So if you've listened to me for any length of time, you'll know I respect Liam Dann very much indeed.

Liam is the Herald's Business Editor at Large. He hosts podcasts and writes stories about the business world and he's been at the NZ Herald for 21 years.

He's at pains to stress he's not an economist. He's the guy who interviews economists and then translates their technical stuff into news we can all use and we need.

He's just written a book called Barbecue Economics, which explains all this stuff for the average man and woman on the street.

He also writes a column every Sunday, and yesterday he asked the question I've been asking myself for a long time.

"Is the Government’s shock about this 'worse than expected' economy political theatre or just ignorance?"

Last August, Nicola Willis stated the cupboard was bare, and we all knew that.

They then campaigned on fixing it all up. Killing inflation. Solving the cost of living crisis. Building the missing infrastructure. And then on top of it all, giving up on $14.5 billion worth of tax revenue by giving us a tax cut.

But some of us wondered that if the cupboard was indeed bare, was all this possible or was this exaggerated rhetoric to get votes based on some magical thinking that all will be fine in the end?

Now the Finance Minister is saying the economy is worse than expected and maybe some of the policies can't happen.

I'm not sure it is worse than expected, because the government's accounts have never been secret- thanks to the Fiscal Responsibility Act introduced in 1994 to stop nasty surprises. And people were warning National of this last year.

Liam Dann reckons: "To put it generously, it looks like National was using best-case economic scenarios to justify policy promises that were marginal at best."

The question that remains is whether National knew the promises they were making were unaffordable or whether they just don't know what's going on.

Or to put it more bluntly.

Are they stupid or were they lying? And if they were exaggerating their ability to afford their policies, did they think we'd be too stupid to realise?

We all got sick and tired of the last Government gaslighting us and making promises they can't keep. I'm not going to be happy if it happens again.

LISTEN ABOVE

So if you've listened to me for any length of time, you'll know I respect Liam Dann very much indeed.
Liam is the Herald's Business Editor at Large. He hosts podcasts and writes stories about the business world and he's been at the NZ Herald for 21 years.
He's at pains to stress he's not an economist. He's the guy who interviews economists and then translates their technical stuff into news we can all use and we need.
He's just written a book called Barbecue Economics, which explains all this stuff for the average man and woman on the street.
He also writes a column every Sunday, and yesterday he asked the question I've been asking myself for a long time.
"Is the Government’s shock about this 'worse than expected' economy political theatre or just ignorance?"
Last August, Nicola Willis stated the cupboard was bare, and we all knew that.
They then campaigned on fixing it all up. Killing inflation. Solving the cost of living crisis. Building the missing infrastructure. And then on top of it all, giving up on $14.5 billion worth of tax revenue by giving us a tax cut.
But some of us wondered that if the cupboard was indeed bare, was all this possible or was this exaggerated rhetoric to get votes based on some magical thinking that all will be fine in the end?
Now the Finance Minister is saying the economy is worse than expected and maybe some of the policies can't happen.
I'm not sure it is worse than expected, because the government's accounts have never been secret- thanks to the Fiscal Responsibility Act introduced in 1994 to stop nasty surprises. And people were warning National of this last year.
Liam Dann reckons: "To put it generously, it looks like National was using best-case economic scenarios to justify policy promises that were marginal at best."
The question that remains is whether National knew the promises they were making were unaffordable or whether they just don't know what's going on.
Or to put it more bluntly.
Are they stupid or were they lying? And if they were exaggerating their ability to afford their policies, did they think we'd be too stupid to realise?
We all got sick and tired of the last Government gaslighting us and making promises they can't keep. I'm not going to be happy if it happens again.
LISTEN ABOVE

With decades of broadcasting experience behind him, Andrew Dickens has worked around the world across multiple radio genres. His bold, sharp and energetic show on Newstalk ZB is always informative and entertaining.

Andrew Dickens Afternoons

Andrew Dickens: Did the Government know that their pre-election promises were unaffordable?

So, the Herald, in the weekend, came out and called the anti-cycle lane movement a culture war in its editorial.

They pointed out the bleeding obvious - that cycleways aren't the reason there is not enough money to improve our roads.

They pointed out that cycleways make up 1 percent of our transport spending. It's far less than footpaths - but you never get talkback calls moaning about footpaths, do you now?

This comes after the owners of the Westmere Butchery complained about a proposed cycleway outside their door affecting business.

There's no parking outside their door. Look at Google Maps. There's 25 cars parked down Garnet Road and there's room for more. They're talking bull. They've turned out to be useful soldiers in a culture war.

So was the Wellington owner of Pandoro Bakery, whose main shop on Allens Street is 100 metres from a free supermarket carpark and there's not a cycleway nearby or even proposed.

I have no idea what their motivation is. Other than a desire to prevent us from having good things. Other than a desire to have a mediocre country.

It's the common line from politicians these days - we can only have the 'need to haves' but not the 'nice to haves'. But it's a nonsensical slogan when you can't figure out the difference between the two.

It's the 'need to have' thinking that gave us the flawed Harbour Bridge. Someone somehow figured out that 8 lanes and a railway line were a 'nice to have' and 'not a need' to have for a future growing city.

The Prime Minister claimed that the Wellington Convention Centre was a 'nice to have' and that's we don't have money to fix the burst pipes. The pipes are broken because they weren't replaced 50 years ago and now they're 100 years old. That's because someone 50 years ago decided that water pipe maintenance was a 'nice to have' and that someone in the future can pay for it when it becomes a 'need to have'.

On an overseas trip before the election, the Prime Minister gave New Zealand a serve for being wet and having no mojo.

Well, look in the mirror, Christopher and Simeon.

Businesses will look at you and all your false economy and see a so-called CEO who doesn't believe in capex or investment in plants and machinery.

And we'll look at other countries and wonder why our 'nice to haves' are their 'need to haves'.

LISTEN ABOVE

So, the Herald, in the weekend, came out and called the anti-cycle lane movement a culture war in its editorial.
They pointed out the bleeding obvious - that cycleways aren't the reason there is not enough money to improve our roads.
They pointed out that cycleways make up 1 percent of our transport spending. It's far less than footpaths - but you never get talkback calls moaning about footpaths, do you now?
This comes after the owners of the Westmere Butchery complained about a proposed cycleway outside their door affecting business.
There's no parking outside their door. Look at Google Maps. There's 25 cars parked down Garnet Road and there's room for more. They're talking bull. They've turned out to be useful soldiers in a culture war.
So was the Wellington owner of Pandoro Bakery, whose main shop on Allens Street is 100 metres from a free supermarket carpark and there's not a cycleway nearby or even proposed.
I have no idea what their motivation is. Other than a desire to prevent us from having good things. Other than a desire to have a mediocre country.
It's the common line from politicians these days - we can only have the 'need to haves' but not the 'nice to haves'. But it's a nonsensical slogan when you can't figure out the difference between the two.
It's the 'need to have' thinking that gave us the flawed Harbour Bridge. Someone somehow figured out that 8 lanes and a railway line were a 'nice to have' and 'not a need' to have for a future growing city.
The Prime Minister claimed that the Wellington Convention Centre was a 'nice to have' and that's we don't have money to fix the burst pipes. The pipes are broken because they weren't replaced 50 years ago and now they're 100 years old. That's because someone 50 years ago decided that water pipe maintenance was a 'nice to have' and that someone in the future can pay for it when it becomes a 'need to have'.
On an overseas trip before the election, the Prime Minister gave New Zealand a serve for being wet and having no mojo.
Well, look in the mirror, Christopher and Simeon.
Businesses will look at you and all your false economy and see a so-called CEO who doesn't believe in capex or investment in plants and machinery.
And we'll look at other countries and wonder why our 'nice to haves' are their 'need to haves'.
LISTEN ABOVE

Andrew Dickens: We need to learn the difference between needs and 'nice to haves'

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/17f8a8b8-f27e-4047-9d0d-b1ed0031a8af/transcript

So the latest twist in the Treaty Principles debate is that the churches have come out against it.

More than 400 church leaders are urging MPs to vote against David Seymour's bill.

It's the latest chapter in a debate that has been described as 'divisive'.

If you don't think it's been divisive you weren't listening to Māori at the King's funeral. They're not hearing the One People argument, because they don't believe the bill promotes that. In fact, they believe the opposite. They believe the Treaty is how we achieve One People Together in agreement.

Personally, I don't care. I don't care if you support Māori and I don't care if you support Mr Seymour.

The fact of the matter is this is a virtue-signalling sideshow and it is divisive. Just like vaccinations and mandates and the Middle East.

The Treaty Principles Bill is divisive. And the reason why it's a virtue-signalling sideshow is because both National and New Zealand First have already said it won't get past the first reading. So it's a dead policy walking.

Why not kill it now and stop wasting our time, money and emotion?

Or the other parties could change their minds and help their coalition partner. But then you'll be branded as flippy-floppy.

Either way, I can't see how this helps National. You have a divided angry nation at each other's throat or you look weak.

Who's in charge of this coalition?

And speaking of which:

Former gun lobbyist Nicole McKee has used her power as a Government minister to reduce regulation for gun clubs - without any public consultation. It's not a major thing, but it is an abandonment of the true democratic process.

Perhaps National needs a reminder that when the legislation was first introduced after the mosque atrocity that every single member of National voted for it. So were you wrong then or are you wrong now?

Both these stories feel like the tail wagging the dog and makes National look weak. And I don't like that.

LISTEN ABOVE

So the latest twist in the Treaty Principles debate is that the churches have come out against it.
More than 400 church leaders are urging MPs to vote against David Seymour's bill.
It's the latest chapter in a debate that has been described as 'divisive'.
If you don't think it's been divisive you weren't listening to Māori at the King's funeral. They're not hearing the One People argument, because they don't believe the bill promotes that. In fact, they believe the opposite. They believe the Treaty is how we achieve One People Together in agreement.
Personally, I don't care. I don't care if you support Māori and I don't care if you support Mr Seymour.
The fact of the matter is this is a virtue-signalling sideshow and it is divisive. Just like vaccinations and mandates and the Middle East.
The Treaty Principles Bill is divisive. And the reason why it's a virtue-signalling sideshow is because both National and New Zealand First have already said it won't get past the first reading. So it's a dead policy walking.
Why not kill it now and stop wasting our time, money and emotion?
Or the other parties could change their minds and help their coalition partner. But then you'll be branded as flippy-floppy.
Either way, I can't see how this helps National. You have a divided angry nation at each other's throat or you look weak.
Who's in charge of this coalition?
And speaking of which:
Former gun lobbyist Nicole McKee has used her power as a Government minister to reduce regulation for gun clubs - without any public consultation. It's not a major thing, but it is an abandonment of the true democratic process.
Perhaps National needs a reminder that when the legislation was first introduced after the mosque atrocity that every single member of National voted for it. So were you wrong then or are you wrong now?
Both these stories feel like the tail wagging the dog and makes National look weak. And I don't like that.
LISTEN ABOVE

Andrew Dickens: Why not kill the Treaty Principles Bill now?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/57c45e9f-5990-4bea-bfc8-b1e60032a1c0/transcript

I was going to start my programme today with some thoughts about the energy crisis, but something else has popped up.

But I will share with you some fun facts:

Did you know that New Zealand uses the same amount of electricity in 2024 as we did in 2004?

Even though our economic activity and population have grown immensely in the past 20 years. What happened is that we, as consumers, became more efficient with our electricity use. We started using LEDs, we started saving, we started being more careful with our use.

So the energy crunch is because we're not making as much electricity as we used to - even though we've been saving electricity ourselves 

Meanwhile, did you also know that there are currently 22 renewable electricity projects fully consented but not started by the gentailers?

So sure, blame the oil and gas exploration ban and that will result in an energy crunch in 10 years.

But today's energy crisis is because the generators, who are also the retailers, have not ensured supply despite having it all available to them for years now.

I've got more on that - but right now, I have to mention outgoing Treasury head Caralee McLiesh who's leaving for a job as Australia's auditor-general.

In her exit interview she said the New Zealand Government needs to make more revenue. And the only way a Government makes more money is more taxes. She'd like to see a capital gains tax

She's like to see a capital gains tax - and she says the Government needs to save more in the big expensive items. She mentions super. She'd like to see the age limit raised.

Now, Caralee is not some crazy ideological lefty who wants to see the old and rich punished.

She's pointing out the bleeding obvious. We are structurally bad. Economists have been saying this for generations. We don't tax enough. When we tax, we tax the wrong people. We don't spend enough and when we do, we do it cheap and too late and then complain when it all starts to fall apart.

Faced with all this economic reality, the current Government decided to reduce its revenue to help some taxpayers and landlords. That's the exact opposite of what the problem needs.

And then to make things worse, they've stopped spending. And we end up with a country where pregnant Mums can't have toast, Nelson can't get a new hospital building, we run ferries that should be in museums, we run out of power and water, and then we moan we're becoming a third world country and it's all Labour's fault.

Someone has to point out the bleeding obvious now and then. I'm pretty sure nothing will happen on Caralee McLeish's advice because to change our structure would be too expensive politically. No turkey votes for Christmas.

So before you moan again about how useless this country is, remember it's the country you voted for.

LISTEN ABOVE

I was going to start my programme today with some thoughts about the energy crisis, but something else has popped up.
But I will share with you some fun facts:
Did you know that New Zealand uses the same amount of electricity in 2024 as we did in 2004?
Even though our economic activity and population have grown immensely in the past 20 years. What happened is that we, as consumers, became more efficient with our electricity use. We started using LEDs, we started saving, we started being more careful with our use.
So the energy crunch is because we're not making as much electricity as we used to - even though we've been saving electricity ourselves 
Meanwhile, did you also know that there are currently 22 renewable electricity projects fully consented but not started by the gentailers?
So sure, blame the oil and gas exploration ban and that will result in an energy crunch in 10 years.
But today's energy crisis is because the generators, who are also the retailers, have not ensured supply despite having it all available to them for years now.
I've got more on that - but right now, I have to mention outgoing Treasury head Caralee McLiesh who's leaving for a job as Australia's auditor-general.
In her exit interview she said the New Zealand Government needs to make more revenue. And the only way a Government makes more money is more taxes. She'd like to see a capital gains tax
She's like to see a capital gains tax - and she says the Government needs to save more in the big expensive items. She mentions super. She'd like to see the age limit raised.
Now, Caralee is not some crazy ideological lefty who wants to see the old and rich punished.
She's pointing out the bleeding obvious. We are structurally bad. Economists have been saying this for generations. We don't tax enough. When we tax, we tax the wrong people. We don't spend enough and when we do, we do it cheap and too late and then complain when it all starts to fall apart.
Faced with all this economic reality, the current Government decided to reduce its revenue to help some taxpayers and landlords. That's the exact opposite of what the problem needs.
And then to make things worse, they've stopped spending. And we end up with a country where pregnant Mums can't have toast, Nelson can't get a new hospital building, we run ferries that should be in museums, we run out of power and water, and then we moan we're becoming a third world country and it's all Labour's fault.
Someone has to point out the bleeding obvious now and then. I'm pretty sure nothing will happen on Caralee McLeish's advice because to change our structure would be too expensive politically. No turkey votes for Christmas.
So before you moan again about how useless this country is, remember it's the country you voted for.
LISTEN ABOVE

Andrew Dickens: Someone has to point out the obvious now and then

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/8b7c6263-1380-4065-97e7-b1df003a5aa2/transcript

Andrew Dickens: Did the Government know that their pre-election promises were unaffordable?

Andrew Dickens Afternoons

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips