Chef and co-owner of Christchurch's popular fine-dining restaurant INATI Simon Levy joined Canterbury Mornings after his restaurant won a Michelin star on Tuesday evening.

He told John MacDonald about his beginnings as a young chef under Gordon Ramsay, and what he reckons won over the judges when they anonymously visited his central city restaurant.

LISTEN ABOVE

Chef and co-owner of Christchurch's popular fine-dining restaurant INATI Simon Levy joined Canterbury Mornings after his restaurant won a Michelin star on Tuesday evening.
He told John MacDonald about his beginnings as a young chef under Gordon Ramsay, and what he reckons won over the judges when they anonymously visited his central city restaurant.
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

Simon Levy: INATI Chef and co owner on winning a Michelin star

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/0fe24a9c-d276-46c4-b9b6-b47a00185b30/transcript

Yesterday, Treasury released a whole lot of documents showing the advice it gave the Government during the early days of the fuel crisis.

One of the key things was a recommendation not to cut fuel taxes or road user charges, because it didn’t think it was needed.

The Government went with the advice. But, you might also remember, that the Government went a step further than that and said that the fuel tax increase - due to kick in at the start of next year - was unlikely.

Which I thought was a bad move. And I still do.

In the reports I’ve seen about yesterday’s document dump, there’s nothing about any Treasury advice on next year’s increase.

But there’s two reasons for that: 1. This advice was to help the Government deal with things in-the-moment. And 2. When Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop poured cold water on the fuel tax increase, that was just politics.

Because, as you’ll remember, there were all sorts of people crying out for help.

The Government went ahead with the support for low-to-middle income earners. But that was it.

And it knew it wouldn’t be a good look if it said no to everyone else wanting help and, in the same breath, said it was also going ahead with next year’s fuel tax increase.

But that was a bad move by the Government. My view on that hasn’t changed. And that’s why I think the Government needs to bite the bullet and press on with the fuel tax increase early next year. As planned.

There’ll be plenty of people who will say that they couldn’t afford fuel taxes increasing.

But I don’t think the country can afford not to increase them. And I’m not the only one.

Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour thinks the same.

He says the Government shouldn’t do anything to limit its revenue from fuel taxes because of the long-term consequences for the Government’s finances.

And what he’s talking about there, is limiting or restricting the amount of money the Government gets in to pay for road maintenance and construction.

It also helps pay for things like public transport.

The Finance Minister even acknowledged this negative impact when she said a few months back that the fuel tax increase was unlikely to go ahead.

So, in its heart of hearts, the Government knows that increasing fuel taxes is a no-brainer. Which it is.

The Government knows it. We know it. So there’s only one thing for it to do.

It needs to stop being so antsy and it needs to commit to putting the fuel taxes up, as planned, early next year.

LISTEN ABOVE

Yesterday, Treasury released a whole lot of documents showing the advice it gave the Government during the early days of the fuel crisis.
One of the key things was a recommendation not to cut fuel taxes or road user charges, because it didn’t think it was needed.
The Government went with the advice. But, you might also remember, that the Government went a step further than that and said that the fuel tax increase - due to kick in at the start of next year - was unlikely.
Which I thought was a bad move. And I still do.
In the reports I’ve seen about yesterday’s document dump, there’s nothing about any Treasury advice on next year’s increase.
But there’s two reasons for that: 1. This advice was to help the Government deal with things in-the-moment. And 2. When Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop poured cold water on the fuel tax increase, that was just politics.
Because, as you’ll remember, there were all sorts of people crying out for help.
The Government went ahead with the support for low-to-middle income earners. But that was it.
And it knew it wouldn’t be a good look if it said no to everyone else wanting help and, in the same breath, said it was also going ahead with next year’s fuel tax increase.
But that was a bad move by the Government. My view on that hasn’t changed. And that’s why I think the Government needs to bite the bullet and press on with the fuel tax increase early next year. As planned.
There’ll be plenty of people who will say that they couldn’t afford fuel taxes increasing.
But I don’t think the country can afford not to increase them. And I’m not the only one.
Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour thinks the same.
He says the Government shouldn’t do anything to limit its revenue from fuel taxes because of the long-term consequences for the Government’s finances.
And what he’s talking about there, is limiting or restricting the amount of money the Government gets in to pay for road maintenance and construction.
It also helps pay for things like public transport.
The Finance Minister even acknowledged this negative impact when she said a few months back that the fuel tax increase was unlikely to go ahead.
So, in its heart of hearts, the Government knows that increasing fuel taxes is a no-brainer. Which it is.
The Government knows it. We know it. So there’s only one thing for it to do.
It needs to stop being so antsy and it needs to commit to putting the fuel taxes up, as planned, early next year.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Fuel tax increase needs to be back on the table

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/c213d63d-b355-4ea3-9c5f-b47b002a8333/transcript

Can we all just accept now that David Seymour’s school lunch programme is a dog’s breakfast?

With this report out from the Auditor-General saying only 50 percent of the lunches are up-to-scratch on the nutrition front and about 20,000 meals a day aren’t being eaten.

The Associate Education Minister has hit back of course, using his usual tricks of discrediting the report and going on about how much money he’s saved.

Tell that, though, to all the people who have been vindicated by this report.

People like Christchurch principal Peggy Burrows who ended up in a tit-for-tat spat with Seymour over mouldy lunches, and who was to blame.

The Auditor-General’s report paints a pretty shambolic picture. It says last year only 50 percent of the school lunch collective’s meals met the ministry of education’s nutrition standards.

That improved a bit later in the year.

I’ll come back to the nutrition part. Because I think a re-think is needed on that front, but I reckon the biggest concern has to be how much food is being wasted.

Not that that’s a major surprise. because we’ve seen plenty of reports of food being fed to pigs and principals getting into trouble for letting their staff take uneaten food home.

Now I’m a big supporter of the government providing school lunches.

But I can’t support that level of waste. 20,000 meals a day.

I’m a big supporter because, as anyone will tell you, it’s no use sitting a hungry kid in front of a teacher.

You know what it’s like trying to do something yourself when you’re hungry, hopeless, and that’s why we just can’t have hungry kids at school.

And if that means the government feeding these kids at lunchtime, then I’ve got no problem with that.

But I can’t turn a blind eye to 20,000 meals a day being chucked out. Which brings me to the criticism in this Auditor-General’s report that the school lunches aren’t nutritious enough.

I’ve always said that we can go on as much as we like about our school lunches when we were kids being pretty basic.

And I guarantee my school lunches would never have met these nutrition standards the ministry of education has these days for the lunch programme.

The difference is, though, I didn’t go to school hungry in the first place. I had breakfast and I had dinner at night.
Some kids these days don’t, but aren’t we defeating the purpose if the kids themselves aren’t even eating the lunches because they don’t like them?

Which is why I think the ministry of education needs to accept that it's got things wrong. It needs to go back to what you might call the basics and serve up something the kids will actually eat.

And if that means something basic like a cheese sandwich, then do it. Because eating something has to be way better than eating nothing.

LISTEN ABOVE

Can we all just accept now that David Seymour’s school lunch programme is a dog’s breakfast?
With this report out from the Auditor-General saying only 50 percent of the lunches are up-to-scratch on the nutrition front and about 20,000 meals a day aren’t being eaten.
The Associate Education Minister has hit back of course, using his usual tricks of discrediting the report and going on about how much money he’s saved.
Tell that, though, to all the people who have been vindicated by this report.
People like Christchurch principal Peggy Burrows who ended up in a tit-for-tat spat with Seymour over mouldy lunches, and who was to blame.
The Auditor-General’s report paints a pretty shambolic picture. It says last year only 50 percent of the school lunch collective’s meals met the ministry of education’s nutrition standards.
That improved a bit later in the year.
I’ll come back to the nutrition part. Because I think a re-think is needed on that front, but I reckon the biggest concern has to be how much food is being wasted.
Not that that’s a major surprise. because we’ve seen plenty of reports of food being fed to pigs and principals getting into trouble for letting their staff take uneaten food home.
Now I’m a big supporter of the government providing school lunches.
But I can’t support that level of waste. 20,000 meals a day.
I’m a big supporter because, as anyone will tell you, it’s no use sitting a hungry kid in front of a teacher.
You know what it’s like trying to do something yourself when you’re hungry, hopeless, and that’s why we just can’t have hungry kids at school.
And if that means the government feeding these kids at lunchtime, then I’ve got no problem with that.
But I can’t turn a blind eye to 20,000 meals a day being chucked out. Which brings me to the criticism in this Auditor-General’s report that the school lunches aren’t nutritious enough.
I’ve always said that we can go on as much as we like about our school lunches when we were kids being pretty basic.
And I guarantee my school lunches would never have met these nutrition standards the ministry of education has these days for the lunch programme.
The difference is, though, I didn’t go to school hungry in the first place. I had breakfast and I had dinner at night. Some kids these days don’t, but aren’t we defeating the purpose if the kids themselves aren’t even eating the lunches because they don’t like them?
Which is why I think the ministry of education needs to accept that it's got things wrong. It needs to go back to what you might call the basics and serve up something the kids will actually eat.
And if that means something basic like a cheese sandwich, then do it. Because eating something has to be way better than eating nothing.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Maybe old school lunches would be better

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/255d10c2-508f-4a13-9b2c-b47a000cad07/transcript

I think the people at the NZ Initiative thinktank need to have an away day in Christchurch

Then they would understand why I’m poo-pooing this claim they’re making today that having multiple local councils in close proximity to each other is a good thing.

Because if there’s one thing that proves how wrong they are, it would be the disjointed situation we have with housing developments in Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri.

A situation I would sum up as the left hand having no idea what the right hand is doing.

So what the NZ Initiative is saying, is the government is wrong reducing the number of local councils. It thinks that having multiple councils in close proximity to each other is a good thing, because it allows them to keep an eye on each other.

I think he’s wrong. And I don’t think our three councils have any idea what each of them is up to.Because we have the Christchurch council flat out consenting townhouses and apartments to get more people living in the central city.We have Selwyn building homes too fast for the infrastructure to keep up. And, in Waimakariri, we’ve got that 850-home development proposed for Ohoka.Not to mention the Pegasus golf course development.

If these three councils were keeping an eye on each other, as the NZ Initiative guy seems to think they are, we wouldn’t have this piecemeal approach to housing developments.

But we do.

Christchurch city council has been signing off any townhouse or apartment development that comes across its desk, meaning all the people wanting to build or live on a full section in a 3- or 4-bedroom house are flocking to Selwyn and Waimakariri. Selwyn, especially.

So much so, that the infrastructure in Selwyn isn’t keeping up

You might have seen the reports about developers striking problems with sewerage capacity.

Selwyn council’s executive director of building, planning and regulatory services, Robert Love, says the systems in Selwyn are definitely under pressure.

He says: “The scale and speed of growth in Selwyn is among the highest in the country, which creates ongoing pressure on all infrastructure networks. While significant investment is being made and major infrastructure upgrades are under way or planned, including working with Selwyn Water, our treatment plants and networks are currently nearing capacity.”

And that, right there, is proof that the three councils in the greater Christchurch area are not keeping an eye on each other - as the NZ Initiative claims - and is proof that we desperately need one council. To get a much more co-ordinated approach to where homes get built.

I think the people at the NZ Initiative thinktank need to have an away day in Christchurch
Then they would understand why I’m poo-pooing this claim they’re making today that having multiple local councils in close proximity to each other is a good thing.
Because if there’s one thing that proves how wrong they are, it would be the disjointed situation we have with housing developments in Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri.
A situation I would sum up as the left hand having no idea what the right hand is doing.
So what the NZ Initiative is saying, is the government is wrong reducing the number of local councils. It thinks that having multiple councils in close proximity to each other is a good thing, because it allows them to keep an eye on each other.
I think he’s wrong. And I don’t think our three councils have any idea what each of them is up to.Because we have the Christchurch council flat out consenting townhouses and apartments to get more people living in the central city.We have Selwyn building homes too fast for the infrastructure to keep up. And, in Waimakariri, we’ve got that 850-home development proposed for Ohoka.Not to mention the Pegasus golf course development.
If these three councils were keeping an eye on each other, as the NZ Initiative guy seems to think they are, we wouldn’t have this piecemeal approach to housing developments.
But we do.
Christchurch city council has been signing off any townhouse or apartment development that comes across its desk, meaning all the people wanting to build or live on a full section in a 3- or 4-bedroom house are flocking to Selwyn and Waimakariri. Selwyn, especially.
So much so, that the infrastructure in Selwyn isn’t keeping up
You might have seen the reports about developers striking problems with sewerage capacity.
Selwyn council’s executive director of building, planning and regulatory services, Robert Love, says the systems in Selwyn are definitely under pressure.
He says: “The scale and speed of growth in Selwyn is among the highest in the country, which creates ongoing pressure on all infrastructure networks. While significant investment is being made and major infrastructure upgrades are under way or planned, including working with Selwyn Water, our treatment plants and networks are currently nearing capacity.”
And that, right there, is proof that the three councils in the greater Christchurch area are not keeping an eye on each other - as the NZ Initiative claims - and is proof that we desperately need one council. To get a much more co-ordinated approach to where homes get built.

John MacDonald: Piecemeal housing a good reason for change

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/1853d095-6290-4848-9fed-b47900120ab5/transcript

Simon Levy: INATI Chef and co owner on winning a Michelin star

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips