Today on Politics Friday, National MP and former doctor Vanessa Weenink, and Labour's Tracey Lee McLellan join John MacDonald to delve into the biggest topics of the week. 

They discuss the Government response to yesterday's wind storm, the mega-strike, the end of home economics and outdoor education in schools, political involvement in the Netball NZ debacle, and Labour's future funding policy. 

LISTEN ABOVE

Today on Politics Friday, National MP and former doctor Vanessa Weenink, and Labour's Tracey Lee McLellan join John MacDonald to delve into the biggest topics of the week.&nbsp;
They discuss the Government response to yesterday's wind storm, the mega-strike, the end of home economics and outdoor education in schools, political involvement in the Netball NZ debacle, and Labour's future funding policy.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.

It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.

If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio.

With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector.

Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays. It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking. If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio. With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector. Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.

It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Politics Friday with Vanessa Weenink and Tracey McLellan: State of emergency, mega-strike, home economics, Netball NZ, Labour future funding

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/47f7d6e5-cd73-4884-9d16-b380002a4089/transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LISTEN ABOVE

In his state of the nation speech yesterday, Christopher Luxon continued the great New Zealand tradition of kicking the retirement age can down the road.
He said raising the retirement age was “inevitable”. But that was it. And, when I say kicking the can, it was more like nudging the can with his foot really. Because what the Prime Minister and every other politician should be doing, is showing some fortitude and accepting that tweaking with the retirement age is never going to be enough.
What I think we should be doing, is telling people who are 35 and younger right now, that they’ll have to provide for themselves completely when they retire because there won’t be a NZ Super pension.
That’s what needs to happen. Instead of increasing the age of entitlement by one year or two years, we should ditch the scheme completely. But over a sustained period of time.
Because the problem we’re trying to solve is the fact that it is completely unsustainable.
By the end of the decade, we’re going to be spending $30 billion a year on NZ Super and, as economist Brad Olsen said recently, every other thing in the government’s budget will be “rats and mice”.
So, if we are serious about leaving a legacy for future New Zealanders - which is something the Prime Minister talked about a lot in his speech yesterday - we need to make sure that legacy doesn’t include lumbering future generations with an unsustainable state pension scheme.
But, the way we’re going, nothing’s going to change. Because politicians seem to be terrified of doing anything meaningful. Whereas, what I’m talking about would be meaningful.
It would have no immediate impact, given it would only apply to people 35-and-younger now. But you can’t underestimate the long-term benefits.
I know doing away with NZ Super would be huge. But we can’t afford to be all sentimental about it.
We have to face the reality that the way we do things now - and the way we’ve been doing things - can’t continue forever.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: What the PM should have said about the retirement age

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/ad01654f-2744-47cc-a6f4-b3d70183db03/transcript

The personal responsibility brigade will be going ape over Pharmac looking into funding weight loss drugs.

This wouldn’t be for anyone wanting to lose a few kilos here and there. This would be for people who are obese and at risk of serious health complications. Around 200 potentially serious health complications, actually. Such as Type 2 Diabetes.  

I think it’s a no-brainer. Because we have the third-highest adult obesity rate in the OECD, which is a problem for all of us. 

Even those of us with the metabolism of a racehorse. Because, with the health complications that come with obesity, we all end up paying.

Whether it be in a financial sense as taxpayers or as users of the health system seeing waiting times blow out because of the demand for treatment. Because of the impact of obesity on the health system. 

The fact that Pharmac is even considering giving these weight loss drugs the time of day is brilliant. It now needs to ignore the naysayers and get on with it. 

And there will be naysayers. The people in the personal responsibility brigade who look at every overweight person and think they’ve got no control.

You know: “They’re all just a bunch of lardies who eat KFC every day. And why the hell should us taxpayers pay for that lot to get a magic potion because they can’t say no. Because they’ve got no self-control. Haven’t they heard of personal responsibility?” Blah blah blah.  

The funny thing is, you don’t hear this lot ripping-into people with high blood pressure. Or people with heart disease. Or even people with cancer.

You don’t hear the personal responsibility crew saying those people shouldn’t be on Pharmac’s funding list. Because, if you apply the logic they apply to obese people, the exact same thing could be said.

That someone who smokes, for example, shouldn’t get their blood pressure pills funded by the taxpayer or someone who smokes and gets cancer shouldn’t get medications that might save or extend their life.  

Obesity is a disease just like any other disease. A disease people have because of genetics or hormonal issues or psychological issues. It’s way more complicated than just how much food someone eats.

Which is why we need to accept that, if these drugs are a genuine option for people who have no way of losing significant amounts of weight and no other way of avoiding serious conditions like Type 2 Diabetes, then why wouldn’t we fund weight loss drugs for them?

LISTEN ABOVE

The personal responsibility brigade will be going ape over Pharmac looking into funding weight loss drugs.
This wouldn’t be for anyone wanting to lose a few kilos here and there. This would be for people who are obese and at risk of serious health complications. Around 200 potentially serious health complications, actually. Such as Type 2 Diabetes.&nbsp;&nbsp;
I think it’s a no-brainer. Because we have the third-highest adult obesity rate in the OECD, which is a problem for all of us. 
Even those of us with the metabolism of a racehorse. Because, with the health complications that come with obesity, we all end up paying.
Whether it be in a financial sense as taxpayers or as users of the health system seeing waiting times blow out because of the demand for treatment. Because of the impact of obesity on the health system. The fact that Pharmac is even considering giving these weight loss drugs the time of day is brilliant. It now needs to ignore the naysayers and get on with it. And there will be naysayers. The people in the personal responsibility brigade who look at every overweight person and think they’ve got no control. You know: “They’re all just a bunch of lardies who eat KFC every day. And why the hell should us taxpayers pay for that lot to get a magic potion because they can’t say no. Because they’ve got no self-control. Haven’t they heard of personal responsibility?” Blah blah blah.&nbsp; 
The funny thing is, you don’t hear this lot ripping-into people with high blood pressure. Or people with heart disease. Or even people with cancer.
You don’t hear the personal responsibility crew saying those people shouldn’t be on Pharmac’s funding list. Because, if you apply the logic they apply to obese people, the exact same thing could be said.
That someone who smokes, for example, shouldn’t get their blood pressure pills funded by the taxpayer or someone who smokes and gets cancer shouldn’t get medications that might save or extend their life.&nbsp; Obesity is a disease just like any other disease. A disease people have because of genetics or hormonal issues or psychological issues. It’s way more complicated than just how much food someone eats. Which is why we need to accept that, if these drugs are a genuine option for people who have no way of losing significant amounts of weight and no other way of avoiding serious conditions like Type 2 Diabetes, then why wouldn’t we fund weight loss drugs for them?
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Pharmac funding weight-loss drugs is a no-brainer

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/fcfbf84b-24d2-44f6-9126-b3d7000761d0/transcript

After yesterday’s half-year fiscal update from the Government, the canary in the mine is gasping for air and the elephant in the room is walking all over everything.

And economist Cameron Bagrie is saying that we can’t ignore either of them - particularly in relation to the long-term outlook and what it means for superannuation and retirement planning.

He says, with Government debt forecast to blow-out long-term, we need to accept the fact that the universal pension scheme is unsustainable. 

Government debt is forecast to increase to 180 percent of GDP in 30 to 40 years because of the ageing population and Cameron Bagrie says if we think tinkering around the edges with KiwiSaver is the solution, then we’re dreaming.

And I couldn’t agree more.

He says a conversation about the sustainability of superannuation can’t be avoided forever. I  would disagree with him slightly on that one. I think that conversation about the sustainability of our NZ Super scheme needs to happen now.

My view on NZ Super is that it’s crazy people who work beyond 65 get the pension. Even though it’s taxed at a higher rate - I get that. But I still think it’s wrong.

I've also been a fan of some form of means testing.

But, if I’m honest, do I really think the scale of the problem we’ve got - especially long-term - would be sorted out by not paying the pension to people who continue to work beyond 65 and means testing people before they get the pension?

Probably not.

So, if we’re really going to think long-term, I reckon we need to make the call that people of a certain age are told that the NZ Super pension won’t be available to them by the time they reach retirement age.

This would have to be long-term. So, for arguments sake, let’s say we told people who are 35 and younger that they will have to provide for themselves completely when they retire.

That would give them at least 30 years to get themselves sorted. In fact, I would say that people in this age group probably assume now anyway that they won’t be getting a government pension by the time they reach retirement age.

So what I’m talking about is a very gradual phase-out of the government pension.

I’m in no doubt that something like this is needed. Because we are dreaming if we think we can keep doing what we’re doing.

LISTEN ABOVE

After yesterday’s half-year fiscal update from the Government, the canary in the mine is gasping for air and the elephant in the room is walking all over everything.
And economist Cameron Bagrie is saying that we can’t ignore either of them - particularly in relation to the long-term outlook and what it means for superannuation and retirement planning.
He says, with Government debt forecast to blow-out long-term, we need to accept the fact that the universal pension scheme is unsustainable.&nbsp;
Government debt is forecast to increase to 180 percent of GDP in 30 to 40 years because of the ageing population and Cameron Bagrie says if we think tinkering around the edges with KiwiSaver is the solution, then we’re dreaming.
And I couldn’t agree more.
He says a conversation about the sustainability of superannuation can’t be avoided forever. I &nbsp;would disagree with him slightly on that one. I think that conversation about the sustainability of our NZ Super scheme needs to happen now.
My view on NZ Super is that it’s crazy people who work beyond 65 get the pension. Even though it’s taxed at a higher rate - I get that. But I still think it’s wrong.
I've also been a fan of some form of means testing.
But, if I’m honest, do I really think the scale of the problem we’ve got - especially long-term - would be sorted out by not paying the pension to people who continue to work beyond 65 and means testing people before they get the pension?
Probably not.
So, if we’re really going to think long-term, I reckon we need to make the call that people of a certain age are told that the NZ Super pension won’t be available to them by the time they reach retirement age.
This would have to be long-term. So, for arguments sake, let’s say we told people who are 35 and younger that they will have to provide for themselves completely when they retire.
That would give them at least 30 years to get themselves sorted. In fact, I would say that people in this age group probably assume now anyway that they won’t be getting a government pension by the time they reach retirement age.
So what I’m talking about is a very gradual phase-out of the government pension.
I’m in no doubt that something like this is needed. Because we are dreaming if we think we can keep doing what we’re doing.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Are we ready to accept the truth about NZ Super?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/655b0bbb-1e34-4fbb-908a-b3b6002407a5/transcript

Politics Friday with Vanessa Weenink and Tracey McLellan: State of emergency, mega-strike, home economics, Netball NZ, Labour future funding

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips