Today on Politics Friday John MacDonald was joined by National’s Hamish Campbell and Labour’s Duncan Webb to discuss some of the biggest stories of the week.

The Government will soon be issuing fines to parents of repeatedly absent students – will this work? Is it a new idea?

Campbell almost manages to explain the RMA changes in one sentence, but what do they mean for New Zealanders?

And is there a place for more dairy cows in Canterbury, along with a passenger rail?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I can’t find an exact figure but from what I have seen online, I’m pretty confident in saying that there are hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid fines in New Zealand, and that figure is about to rise even further.

Because the Government is dreaming if it thinks people fined for not sending their kids to school are going to suddenly start sending their kids to school, and that they're even going to bother paying the fines.

They won’t. They’ll just ignore them. They won’t pay up.

Because if they don’t feel bad about not sending their kids to school, they won’t feel bad about getting a fine. And they won’t feel bad about not paying it either.

A fortnight ago, Associate Education Minister David Seymour announced that the Government is going to spend $140 million over the next four years with one aim: getting more kids to turn up at school regularly.

And I said at the time that we’ll wait and see, but it seemed that he had stopped banging the drum about fining parents whose kids don’t go to school. And I said, we’ll see, because leopard and their spots, and all that.

And it turns out I was right to be doubtful, because the leopard hasn’t changed its spots and today, he’s telling these parents that the Government is out to get them.

But it won't make one bit of difference.

And I've said before that I think starting school later is an idea worth considering because I want us to get creative when it comes to truancy. There’s no evidence to show that fining parents works. In fact, there’s evidence to show that it doesn’t work.

In the United States, for example, Texas, Pennsylvania, and California went through periods where parents could be heavily fined if their kids were repeatedly absent.

Parents were fined $500 for every absence. Some states even used ankle bracelets for kids who were repeat truants. It didn't work because it created mistrust in the system and in authorities and the truancy rates got even worse.

So what might work, if fining parents isn’t going to work?

Well this is where Sweden comes into the conversation.

I’m not a fan of any sort of financial penalty because, as far as I’m concerned, anything that takes money away from families isn’t good because that affects the kids themselves.

But if you want a financial penalty approach, in Sweden if a parent is on a benefit of any sort, their payments get cut if they don’t send their kids to school.

Apparently it’s had a positive impact. And I think the reason it works way better than fining parents is that it takes money away without these parents having any choice.

Whereas if they get a fine, it’s still their choice whether they pay it or not.

Plus, here in New Zealand, I think there’s a culture where some people just don’t give a damn about fines – that’s why so many just don't get paid.

Which is why I think that the Government’s plan to fine parents who don’t send their kids to school won't make one bit of difference.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I hope Environment Canterbury isn’t bothering listening to Waimakariri MP Matt Doocey.

He’s not impressed that the regional council is going to spend money doing a business case for a rail passenger service between Rangiora, Christchurch, and Rolleston.

Matt Doocey says it’s nothing more than a pie-in-the-sky idea and, given we’re in a cost-of-living crisis, he says ECAN should stick to its knitting and focus on getting costs down and reducing rates.

But what Matt Doocey should be doing —instead of criticising ECAN— is praising it for showing some initiative.

He should be praising it for showing that it’s prepared to do the kind of big sky, big picture thinking that local government hasn’t been doing, and which we’ve been saying it should be doing.

I think Doocey isn’t reading the room, and I suspect that there will be a lot of excitement about ECAN pushing this rail idea. What’s more, ECAN has put some money aside for a possible rail project.

Plus, it’s talking about not just limiting this rail passenger idea to Rangiora, Christchurch, and Rolleston. It’s saying that, once up and running, the service could be extended to places like Amberley, Ashburton, Timaru, and even further south into Otago and Southland.

I’m loving the idea. I’m also loving the fact that ECAN is prepared to put some skin in the game. To spend some money and find out once-and-for-all how much of a goer this could be.

ECAN is onto something because if there’s a common complaint about how the earthquake rebuild played out, it would be the fact that, despite all the talk that Christchurch was going to be the most modern city in the country, it’s not. Because we’ve just stuck to the same old, same old when it comes to things like transport.

And local government has to carry some of the blame for that. But now, ECAN wants to make good on that.

What this comes down to for me is this: what do expect of local government?

Do we just expect it to stick to its knitting and do the basic boring stuff? Or do we expect our councils to be the big picture thinkers?

If you’re like me and you want to see councils doing the big picture stuff, then you’ll agree that we’ve lost the ability to think big.

Mark my words, there’ll be no shortage of people running in the local body elections later this year banging-on about sticking to the basics.

Whereas ECAN is showing that it’s thinking about the future, which is exactly the kind of thing I want to see not just from ECAN, but all our councils.

Tell that to Waimakariri MP Matt Doocey, though.

He’s saying today: ‘Rather than coming up with pie in the sky motions, ECAN should focus on reducing rates which have rapidly increased - putting more pressure on ratepayers in a cost-of-living crisis.’’

Compare that to the likes of ECAN councillor Joe Davies who is saying we can’t wait 20 or 30 years, and we need a solution in the next five to ten years.

He says: ‘There’s a corridor already in place so there would be significantly lower set-up costs and this is an opportunity to link Rangiora and Rolleston to the city.’’

So he sees opportunity. Matt Doocey sees obstacles.

ECAN sees opportunity and is doing something about it, which is the approach I want to see a lot more of from our local councils.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It would be very easy for me to say that the organisers of those ridiculous Run it Straight combat sport events have blood on their hands after the tragic death of 19-year-old Ryan Satterthwaite.

And I would be saying that if Ryan had been involved in an official event. The thing is, he wasn’t.

That’s not stopping other people from piling in though. There are experts saying today that we need to ban the whole thing. But I don’t think that’s realistic.

Because for starters, banning officially organised events wouldn’t stop the likes of what happened in Palmerston North on Sunday when Ryan was hanging out with mates and when they decided to give it a go.

So this thing’s gone nuts on social media. It involves two people running directly at each other and slamming into one another.

The people behind it are touting it as the world’s fiercest combat sport, which is all about mirroring the extreme collisions you sometimes see happen during the likes of rugby and rugby league matches.

You’re bound to have seen the pictures from a couple of official events held up north in the last couple of weeks.

I’ve seen it reported that there might have been a couple of concussions and anyone who’s had a concussion will know that they’re not a walk in the park.

I saw one of the organisers banging-on about having medical people on-hand and how all the competitors are checked before and afterwards. Nevertheless, there’s no way you’d get me involved.

But what it all comes down to for me is those two words you hear trotted out quite often about all sorts of things: personal responsibility. Or personal choice.

There was Ryan with his mates on a Sunday afternoon, and they thought they’d give Run it Straight a go – just for a laugh.

Just like any other bunch of young guys, they’d seen the stuff on social media and would’ve seen the news coverage of the recent events held up north and decided to give it a go.

A ban of any type wouldn’t stop that kind of thing happening. Tragically.

But even though I think we’re dreaming if we think a ban is needed, there are a couple of things we could do.

I agree with Stacey Mowbray from Headway —which is a concussion support organisation— who is saying that education could be key to trying to do something about this situation. She says parents need to sit down with their kids and talk to them about the dangers of all this.

The other thing that I think we should be doing is to do what we can to take away some of the glamour around this so-called sport.

For example, I think the likes of the Christchurch City Council should decline any requests to hold Run it Straight events at any of its facilities.

That wouldn’t stop people like Ryan Satterthwaite and his mates giving it a go, but it would send a very clear message that Run it Straight doesn’t have the support of the local community.

But I think that’s about as far as we can go.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

James Meager is responding to Chris Hipkins’ comments about the Minister for the South Island role.

The Labour Leader called the position a “PR job”, saying there would be no need for Meager’s role if the Government was actually prioritising the South Island.

Hipkins says Meager's not doing anything because he has no budget or decision-making ability, and this is just a way of telling the South Island it hasn't been forgotten.

Meager has hit back, saying it speaks volumes that Hipkins thinks the only way to achieve something is having a big bureaucracy and budget.

He says it’s disappointing to hear that kind of comment, and he’d rather hear something more positive about the aspirations of the South Island, which is why he’s there.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour's yet to rule potential coalition partners in or out.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters is refusing to work with Chris Hipkins next election, but has not entirely ruled Labour out.

On social media, Peters posted a Government of Labour, the Greens, and Te Pati Māori would be a "circus" and a "radical woke show".

Hipkins told John MacDonald that they actually ruled out working with Peters before the last election, and he’s said since that that’s unlikely to change.

However, he says potential coalition decisions will be made closer to the election, based on principles and the party’s compatibility, rather than the petty personality vendettas that seem to be occupying Peters’ time.

The Labour Leader is also calling the role of the Minister for the South Island a "PR job."

Rangitata MP James Meager picked up the new portfolio in January, alongside Hunting and Fishing, Youth, and Associate Transport.

The Prime Minister says he will be a critical voice for the South Island.

But Hipkins told MacDonald there would be no need for Meager's role if the Government was actually prioritising the South Island.

He says Meager's not doing anything because he has no budget or decision-making ability, and this is just a way of telling the South Island it hasn't been forgotten.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

“Don’t sweat the small stuff.”

That’s the message cops have been given about shoplifting.

And the powers-that-be can say as much as they like about their memo to staff about only bothering with shoplifting worth more than $500 not being worded as well as it could have been, but the message is very clear. You steal stuff worth less than $500 and you’re going to get off scot-free.

If I was a retailer, I’d be really brassed off. I’d be brassed off with the cops and I’d be brassed off with the Police Minister, who is no longer doing interviews about retail crime, apparently.

This is the guy who made a career out of sending off media releases every time there was a ram raid. This is the guy who promised the crims would be scared of him and his coalition government, because the free ride for crims was about to end.

This is the Mark Mitchell who said this two years ago, when he was in Opposition:

“While retail crime incidents have more than doubled since 2018, fewer offenders are being held accountable for their actions. Despite an enormous spike in retail offending under Labour, the number of convictions for this type of offending have decreased.

“Staggeringly, this drop in convictions coincides with skyrocketing incidents of retail crime. Offenders are simply not being held to account by a Labour government which has been nothing except soft on crime.”

So if I was a retailer, I’d be angry. I’d also be very worried. In fact, even if I worked in retail —not necessarily owned a shop, but worked in a shop on the daily— I’d be worried.

Because I’d know that even if I saw someone nicking stuff and I called them out on it, they’d just tell me to go to hell. “What’re you gonna do? Call the cops?”

Sunny Kaushal, who used to run the Dairy & Business Owners Group and now chairs the Government’s advisory group on retail crime, says other countries have taken this approach and it’s gone very badly.

Quite rightly, he says that it “emboldens” criminals. Makes them even more brazen, because they know nothing’s going to happen.

Which is why —if I was someone who likes to go into shops and help myself to stuff— I’d be very happy. Because the police writing this stuff down and it getting out means retail criminals have a licence to do what they want.

They can go into your local supermarket and walk out the door with $490 worth of groceries. You picture $490 worth of groceries in a trolley at Pak n Save and someone walking out the door without paying, knowing the police won’t be coming anytime soon. Pretty much flipping the bird at anyone who tries to stop them.

Now I’m realistic and I know, just like you do, that the chance of the police turning up is less likely than it used to be.

And yes, they’ve probably always had a cut-off point where they decide something’s too small fry to investigate.

Which is fine, but, making it an explicit instruction or suggestion not to investigate unless the stuff nicked is worth more than $500, is a major cock-up by the police.

And I don’t know if there’s any coming back from it.

Because, even if the Police Minister showed some fortitude and told the police to ditch this approach to retail crime, we know that even then the likelihood of the police getting involved in this lower-level retail crime would be pretty low. Because they just don’t have the resources.

Which tells me that, despite tough talking from politicians, the battle against retail crime is a losing battle. And if it’s not a losing battle, it’s a battle we’ve already lost.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Government is describing the 20 hours unpaid community work that people on the Jobseeker benefit will be made to do from today if they don’t follow the rules, as a penalty.

And there’ll be no shortage of people cheering on from the sidelines, who will also be seeing it as a penalty.

I think it’s great too. But not for the obvious reasons.

The Opposition doesn’t like it, saying it will mean people getting stuck on the benefit for longer; that it could push people into homelessness, and they’re describing the community work as “forced labour”.

The Green Party’s social development spokesperson Ricardo Menéndez March is saying: “This community work sanction will leave people without homes, without food, and with worse employment outcomes. Louise Upston is making it harder for beneficiaries to find employment.”

But he needs to open his eyes a bit.

Because I think the complete opposite. I’m seeing it as an opportunity for people - not a punishment.

Because we all know how easy it is for someone to go down a rabbit hole and how difficult it can be for them to come out of it. For all sorts of reasons - including unemployment.

It can happen to people in all sorts of situations and I reckon it must be very easy for someone who is unemployed to fall into the trap of putting stuff off and isolating themselves.

Thinking they’ll get around to writing up that CV tomorrow. Thinking they’ve got heaps of time to get that job application and, generally, letting time drift away on them.

And, in the process of all that delay, delay, delay, they start to feel worse about themselves and they cut themselves off from people and society. To the point where they look up one day and wonder where the past year has gone.

And they know themselves that if they just got out a bit and mixed with people then they might start to feel a bit better about themselves and might be more motivated to sort their life out.

But straight away the prospect of trying to organise something is all too much and nothing changes.

These are the types of people who don’t do what the Government says is expected of people on the Jobseeker benefit. They don’t apply for jobs; they don’t show-up for interviews; and they don’t attend employment expos. Because they’re broken.

But if they get a call from MSD one day telling them to turn up at such-and-such a place, on this day at this time, to do community service work - then I think it could flick a switch inside some people.

They’ll see it as the kick up the pants they know they need and they will turn up and they will do their five hours of unpaid community service work each week for four weeks and, while they’re doing it, they’ll be meeting people; they’ll feel like they’re contributing something and they won’t be as stuck as they had been.

For some of them - not all of them, of course - but some of them, won’t want to let go of that feeling of belonging somewhere and being part of something and they will do all the things the Government wants them to do and they’ll much have a much greater chance of finding work and turning their life around.

You might think I’m being over-optimistic. That I’m giving people on the dole too much credit. You might think that if someone wants a job, they’ll find one.

But there is more to it than that. Yes, I’ve made my way in the world. Whenever I’ve found myself out of work, I’ve always managed to find something or been able to make something happen.

But I don't take that for granted and I know very well that, just like the next person, I’m only a few steps away from going down that rabbit hole I’m talking about.

We could be that person I describe before who loses their job, loses their confidence, loses their self-respect and who looks up and finds that they’ve pretty much sat on the couch for a year. Hiding from the noise and letting their world get smaller and smaller and smaller.

And that is why I think the Government is actually doing unemployed people who don’t follow the benefit rules a favour.

It might think 20 hours of unpaid community work is a punishment. But I think it could be the best thing any government has done for the unemployed in New Zealand.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.