about who it covers, starting with people from overseas. Because we are too much of a pushover.

Not that it’s ACC in isolation that’s the problem. The reason we provide ACC to visitors from other countries is that we don’t have the right to sue here in New Zealand. That’s why visitors are covered.

So, let’s say someone comes here and goes skiing and has an accident and ends up getting helicoptered to hospital. They can’t sue the ski field operator or the clown who was gunning it down the mountain and lost control and ploughed into them. So ACC covers the cost of their treatment and care.

But I think this needs to stop.

Some people will probably argue that, if we make tourists pay for their own treatment if they injure themselves, then they won’t come here. But that’s nonsense.

There are two approaches we could take. We could either charge non-residents at the door when they need treatment. Or we make it mandatory for anyone visiting New Zealand to have travel insurance. Because it isn’t at the moment.

It needs to be. Because it’s time to turn-off the ACC tap for people visiting from other countries

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you bump into Chris Hipkins today, can you tell him he’s dreaming?

Because, now that we know this year’s election is happening on 7 November, Chris Hipkins is saying that Labour can get more than 40 percent of the party vote and form the next government.

He also wants Labour to win back Auckland.

He’s dreaming. Because I don’t think voters, generally, are ready yet to give Labour another chance. And I don’t think voters in Auckland, especially, are ready to trust Labour again.

Hipkins is doing what leaders do - especially in election year. They rally the troops. But it’s going to be a big task keeping the troops rallied for 10 months.

And I know Labour will be disappointed that the election isn’t happening sooner. An earlier election would have meant less time for the economy to recover. Plus, Labour has nowhere near the same campaign resources that the likes of the National Party has.

So it’s going to be a tough winter for the party.

The thing is: what would we need to see from Labour or hear from Labour to buy into this talk from Chris Hipkins that it’s a different party from last time around? Rather than banging-on about changing and being different, we need to hear what it is the party has accepted about itself that has driven this so-called change. It’s very easy to say “oh, we’ve changed. we’re different now, you’re gonna love the new us”. That’s just telling people what you think people want to hear.

To even think about giving Labour another chance so soon, people need to see the difference.

Let me give you an example: you’re running a cafe but customers are leaving in droves because they don’t like the way you and your staff treat them when they come in for lunch or a coffee. You’re a bunch of grumps. Terrible vibe. So people give you the flick. You realise what’s happening and you go onto your Facebook page and you say “hey guys, I’m hearing that some of you haven’t been that impressed with our service. Hey, I’ve had a word to the team and we’re different now, we’ve changed our ways, so come on back.”

Would you buy into that? I’m picking voters will be exactly the same with Labour.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Phil Goff agrees with the Christchurch City Council's response to a Government proposal of capping rates to no more than 2 to 4 percent per year.

Goff says the Government is not performing in lowering the cost of living, but a rates cap is not the right answer.

The former Mayor of Auckland told John MacDonald the Government sees local councils as an "easy target".

Christchurch City Council has responded to the Government's proposal, saying that while they support a prudent approach to managing rates, the cap as currently designed is “unrealistic and unworkable”.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hats off to the Christchurch City Council.

Which is telling the Government today that its idea of forcing a cap on council rates increases is “unrealistic and unworkable”.

Which is a polite way of saying “rates caps are a daft idea, so just drop it right now”.

And that’s what I think too. I’ve always thought it’s a daft idea to force local councils around the country to increase rates by no more than 2 to 4 percent each year. It sounds brilliant, but it’s never going to work.

The Christchurch council says even at the upper range of a 4 percent cap, it would be forced to cut costs by up to $120 million a year.

Which confirms to me that the Government either has no idea or no interest in the financial realities local councils are dealing with.

Christchurch city council says rates caps would force cuts to essential services, lead to a decay in assets, delay investment in critical infrastructure, and reduce the council’s ability to repay debt.

Not only that. It says they would drive up fees and charges. Which the Government isn’t being totally upfront about.

Because, just before Christmas, a Cabinet paper was quietly published which shows we’re only being told part of the story.

In the paper, the local government minister says the rates caps are intended to “incentivise greater use of user charges, which have declined in recent years”.

Which is what the Christchurch city council is warning us about today.If councils are forced to limit annual rates increases to somewhere between 2 and 4 percent, we’ll just end up paying more in other ways. How do you feel about higher parking fees? Higher dump fees. Paying more to use your council pool. Higher consent charges. Life won’t be cheaper, it will be more expensive.

I’ve always known that this idea isn’t actually going to deliver us any benefits.

This cabinet paper and the people who actually know a thing or two about how councils work - Christchurch city council staff and councillors - are proof.

No matter how much you might think your local council needs to rein-in the spending, this idea of rates caps won’t make one bit of difference.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In his state of the nation speech yesterday, Christopher Luxon continued the great New Zealand tradition of kicking the retirement age can down the road.

He said raising the retirement age was “inevitable”. But that was it. And, when I say kicking the can, it was more like nudging the can with his foot really. Because what the Prime Minister and every other politician should be doing, is showing some fortitude and accepting that tweaking with the retirement age is never going to be enough.

What I think we should be doing, is telling people who are 35 and younger right now, that they’ll have to provide for themselves completely when they retire because there won’t be a NZ Super pension.

That’s what needs to happen. Instead of increasing the age of entitlement by one year or two years, we should ditch the scheme completely. But over a sustained period of time.

Because the problem we’re trying to solve is the fact that it is completely unsustainable.

By the end of the decade, we’re going to be spending $30 billion a year on NZ Super and, as economist Brad Olsen said recently, every other thing in the government’s budget will be “rats and mice”.

So, if we are serious about leaving a legacy for future New Zealanders - which is something the Prime Minister talked about a lot in his speech yesterday - we need to make sure that legacy doesn’t include lumbering future generations with an unsustainable state pension scheme.

But, the way we’re going, nothing’s going to change. Because politicians seem to be terrified of doing anything meaningful. Whereas, what I’m talking about would be meaningful.

It would have no immediate impact, given it would only apply to people 35-and-younger now. But you can’t underestimate the long-term benefits.

I know doing away with NZ Super would be huge. But we can’t afford to be all sentimental about it.

We have to face the reality that the way we do things now - and the way we’ve been doing things - can’t continue forever.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.