Is it ever-so-slightly ironic that, on the same day that the first highway in the South Island had its speed limit increased to 110 kph, we had the Government announce that it wants to make it easier for people to get their driver’s licence?

The highway is the main drag that runs between Christchurch and Rolleston. And the proposed driver licence changes are a range of things to make it easier and quicker for someone to get their full licence.

There’s some good stuff in there. But I’m not liking this idea of doing away with the second practical test.

We’ve got a few weeks to tell the Government what we think of its ideas through a consultation phase that starts today.

There are some good things in the plan. I like the idea of new drivers having to behave themselves if they want to graduate to their full licence. The Government wants to halve the number of demerit points new drivers can get before having their licence suspended. At the moment, it’s 100. The Government wants to reduce that down to 50 demerit points.

I like the idea of zero alcohol for all new drivers. At the moment, this only applies to new drivers under 20. The Government wants to apply that rule to new drivers - whatever their age.

So they’re some of the good ideas.

But this idea of only having one practical test, instead of two - it doesn’t get my tick.

And I know Transport Minister Chris Bishop is saying New Zealand is a bit isolated in that regard. But doing something just because it’s the way everyone else does it has never been a great justification for anything.

Just like it’s not a great justification in this case. Because when someone is starting out as a driver, surely that’s the time when you want every opportunity to iron out any bad habits.

Because, like any bad habit, the sooner you nip it in the bud - the better.

But under this proposal, a person would have one practical test to get their restricted licence and never be tested again until they’re well past retirement age.

Here’s Transport Minister Chris Bishop’s explanation as to why the Government is doing this. He’s saying today: "We've heard for a while now that the system just hasn't been working as efficiently as people would like, and that there are particularly young people out there who are really reluctant to go and get their full licence because it is stressful, it is anxiety-inducing, and it is costly as well.”

Stressful and anxiety-inducing? Don’t you think that, when it comes to something as important as a driver’s licence, feeling a bit stressed about it is a good thing?

That might just be me. But there’s probably a truckload of things we could do away with on the basis that they cause stress and anxiety for people.

And, surely, if someone does one practical driving test - they’re going to be just as stressed about that one. So I don’t see how reducing it from two is going to address that issue.

Remember too that, apparently, having a driver’s licence is a privilege - not an entitlement.

But, for me, the overarching reason why the two practical tests need to stay, comes down to bad habits.

Anyone who drives has bad habits. There is no perfect driver out there.

And, whether we’ve been driving for 12 months or 12 years, we all have bad habits.

I surprised a few people when I told them that I sat-in on the practical driving tests two of our kids did. You can do that - you sit in the back if you promise not to say anything.

And when I did that, I was amazed to find from the examiner some of the things that you can be failed for.

And there were some of those things that I do all the time. And that’s why the second practical test is so necessary.

Because it’s an opportunity for someone to have any bad habits they might have developed while on their restricted licence pointed out to them.

Especially if it’s a bad habit that leads to them failing their practical test.

If they fail, they’ll remember.

And I think we’d be making a serious mistake if we took away this backstop, if you like, from the driver licence system.

Just because it causes a bit of stress and anxiety. And just because it makes it a bit more expensive.

Unless, of course, you think a driver’s licence is nothing more than a rite of passage. Unless you think that a licence is an entitlement, not a privilege.

Making it easier for someone to get their full licence and doing away with the second practical test doesn’t sound like a privilege to me.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's a lack of enthusiasm for a ferry service between Wellington and Lyttelton.

According to Local Democracy Reporting, Waimakariri Mayor Dan Gordon believes the Government should consider reinstating the service, which ran from 1895 to 1976.

National Party's Vanessa Weenink told John MacDonald the idea is harking back to the old days.

She says she’s unsure what the business case would be, and is unsure if it would work out.

Labour's Tracey McLellan says it's a romanticised idea.

She told MacDonald she can’t see this one working, and it’s still taking three years to get the Cook Strait Ferries sorted.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Treaty Principles Bill is history. Done and dusted. But ACT leader David Seymour, who came up with the bill in the first place, has no regrets.

And it’s not done and dusted, as far as he’s concerned.

He could bring it back again. But I think what he’s most likely to do is make it a campaign issue in next year’s general election, or try to get a more explicit equality provision in the Bill of Rights Act.

All he’s saying is: “I accepted that they've decided on this particular bill at this point in time.” Going on to say: “watch this space”.

But whatever happens in the future, the questions at this point are: was the whole thing worth it? And did we learn anything?

I tell you what I’ve learned – although, it’s probably something that I knew anyway. But what I’ve taken away from all this is that, wherever we are on the political spectrum, we are not as open to new ideas as much as we might like to think so.

The Treaty Principles Bill got those on the left extremely agitated and excited. Just like 3 Waters got those on the right extremely agitated and excited.

I was against it because I think any agreement shouldn’t be tinkered with – especially when you get Parliament poking its nose in and tinkering with it.

And that’s what the Treaty is. It’s an agreement.

The real problem is how the Treaty has been interpreted and used. For example: I’m against the Treaty being used to influence criminal sentences. I’m against the Treaty being used as a reason not to hire the best person for the job.

But that’s not the Treaty’s fault. That’s the fault of the institutions and the organisations and the individuals who have enabled that to happen.

Because let’s say the Treaty Principles Bill hadn’t been binned yesterday and it went through all the stages and ended up being law, do you really think it would have made things any better or any different?

Because the idea behind it —as David Seymour is still saying today— was to ensure everyone is treated equally. But what does “treated equally” mean?

I bet we’ve all got different ideas of what that is. For example, if the Treaty principles were changed in the way David Seymour wants them to be, what’s to stop a judge (for example) seeing this so-called “equal treatment” being a licence to give a lighter sentence to someone from a disadvantaged background? So for me, the focus needs to be much more on how the treaty principles are applied, not the principles themselves.

As to whether it’s been worth the effort and whether it’s been a waste of time – at this point, I think it has been a huge waste of time, energy, and money.

But it won’t have been a waste if we do learn from this and realise that it’s not the Treaty itself but the way that it’s applied that’s the real issue.

If we’re big enough —even those of us who opposed David Seymour’s bill— to see that we have learned something out of the process, then it won’t have been a waste.

But as I say, this whole thing has shown me again how incapable we are —as a country— of having the so-called “grown up conversations” David Seymour thinks we should be having.

And if we can’t get beyond that, then there’s no doubt this whole thing has been a complete waste of time.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's a lack of enthusiasm for a ferry service between Wellington and Lyttelton.

According to Local Democracy Reporting, Waimakariri Mayor Dan Gordon believes the Government should consider reinstating the service, which ran from 1895 to 1976.

National Party's Vanessa Weenink told John MacDonald the idea is harking back to the old days.

She says she’s unsure what the business case would be, and is unsure if it would work out.

Labour's Tracey McLellan says it's a romanticised idea.

She told MacDonald she can’t see this one working, and it’s still taking three years to get the Cook Strait Ferries sorted.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I saw a brilliant cartoon the other day which had America’s founding fathers sitting around a table writing up the country’s constitution - and they had agreed that the US wouldn’t have a king, but they were thinking about having a drama queen instead.

And after what we saw overnight, I think it would be pretty hard to argue that the current US president is anything but a drama queen. He’s also an economic vandal.

Donald Trump has announced that he’s pausing his global trade tariffs for 90 days for most countries, but upping the ante with China. Increasing the tariff on Chinese goods going into the United States to 125%.

And as Chinese political scientist Shi Yihong is saying today, this is going to mean that trade between China and the US will be “mostly destroyed”.

American economist Arthur Kroeber agrees, saying that what’s happening right now shows that Trump is committed to ending US trade with China.

Which equates in my mind to one thing: economic vandalism.

And if you want proof, consider what America’s Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is saying. He says this flip-flop was Trump's plan all along

He says: “This was his strategy all along, and that you might even say that he goaded China into a bad position and they responded. They have shown themselves to the world to be the bad actors, and we are willing to cooperate with our allies and with our trading partners who did not retaliate. It wasn’t a hard message: don’t retaliate, things will turn out well.”

How chilling is that?

If Trump planned this all along, it shows how comfortable he is causing economic chaos around the world.

Maybe that shouldn’t surprise me. Which is why I mentioned that cartoon earlier. All this tariff stuff has been the work of a drama queen, but I reckon that this development overnight takes things next level.

When we’ve got the head of the Treasury in the States saying that this was Trump’s plan all along —to slap countries with tariffs, see which ones retaliate, and then give the countries which don't retaliate some sort of 90-day “get out of jail card”— it's economic vandalism.

It’s clear now too that Donald Trump wants the world to cower in fear of him.

And it’s working. Not that I expect or want our government to go ape at him and his administration, because I don’t think that would achieve anything, but the careful language we’re hearing from the likes of Nicola Willis shows that even our government is walking on eggshells.

Back in November, when Trump won the presidential election, political commentator Matthew Hooton said the US was entering “its most dangerous period since 1861, the start of the civil war” and that the world was entering its most dangerous phase since World War II.

He said back in November: “The world enters its most dangerous period since World War II, with Trump threatening to launch a global trade war and collapse the World Trade Organisation.”

Matthew Hooton said that during his last term, Trump had at least some people in his circle who could be relied on to keep his most extreme tendencies in check.

He said: “There are no such people around him this time. Nor is he constrained by the need to worry about re-election.” Hence, his conclusion that we were entering very dangerous times.

And I think maybe he’s turned out be right.

And I’m starting to think that maybe I was wrong. Because when I read his article in the NZ Herald I said that, on the basis of the world not falling apart last time he was president, I wasn’t going to buy into the hysteria.

I did say I could be proven wrong. And going by the way the world looks today, I may have just been proven wrong.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John MacDonald was joined today by Mayor Phil Mauger.

They discussed the potential for Christchurch to be home to the delayed Erebus Disaster memorial – is Christchurch an appropriate home?

The central city has been overrun by birds and their droppings, does the Council have a plan to deal with the mess? And what measures will the council take regarding the new build’s in the city’s east, given the recent findings that houses may sink in some areas?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If the MP for Ilam, Hamish Campbell, thinks he’s going to get away with not saying anything more about his involvement with this underground religious group, then he’s dreaming.

It doesn’t have an official name, but it’s known as the “Two By Twos” and it’s being investigated by the FBI and the police for child abuse.

One of its former ministers here in New Zealand has admitted 55 child sex abuse charges over three decades against young boys and, from what I’ve seen, there are about 2,500 members in New Zealand.

It’s being reported that Hamish Campbell has hosted study meetings at his home in Christchurch – but he’s neither confirming nor denying that.

The thing about the home meetings is that the group doesn’t have official buildings, and so they meet in people’s houses.

An interesting thing is this Christian organisation doesn’t celebrate Christmas and Easter. And it separates itself from other Christian denominations. It’s been around for a while too – it was founded in Ireland in 1897 and has been in New Zealand for about 120 years.

Hamish Campbell has put out a statement, but he’s going to need to do more than that. And then, once he’s at least confirmed that he’s involved and answers a few other basic questions, he should be left alone.

Because if we’re going to condemn Hamish Campbell for being involved with a religious group accused of abusing kids, then you may as well write off any politician connected to the Catholic Church, for example. Because I don’t think it matters what religious beliefs MPs hold.

I’ve never been bothered about Christopher Luxon being an Evangelical Protestant. I don’t care about Simeon Brown being Baptist. And I think my lack of concern about that has been shown to be pretty well-founded.

I haven’t seen any evidence that Luxon and Brown’s religious beliefs are determining their political decision-making.

So here’s what Hamish Campbell has said so far. You might have seen him on the news on TV being approached outside Parliament. He closed the door on the reporter, though, when she asked him about hosting study meetings at his home in Christchurch.

After that report on the news, he sent our newsroom a statement, pretty much reiterating what he said on TV, but still saying nothing about hosting gatherings at his place.

But he says he fully supports the guy who’s calling the group out for abusing kids and that the police are the best people to investigate it. But here’s the bit that shows that Hamish Campbell thinks he doesn’t need to say anything more about it.

In his statement, he says: “My wife and I are non-denominational Christians but my faith is separate from my role as a politician.”

Campbell is a regular guest on Newstalk ZB’s Politics Friday. He’s a very smart guy, worked for about 20 years as a scientist, and he’s a nice guy. He’s not going to set the political world on fire, but nothing about him comes across as particularly creepy or weird.

Getting a straight answer out of him can be a challenge. Which is why, when I saw him on the news last night, I thought he was true to form. But that’s not serving him well on this occasion.

He needs to front up, confirm he’s involved, confirm whether he has meetings at his place or not, and confirm how much he knows about the abuse allegations. Then the people of Ilam can decide how much of an issue this is.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It would be great if we didn’t have to spend $12 billion on our defence force. But we do, and I’m good with it.

To be honest though, while we’d known the Government had some sort of plan to increase defence spending, I was still blown away a bit by the scale of it when the announcement came through.

So, $12 billion over the next four years. There’ll be new helicopters, more missiles, autonomous vessels, the air force’s clapped-out 757s will be replaced. And that’s just the start, because it’s all part of a bigger 15-year plan to up the ante on the defence front.

The Government says it will boost defence spending to more than 2% of GDP within the next eight years, which we haven’t seen since the early 1990s. Defence Minister Judith Collins says defence personnel are excited, because under-investment over the last 35 years has left the force gutted.

Former NZ First defence minister Ron Mark is over the moon too. But he says the Government should sign contracts for the new gear ASAP, so any future government can't ditch the plans.

But he says it's not just about missiles and helicopters, there's an issue with people power, as well. And recruiting the people needed to deliver the Government's 15-year plan will be a big challenge.

Which Judith Collins acknowledges – you might have heard that the defence force has lowered some its academic requirements for people wanting to join the forces. Which I think makes sense. Judith Collins does too.

And she says what we pay our defence personnel —as opposed to this $12 billion that’s going to be spent on kit— will be covered in the Budget next month.

What this all brings us to is the question of what sort of operation you think our defence force should be.

Should it use this new capability that it will have to focus on peacekeeping? Should there be more of a focus on surveillance? Or do you think we need a defence force that is capable of attacking?

Professor Al Gillespie is an international law expert from Waikato University. He says this big investment in defence shows New Zealand has joined the arms race.

He's saying today: "We've avoided doing it for quite some time but there's been a lot of pressure on us to increase the amount of money that we spend.”

So the Government is responding to that pressure. And I think it’s great. Yes, the money could be spent on health and education, but our defence force is in such bad shape that the Government has no choice.

And, in terms of what sort of capability I want our military to have, I think we need to cover all of the bases. We have to be equipped to keep the peace. Surveillance is another critical role. But if we think we can do either of those things without some sort firepower to back it up, then we’re dreaming.

And the government knows that, which is why it wants our ships to be combat-capable. I’m not saying that I want our defence force going in all guns blazing, but it needs to be capable. Way more capable than it is now.

Which is why I think this $12 billion —and everything else that comes on top of that— is going to be money well spent.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.