There's been a lot of good news on the home building front, you know, just for your average homeowner.   The Government's plans to reform the building consent system to make it more affordable to build a new home – or a home. Jolly good news. The review of the building code to bring in a streamlined, risk-based consenting regime, as well as increasing the availability of construction materials, all good.   There is no doubt we're paying through the nose to build homes here. The cost of building work consented per square metre for a standalone home in New Zealand in 2022 was $2591. In Australia it was $1743. So expensive. The total number of homes consented was in decline too. In the year to December 2023, 37,239 dwellings were consented, down from 49,538 the previous year. The government's proposed law changes, which will remove the need for building consents on homes under 60 square metres in certain areas —your granny flats— those changes have been welcomed by housing providers and also the opposition, so this is all good news, very good news.   The Coalition government pitched the changes as a way to make it easier to build granny flats, tiny homes, and increase the supply of affordable housing. All well and good. My only concern when I heard the news was where are the checks and balances in terms of the quality of build? As Chris Penk put it, reforms around consenting homes and removing barriers to overseas building products will only succeed if we have qualified tradespeople doing the work, standing by it and being accountable if things go wrong. We've needed that for many, many years.   When you look at the buck-passing around the leaky homes debacle that devastated the lives of so many New Zealanders, nobody was willing to take the blame, and I'm not saying the builders were at fault, but nobody was.  Nobody was held accountable. Ratepayers ended up having to fork out huge sums of money to try and remediate the worst disaster that they could possibly have. Sinking every cent they had and future funds that they were going to generate into a home that was unliveable. How do we ensure that the work done is done right, especially when you hear tales of undercutting and people coming in and doing a job for next to nothing because they've got friends and family and relatives, and they're all living together in one big house?   This is the complaint made by your professional builders who pay the going rate, don't undercut, know what a job is worth, and charge accordingly. How do you protect consumers from that? In the first instance, I'd say buyer beware. Don't just go for the cheapest price. If something sounds too good to be true, then it is. But most of us know very little about structures and engineering and building. When you go into a home, you expect that it has been built to last, as many homes have. And in more recent times, many homes have not. How on earth do you check that a building has been done properly, that in an addition, an add-on has been done properly? The unconsented tat that I had to pick my way through when I was trying to find a house at the height of the market, was just horrific. Even though I don't know anything about building, you know that when something's dangling off the edge of a Cliff held together with a piece of four by two, chances are it hasn't been consented. Some of the building inspections showed that it hadn't been consented. Things had popped up on the floor plan out of the blue. And it all went so far back that there was no ability to be held accountable. You just had to buy it aware that you could be buying into a whole load of problems, and these were houses that were going for millions in Auckland.   The Government says that it's going to crack down on dodgy builders. That, as Chris Penk says, all of these improvements will only work, will only benefit consumers ultimately if the building is of a professional quality. So the crackdown looks to lift the competence and accountability requirements for building professionals, improving consumer protection measures in the Building Act and ensuring regulators have the right powers to hold people to account. It really counts for nothing. All very well and good to have a potential fine of $50,000 for an individual builder and $150,000 for businesses to deter bad behaviour, but since when has it?  Some of these shonky builders that people employ, they haven't got $50K. You can whistle for your $50K. $150,000 for businesses to deter bad behaviour. Can I show you the Du Val group who have lost hundreds of millions and are now applying for legal aid? You're not going to get $150K out of them.   So all well and good to lift the accountability requirements and the competency of building professionals but ultimately, we are all still going to be left just hoping and trusting that we've employed the right guys or girls. I've been very, very lucky with the renos I've done, amazing builders, but then they weren't the cheapest. They had integrity. They were jolly good at what they did. I presume they still are. The work lasted. They had absolute confidence, I had absolute confidence in them. That's what we need.   Is that the norm? Or are there too many cowboys getting away with it? I'd really love to hear from the industry on this because only you will know a) if these reforms are going to improve things, and b) if these fines, this move to improve accountability and professionalism is going to actually work. I cannot see fines working in any way shape or form. The only way I can see this working is by having a barrier to entry into the profession. You know, having people who know what they're doing, who are proud of what they do, who stand by what they do. There are plenty of those in the building profession, we just need more of them. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There is a common trope that if prisons worked, we wouldn't need them. And that if prison was a deterrent, people wouldn't commit crime. If prison was about rehabilitation then people would serve their term and then they would not reoffend.   There's something incredibly depressing about prisons and the waste of human potential they represent – even brand-spanking new prisons. I did a fundraiser for Shine charity at the Mt Eden Remand Prison before it was opened for prisoners – before it was open for business, if you will. Brand spanking new, nobody had been in there and it was still one of the most depressing places I have ever been in.   I've always thought that investing in young people and families to try and prevent them going to prison in the first place would be far preferable to spending hundreds of thousands per person keeping them locked up. But prisons aren't just about rehab, and they're not just about deterrence. They're also there to keep people away from other people. To keep people from committing violent assaults and rapes and manslaughters. They're there to stop people taking what doesn't belong to them. If you’re locked up, you can't go out ram-raiding. They're there to act as a punishment for those who have committed a grievous offence against society and against individuals. If you take a life, you have to pay for that, and that means the deprivation of your liberty and being locked away from society as a punishment.   Law and order is always an election issue, and it's always a hot topic. Former Justice Minister Andrew Little, former Corrections Minister Kelvin Davis, wanted to reduce the prison population by 30% when they formed a coalition government with NZ First. NZ First who, of course, are big law and order campaigners, stymied them in part during the first three years when they were coalition partners, but by 2023, the prison population under Labour had reduced by 24%. Under Labour, incarceration rates plummeted from 213 people per 100,000 in 2018, which was nearly the highest in the OECD (which is nothing to be proud of), to 149 per 100,000.   Now, that would be great if there was a commensurate fall in crime, but there wasn't. Victims of crime increased by 12% as the prison population reduced, victims of crime went up. Labour's reforms were part of an overall goal on their part to reduce the prison population by 30% by 2033, but it achieved that ten years earlier, and perhaps that's where it went wrong. When there aren't the rehabilitation services there, when there isn't the support there, when there isn't the intensive kind of help needed to either habilitate people into society or rehabilitate them, depending on how long term their offending has been, then what are these people going to do? We all know how incredibly hard it is to break bad habits. We know what we should do. Do we do it? No. So imagine having been born into a life like that and then being told at the age of 24 to change your ways. Incredibly difficult to do it, especially without that kind of support. So typical of Labour, good ideas, good intentions - just no ability to deliver. The support wasn't there, the help wasn't there, the intensive support needed to help people turn their lives around wasn't there.   So sensing which way the wind was blowing in the lead up to the ‘23 election, Chris Hipkins dumped the prison reduction targets. But it was all far too little, far too late with the dumpster fire. National, ACT, NZ First took advantage of the fact that victims of crime had gone up, that people's perceptions of crime were that we were living in a state of lawlessness and capitalised on that in their get tough on crime messages throughout the ‘23 election.   Now we have the release of the fast-track projects and that's shown the Department of Corrections wants the ability to expand high security Auckland prison. They don't want to do it right now; they don't even want to do it next week or next year. They just say that should they need to increase capacity, they want to be able to get cracking and do so, so that they don't have to go through the whole resource consent process. Opponents are up in arms. The Government’s being accused of establishing a dangerous mega prison for staff and inmates. Wrong. It's not establishing anything, it just wants the capacity to do so, which makes sense.   What also makes sense is the investment in the Social Investment Agency, and that isn't getting nearly the same headlines as the Department of Corrections wanting the capacity. What is happening is the Social Investment Agency being re-established. Bill English set it up, Labour took it over and made it a wellbeing agency, and now it's being taken back more under the vision that Bill English had, which is to use data, analytics, and evidence to work out how to intervene in the lives of the most vulnerable in society, those who are the root of all problems, and working with the providers of social services to get the best result for these people so it's not wasted human potential yet again, but also reduce the burden on the taxpayer. That's the way Bill English was able to sell it to his cabinet colleagues. He's a good old dry conservative when he needs to be, it'll save us money in the long run. And it will.   If you invest in the most complex, prevent them going into prison in the first place, it is going to save us a heck of a lot of money. So I have absolutely no problem with Department of Corrections saying can we just keep this in our back pocket if we need it? Can we have the capacity to increase the prison population if we have to? Nicola Willis believes passionately in the social investment agency - she worked with Bill English, she's an acolyte, she's a disciple. She knows the cause and she believes in it.   So while you have money going into the social investment agency to try and prevent people from getting into the system, why don't we focus the headlines on that? Why don't we look at the good news instead of having screaming headlines generated by activists who are furious about something that hasn't happened, doesn't look like it’s happening in the near future, and may never happen. How about that? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We’ve got roads, we’ve got mines, we’ve got housing developments, we’ve got 22 renewable energy projects, we’ve got aquaculture farms, we’ve got a roof for Eden Park, you name it, it’s there and it's happening in a town near you, because projects are spread right across the country. And these are the first 149 projects selected by the government to be included in its Fast-track Approvals legislation. When we say fast-track, a group advised the ministers in charge of the process, who deemed these 149 to have the most significant benefits out of the nearly 400 that applied. Now they've been selected, they'll be listed in the legislation when it's reported back from the Environment Select Committee this month, then, once the legislation passes as it's expected to, the project developers can apply through the Environmental Protection Agency to have an expert panel assess their projects and apply any relevant conditions. So fast-track in a bureaucratic kind of governmental kind of away. They've also got to find the money to fund the projects somewhere along the line as well — just because they've been listed doesn't mean a magic pot of money has appeared to fund these projects. Many of them are from private contractors. Some of them are in Crown private partnerships, so they will have to find the money somewhere along the line. So when we say Fast-tracking, they're not going to happen tomorrow. Typically, there have been naysayers, Forest and Bird say it's a dark day for democracy. The Greens go further - the Government's fast track list is another example of its reckless approach to the environment and disregard for due process, and the government is set to unleash environmental destruction across Aotearoa. Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop on the Mike Hosking Breakfast, said if we want progress, we need to make it easier to build things:  “Look, there are Luddites out there who don't want progress, but I think most reasonable New Zealanders accept that if we want a standard of living that is better than what we have now, if we want material comforts that other countries have that we don't have, if we want better healthcare, better education services, if we want a better standard of living and we want a more prosperous economy, we have to build things. You know, quarries are an important part of a modern-day economy, public transport and roads connect us to where we need to go, renewable energy is something - we've got an energy shortage right now, you know, we need more power in this country and we have a housing crisis so we need thousands more houses, and we have an infrastructure deficit that I think everyone knows about. So the only way to address those things is to get on and build stuff that addresses all of those deficits. And that requires fundamental planning reform. It's just too difficult to do things in this country. And I think most reasonable people actually know that. And that's why we have Fast-track and that's why we're cracking on with it.”  Like. Yes, what he said. Chris Bishop was kind of "how do people think things are going to happen"? We want a lifestyle we simply cannot afford. Every snail is sacred in this country and needs investment and protection, but you can't do that unless we are fundamentally viable as a country. We need to make things happen, he's quite right. It's that ‘holier than thou’ kind of approach that you know no centimetre of land must be mined in this country, but other people can do it. Bugger the orangutan, let's save our snails. Forget about the little kids going down the mines in other countries, let's protect our own people and our own land. It's got to come from somewhere, and if we can be self-sufficient, why would we not be? If we can do it economically, if we can do it viably, if we can do it in a way that ensures that we have continuity of supply. He says we've got a housing crisis, so let's build houses, in a fundamental way, not pie in the sky let's build 100,000, where are they going to come from? Oh, I don't know. There is a plan. We have an energy supply crisis so let's build more. Yep, there's a thought and let's do it now rather than have a 10/15/20 year consenting process. You could hear the incredulity in his voice. Like, where do these people think it's going to come from unless we get cracking? I'm kind of with him. How on earth do we think we are going to survive and thrive as a country without building stuff? And it's not all mines. It's not well, as the Greens say it's just a Trojan horse, isn't it? They're putting in a few renewables (that would be 22), so they can get the mining underway. Well somebody has to mine. If we don't do it, we buy it from somewhere else, is that so much better? I hate that aspect of the Greens holier-than-thou stance. We don't do it. Yeah, but we buy it from somewhere else. Let's get cracking. I mean, when we say fast-track too, as I outlined, it’s not going to be at the speed of light, let's face it. There is still a process to go through. There will still be curbs put on what developers can do, they still have to find the money. But at least it's a start, isn't it? And at least there's a fundamental understanding on the part of government that things have to be done in this country, not pie-in-the-sky projects, not dream-time projects but actual real stuff. There's a plan. There's a process. Let's get on with it. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Real estate agents are among the businesses feeling more upbeat.  The Herald's latest Mood of the Boardroom survey shows that business owners are more optimistic than pessimistic about their industries, as well as the local and global economy.  Optimism varies across the different sectors, with the real estate industry topped the list with an average score of 4.33/5, a substantial jump from last year’s 2.60/5.  Barfoot & Thompson managing director Peter Thompson told Kerre Woodham that what businesses needed was good news, and that’s what came out of today’s conference.  He said that they’re already starting to see people come back to their auction rooms, and looking back at the last few months, they’ve seen a big uplift in the number of listings on the market and sales being made.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There was a headline in The Post: ‘Scathing survey results from teachers on NCEA level 1 roll out’. That was the headline. The story goes on: “A survey of teachers saw the vast majority indicate that the NCEA standards are poorly designed, changes have increased workloads, there's insufficient support from NZQA NCEA, and the provided exemplars often don't align with assessment specifications.”   So legitimate concerns. Teachers have been dealing with massive changes of curriculum and it's no wonder that many of them have thrown in the towel. In fact, it's a wonder more of them haven't thrown in the towel. So, this government, the clear implication is, has stuffed up right? Scathing survey results from teachers on NCEA Level 1 rollout. That's very, very clear in the headline that the teachers are furious with this government, that is what the story implies. Education Minister Erica Stanford was on this morning talking to Heather du Plessis-Allan and she said no, the fault lies with the previous administration.   “I get on very, very well with Chris Abercrombie and the PPTA. And to be fair to them, technically the grumblings that they're having at the moment is not with the curriculum, because there is no curriculum, it's with the NCEA changes to Level 1, and that is aimed at the previous government, and I agree wholeheartedly with them.   “When I came into office last year I saw some results that showed that well over half of schools felt not prepared or only somewhat prepared for next year's Level 1. This is in November I saw this. And then I started fielding calls from principals and teachers saying we don't know what to teach next year because there are no subject learning outcomes, we don't have any exemplars.   “So we had six weeks to scramble with the Subject Associations to write subject learning outcomes over Christmas — Associations did an amazing job— and push NZQA to get those exemplars ready, that weren't going to be ready till May. This was a disastrous rollout by the previous government of NCEA Level 1.”  Who do we believe? I mean, there were massive changes to the curriculum under the previous administration, absolutely massive, and I do not blame teachers for being fed up. The coalition government said we are going to correct a lot of those changes, the curriculum that was being rolled out is going to be drawn back in and we're going to rewrite it and get back to the basics.   There was very little guidance or support over the last six years, despite the huge numbers employed by the Ministry of Education. Remember the number of teachers employed by state schools rose by just over 5% from 2017 to 2022. In that same period, the number of full-time staff employed at the Ministry of Education rose by 55%. So the number of teachers actually at the coalface rose by 5%, the number of full-time staff at the Ministry of Education rose by 55%. There were 1700 more staff at the Ministry of Education than was employed in 2016, so they were undertaking huge projects. There was the building of classrooms, there was the new schools.   Then there were the changes to the curriculum, and it was a seismic ideological change, incorporating Te ao Māori into mathematics and into science and there was all kinds of debate going on, ideological debate about the relevance. The Royal Academy of Mathematics was, I think, furious. Not just sad, but furious. Te ao Maori has its place they said, in maths? No, no, no. Maths is maths, it's its own language.   So you have all of these people and the Ministry of Education, each with their own reckon and galloping along on their ideological stallion taking education in one direction. You had consultants up the ying yang, you had ten consulting firms that relied completely and utterly on the Ministry of Education for their funding, while they came up with their own reckons as well, they galloped off on their ideological stallions.   In came the coalition government who went whoa, come on, Tonto. No, we're pulling you in, come back - herded all the ideological stallions back into the paddock and then said right, we're getting on Dobbin the old cart horse and we're going to trudge along the field, and we're going to plough basic maths, and basic science, and basic English into our kids, this is what they need to learn to get them up the international standards.   And the teachers, they've been on the galloping horses. They've been going there and here and everywhere, and now they're back wondering what the hell was that? No wonder they need teacher only days. I hope the teacher only days involve lying on couches and having soothing compresses placed on their foreheads because they have been through a lot.   It's only when you go back and look through the proposed curriculum that was being laid out, especially under Chris Hipkins, as Minister of Education and then when he was Prime Minister, they were extraordinary. And there simply wasn't any underpinning to them to allow the teachers to teach. So, they were given these ideological concepts and very much left to their own devices to come up with their own kind of underpinning to teach it. And now it's all changed again.   If the teachers are confused, I'm not at all surprised.  I don't know how you make this better and ultimately. You know, and I know that it's the kids who are suffering because it's you and I who are paying for the extra classes after school. Paying through the nose, finding money you don't have to shore up gaps in the knowledge because it's not the teachers. The ideologues are the ones responsible for the mess that education is in. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Teachers say they are shocked with how new curriculum material is being rolled out.   Changes to NCEA Level One are being put in place before changes to Level Two and Three come into force in four years.   However, a scathing survey by the Post Primary Teachers Association shows the vast majority are dissatisfied with the new material.   Union President Chris Abercrombie told Kerre Woodham that resources were late and not good enough, with many exemplars being poorly done.  He said many teachers were worried about how this is going to impact students and their outcomes.   LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I am really not surprised to see more people signing up for health insurance, even though we're going through a cost of living crisis and the premiums are not cheap.   Southern Cross is the country's largest private health insurer and they've seen eight years of growth in their membership, with almost one in five Kiwis on their books. A Kantar survey for Southern Cross from last month showed that cost of living was the top concern for 91% of respondents, but 84% were concerned about not having access to affordable health care. So yes, they're concerned that there's not a lot of disposable, what disposable they have they're putting into their health and their health care.   Two thirds of those who responded said they had experienced a long-term impact to their physical and mental health from Covid-19. They were also very concerned about long wait times and the unavailability of health care professionals. Half of Southern Cross members made a claim on their health insurance in the latest year, up from a third prior to the pandemic in 2019.   The cost of claims has also risen due to the high cost of everything and more claims for expensive procedures, and that means premiums have to go up to pay for this. It's a not-for-profit organisation, it's not there to make squillions for shareholders, it's there to put the money back into its membership. If it's costing more, then members have to pay more and that's the way it works. Southern Cross has been increasing premiums by 10-15% as policies come due, but they are expected to normalize back to around 6-6.5% next year as inflation is brought under control.   I am so glad I have health insurance. I've had it for years and I've never needed it till the last few years, which is the way of it. When you are in your 20s, 30s, 40s, you generally don't need much more than a general checkup. If you're lucky to have been born with relatively good health, you don't need to spend a lot of money on your healthcare. Once you get into your 50s and 60s, then you start to see a little bit of wear and tear. And if you don't have healthcare, you will be waiting years for elective surgeries, things like knees and hips. If you've done them in because of hard physical labour, you will not get ACC paying for them, they'll just say wear and tear.   Other things, like me with a constantly blocked nose which I thought was just a head cold, it's acute sinusitis. I would be forever getting head colds thinking it was just being prone to head colds. No, it's something that I need surgery for. It's not life threatening, it's really annoying, it means I have to take time off work. Those of you have listened for a while know when I've got it. In fact, Toni Street’s ear nose and throat surgeon diagnosed me over the wireless and said I needed to get in and see him. As it was, I'd already booked the surgery and I was lucky enough to be able to do that because of the premiums I've been paying for years and years and years.   It does get more expensive but I will prioritise paying it, paying the premiums even as they rise, as long as I can because why live with this sort of thing if you don't have to? It's painful, it's uncomfortable, it takes me off work, and that could be the same for many non-life threatening ailments that many of us suffer. People with knees, hips, hernias, all of those sorts of things that are deemed not to be urgent, not to be critical, not to be acute but have a huge impact on people's day-to-day lives and their ability to work, their ability to be full members of the family, full members of the community. I am counting the hours till the operation next week as are my colleagues.   I know that the premiums will only get more expensive, but I know I'm only going to need it more if I'm lucky enough to make it into my twilight years.   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I reckon the Government’s argument in favour of increasing speed limits is looking more and more wobbly. There’s no question that it’s going to happen, with Transport Minister Simeon Brown confirming at the weekend that faster speed limits will be all-go next year.  But it seems to me that his case as to why it’s needed and why it’s a good idea, is starting to look pretty weak. There’s an expert who is trying to sell an alternative idea which will probably have Simeon Brown laughing his head off. He’ll think it’s balmy. But I reckon it’s got some merit to it. Simon Kingham is this expert. He’s a university academic and he used to be the Ministry of Transport’s chief science advisor.  He’s saying that, instead of increasing the speed limits, the Government should be setting the same speed limit for every vehicle on the road. That way, there wouldn’t be any need for cars to overtake trucks because - and for drivers to increase their risk of death or serious injury - because everyone would be doing the same speed. This is his solution to an issue the outfit representing the trucking industry has highlighted. Which is the fact that when the speed limits go up next year it won't be for every vehicle on the road - and the maximum speed limit for trucks will stay what it is now. Which is 90 kph per hour. So, cars will be going faster. And trucks won’t. And Professor Simon Kingham says, all that’s going to do, is encourage more drivers to overtake and more people will die, as a result. He says if everyone was going the same speed - no need for any risky overtaking maneuvers. And I think, on paper, he’s right. On paper, it sounds like a great idea.  But, the reality is, people are idiots. They think the fast way is the only way. And, even if cars and trucks had the same speed limit, drivers would still gun it well into the hundreds. Can you imagine, at the peak of summer, people being content to sit behind a truck all the way? Of course they wouldn’t. Because it’s all about getting there as soon as you can, isn’t it? There’s none of this “life’s all about the journey” talk once kiwis get behind the wheel. So, Simeon Brown’s not going to be liking what the professor is saying today about having the same 90 kph speed limit for every vehicle on the road. I’m picking he’s also not going to be liking everything the trucking industry is saying today, either. Because remember how he’s been banging on about how increasing speed limits is going to get us all going faster and it’s going to increase productivity blah blah blah. But, when it comes to productivity, that won’t be the case at all. Because, as the head of the outfit that represents the transport sector, Transporting NZ has confirmed the speed limit increases will have no direct impact on them because trucks will still be restricted to doing 90 kph. But where Dom Kalasih does see benefits in cars being allowed to go faster, is that he says drivers will be able to pass trucks more quickly. Which he reckons will reduce the amount of time car drivers spend in risky situations. He does concede, though, that if the cars are going faster past the trucks - then any supposed reduction in risk might be outweighed by the fact that drivers are going at higher speeds which, of course, increases the chance of something going wrong. So, as far as I’m concerned, I see these increases in speed limits confirmed by the Government as a lose-lose. I also think that this idea being floated by this academic today is a win-win, but only in la-la land. And we’re not in la-la land. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Hastings youth council has made a successful bid to get voting rights. Hastings District Council has narrowly voted in support of giving unelected youth councillors the ability to vote on council issues alongside other councillors at a committee level. Their mayor thinks giving youth councillors voting rights will bolster their future opportunities. Mayor Sandra Hazlehurst told Kerre Woodham this was thought through very carefully. She says it'll encourage young people into local government, which isn't easy, because people definitely don't do it for the money. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For the love of all that is holy - can we just introduce a capital gains tax and be done with it?  I am so sick of it dominating the headlines. The issue is never ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever going to go away, despite two Labour Prime Ministers ruling it out, despite Christopher Luxon ruling it out - it comes up. It's like a nagging child, “I want a capital gains tax. I want a capital gains tax, I want a capital gains tax, I want a capital gains tax”, and then in the end you give in. This time it's because ANZ's Chief Executive, Antonia Watson, said in an interview yesterday that “the time has arrived for a capital gains tax”. Well, the time actually arrived with the Tax Working Group's recommendation in recent times, but nonetheless. She says look, there might be compliance costs introducing a tax, she also made it very clear she was opposed to any tax on unrealised gains, but she says a capital gains tax should be introduced and it should be introduced now. And her intervention adds another voice in a growing group of New Zealanders, influential and otherwise, who are calling for a capital gains or wealth tax.   As I say, the issue really came to the fore when the tax working group, chaired by Sir Michael Cullen and convened by the Ardern government, recommended a CGT be introduced. But then NZ First dug in their toes and refused to budge, so Jacinda Ardern ruled it out and she didn't just rule it out, she said it would never happen on her watch as Prime Minister, and it didn't. Then Chris Hipkins became Prime Minister leading a Labour government, and he ruled it out too. But that was then, and this is now. Now he's singing a different song as he was to Ryan Bridge on Early Edition this morning”  “I think what we've got to acknowledge is at the moment the New Zealand tax system is loaded against working people. Working people end up paying more tax because we're not taxing other forms of income as our other comparable countries do. There’s capital gains tax here in the UK, there's capital gains tax in Australia, and so many other countries, that there isn't in New Zealand and what does that mean? It means that salary and wage earners, the people who work hard every day for a living, end up paying a disproportionate share of the tax because we're not taxing other forms of income.”  Oh, Chris Hipkins, champion of the working man. Where were you when you had a government that had a mandate to do anything at jolly well liked? Oh, that's right, you were there and you ruled it out. This is the same Chris Hipkins who had the best opportunity of any government since MMP was introduced to reform the tax system, he had a cabinet that was champing at the bit to reform the tax system. This is the Chris Hipkins who said no to a capital gains tax. David Parker resigned over the fact he said no to a capital gains tax, he resigned his portfolio - “untenable for me to continue”. Grant Robertson admitted he'd had to swallow a dead rat by standing by his Prime Minister when he wanted to introduce a capital gains tax. This is the Chris Hipkins who released a statement saying I am confirming today that under a government I lead, there will be no wealth or capital gains tax after the election, end of story.   So this is why you cannot have former Prime Ministers leading in opposition because they have absolutely no credibility when their statements from only a few months back come back to haunt them. His credibility on his capital gains tax is shot. Barbara Edmonds, get her up there talking about it, she's untainted. She doesn't have the ghost of Chris Hipkins from yesteryear, well, yestermonth, coming back to haunt her. Carmel Sepuloni. Hell, Jim, the guy who serves the drinks at 3.2, get him up there to say I think a capital gains tax would be fabulous.   You cannot have Chris Hipkins calling for a capital gains tax, he has absolutely no credibility. But the issue is simply not going to go away. And I think sooner rather than later, we need to adopt. I even think Sir Michael Cullen's recommendations were not unreasonable. There will come a time where it will be introduced, and we need to do it credibly and not in a knee jerk reaction, and with the best interests of the entire country at heart. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.