Three Wellington restaurants were awarded the highly sought, world famous Michelin stars last night. 

Winners Steve Logan from Logan Brown, and Mark Limacher from Ortega Fish Shack join Nick on the show to celebrate the wins. 

Logan (Logan Brown) says the business been hit by the tough economic times in Wellington, but the star reaffirms the work they've done over the last 30 years.

Limacher (Ortega Fish Shack) is buzzing over the star and shares how the team is feeling.

According to Limacher that team is what sets Ortega apart, "it's people that love what they're doing".

He says the stars are a huge win for the whole hospitality industry. 

LISTEN ABOVE

Three Wellington restaurants were awarded the highly sought, world famous Michelin stars last night.&nbsp;
Winners Steve Logan from Logan Brown, and Mark Limacher from Ortega Fish Shack join Nick on the show to celebrate the wins.&nbsp;
Logan (Logan Brown) says the business been hit by the tough economic times in Wellington, but the star reaffirms the work they've done over the last 30 years.
Limacher (Ortega Fish Shack) is buzzing over the star and shares how the team is feeling.
According to Limacher that team is what sets Ortega apart, "it's people that love what they're doing".
He says the stars are a huge win for the whole hospitality industry.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

Wellingtonians now have the chance to discuss the issues of the day one-on-one with proud local Nick Mills and have a forum to share their ideas, passions and outrages on a daily basis.

You don't find many people more passionate about the capital than Nick, and he comes to Wellington Mornings after decades of success as the man behind some of the city's leading hospitality and entertainment offerings - Spruce Goose, Hummingbird and the Wellington Saints basketball team just to name a few.

Nick's proud of his city but also knows much can be improved on to make Wellington an even better place, and brings an honest, edgy, fun and engaging show to Wellingtonians each weekday from 9 'til midday.

Wellingtonians now have the chance to discuss the issues of the day one-on-one with proud local Nick Mills and have a forum to share their ideas, passions and outrages on a daily basis. You don't find many people more passionate about the capital than Nick, and he comes to Wellington Mornings after decades of success as the man behind some of the city's leading hospitality and entertainment offerings - Spruce Goose, Hummingbird and the Wellington Saints basketball team just to name a few. Nick's proud of his city but also knows much can be improved on to make Wellington an even better place, and brings an honest, edgy, fun and engaging show to Wellingtonians each weekday from 9 'til midday.

Wellingtonians now have the chance to discuss the issues of the day one-on-one with proud local Nick Mills and have a forum to share their ideas, passions and outrages on a daily basis.

Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills

Wellington's Michelin star winners Steve Logan and Mark Limacher join the show

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/e66b5150-dced-4b54-835b-b47a00036ba6/transcript

Nick Mills talks with co-founder of STILL Minding the Gap, Jo Cribb this morning about the start of the new "Lift the Lid" campaign, which is pushing for mandatory gender pay gap reporting in New Zealand.

In New Zealand the gender pay gap is 5.2% for women, 12% for Māori wahine and 16% for Pacific women. Cribb believes more transparency from businesses will shut the gap and allow fair pay.

They discuss why the campaign is calling for greater pay transparency, her own experience with the gender pay gap, the economic and social impacts of the gap, and why she believes making pay gaps public is the first step towards closing them.

The campaign relates pulling the related bill from the tin in parliament to a cookie tin - for more details and to add your cookie (voice) to the tin check out their website STILLMindingTheGap.

LISTEN ABOVE

Nick Mills talks with co-founder of STILL Minding the Gap, Jo Cribb this morning about the start of the new "Lift the Lid" campaign, which is pushing for mandatory gender pay gap reporting in New Zealand.
In New Zealand the gender pay gap is 5.2% for women, 12% for Māori wahine and 16% for Pacific women. Cribb believes more transparency from businesses will shut the gap and allow fair pay.
They discuss why the campaign is calling for greater pay transparency, her own experience with the gender pay gap, the economic and social impacts of the gap, and why she believes making pay gaps public is the first step towards closing them.
The campaign relates pulling the related bill from the tin in parliament to a cookie tin - for more details and to add your cookie (voice) to the tin check out their website <a href="https://www.stillmindingthegap.nz/">STILLMindingTheGap</a>.
LISTEN ABOVE

Co-founder of STILL Minding the Gap Jo Cribb on the harm of the gender pay gap

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/a2e9a21b-aab5-43a0-ac19-b47a001338a8/transcript

EDITORIAL: Now for me one of the biggest problems facing politics today isn't the just the economy, it's not just crime, it's not just health, it's not even just the cost of living, which are all hugely important.  

But it’s one word: trust. 

Who do we trust in politics? 

Do we actually believe what politicians tell us anymore? 

Because if we don't, then don’t we have a real problem? 

This latest story involving Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke has genuinely disappointed me.  

Not because she's from Te Pāti Māori. Not because she's young. Actually, because she represented something different. 

She arrived in Parliament as one of the new generation.  

Young, energetic, hugely popular on social media, someone many people thought could genuinely inspire young Māori to get involved in politics.  

Whether you agreed with her politics or not, there was a sense that she could become a powerful voice for her people, young people. 

That's why this matters. 

Stuff has now questioned a series of social media posts where Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke appeared to claim credit for work that ministers say she wasn't involved in. 

The latest involves extending free breast screening from age 69 to 74. 

The policy was promised before the 2023 election by then National health spokesperson Shane Reti, funded in the 2024 Budget and is now being rolled out.  

Yet Maipi-Clarke posted that she had been "supporting the minister" and described it as an announcement she'd been working on since last year.  

After questions were raised, the wording of that post has suddenly changed. 

And this one really stings for me.  

I've known a number of Māori women, people very close to me, who've battled breast cancer.  

So, when a young Māori wāhine appears to be claiming a significant role in something so important for her own people, if that claim isn't accurate, that's incredibly disappointing.  

For me breast cancer is too serious to become part of anyone's political image. 

But it's not just this. 

Last week another social media post was deleted after questions were raised about claims she'd spent 65 percent of her time advocating for young people in prisons and youth justice facilities. 

According to the article, the office of the Corrections Minister said she had visited one prison once since becoming an MP, while the Children's Minister said she had never visited, or even asked to visit, an Oranga Tamariki youth justice facility.  

Those are enormous differences between what people were led to believe, what we were told and what ministers say actually happened. 

Every politician likes to put their best foot forward. Every politician celebrates wins. 

But here’s the line. 

If you supported a policy, say you supported it. 

If you campaigned for a policy, say you campaigned for it. 

If you delivered it, then by all means take the credit. 

But don't leave thousands of followers believing you've done work you may, or probably have not done. 

Social media is where many New Zealanders, me included now get their political information. Watch, study and keep in their minds. 

That means politicians have an even greater responsibility to get it right. Even greater responsibility to tell the damn truth. 

Because if we can't trust what our elected representatives are telling us online, then what exactly are we supposed to believe? 

Politics doesn't need more spin. 

It needs more honesty. 

And I think New Zealanders deserve exactly that. 

LISTEN ABOVE

EDITORIAL: Now for me one of the biggest problems facing politics today isn't the just the economy, it's not just crime, it's not just health, it's not even just the cost of living, which are all hugely important. &nbsp;
But it’s one word: trust.&nbsp;
Who do we trust in politics?&nbsp;
Do we actually believe what politicians tell us anymore?&nbsp;
Because if we don't, then don’t we have a real problem?&nbsp;
This latest story involving Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke has genuinely disappointed me. &nbsp;
Not because she's from Te Pāti Māori. Not because she's young. Actually, because she represented something different.&nbsp;
She arrived in Parliament as one of the new generation. &nbsp;
Young, energetic, hugely popular on social media, someone many people thought could genuinely inspire young Māori to get involved in politics. &nbsp;
Whether you agreed with her politics or not, there was a sense that she could become a powerful voice for her people, young people.&nbsp;
That's why this matters.&nbsp;
Stuff has now questioned a series of social media posts where Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke appeared to claim credit for work that ministers say she wasn't involved in.&nbsp;
The latest involves extending free breast screening from age 69 to 74.&nbsp;
The policy was promised before the 2023 election by then National health spokesperson Shane Reti, funded in the 2024 Budget and is now being rolled out. &nbsp;
Yet Maipi-Clarke posted that she had been "supporting the minister" and described it as an announcement she'd been working on since last year. &nbsp;
After questions were raised, the wording of that post has suddenly changed.&nbsp;
And this one really stings for me. &nbsp;
I've known a number of Māori women, people very close to me, who've battled breast cancer. &nbsp;
So, when a young Māori wāhine appears to be claiming a significant role in something so important for her own people, if that claim isn't accurate, that's incredibly disappointing. &nbsp;
For me breast cancer is too serious to become part of anyone's political image.&nbsp;
But it's not just this.&nbsp;
Last week another social media post was deleted after questions were raised about claims she'd spent 65 percent of her time advocating for young people in prisons and youth justice facilities.&nbsp;
According to the article, the office of the Corrections Minister said she had visited one prison once since becoming an MP, while the Children's Minister said she had never visited, or even asked to visit, an Oranga Tamariki youth justice facility. &nbsp;
Those are enormous differences between what people were led to believe, what we were told and what ministers say actually happened.&nbsp;
Every politician likes to put their best foot forward. Every politician celebrates wins.&nbsp;
But here’s the line.&nbsp;
If you supported a policy, say you supported it.&nbsp;
If you campaigned for a policy, say you campaigned for it.&nbsp;
If you delivered it, then by all means take the credit.&nbsp;
But don't leave thousands of followers believing you've done work you may, or probably have not done.&nbsp;
Social media is where many New Zealanders, me included now get their political information. Watch, study and keep in their minds.&nbsp;
That means politicians have an even greater responsibility to get it right. Even greater responsibility to tell the damn truth.&nbsp;
Because if we can't trust what our elected representatives are telling us online, then what exactly are we supposed to believe?&nbsp;
Politics doesn't need more spin.&nbsp;
It needs more honesty.&nbsp;
And I think New Zealanders deserve exactly that.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

Nick Mills: Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke has dissapointed me

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/ac29e1eb-7078-4386-9336-b47900040cea/transcript

EDITORIAL: 

I have been one of the strongest supporters of giving police the power to move rough sleepers on.  

I've said repeatedly that we need to clean up our streets.  

We need safer city centres.  

We need people sleeping in parks, doorways and shop entrances helped. 

Helped into accommodation, not just left there. 

But yesterday, watching Q+A, I found myself asking a very different question. 

At what cost do we achieve that? 

Because if the allegations uncovered by Q+A are correct, this isn't just about reducing emergency housing numbers anymore.  

It's about whether government targets have created pressure inside MSD that could influence decisions affecting some of our most vulnerable people. 

Documents obtained under the Official Information Act show MSD managers are assessed on a range of performance measures, including reducing the number of people receiving emergency housing grants.  

Staff are graded as "exceeding", "achieving" or "needs improvement", and the documents state that if performance doesn't meet expectations, an improvement plan can follow. 

So we are grading people on whether they keep people out of emergency accommodation. 

That should concern every New Zealander. 

The Auckland City Mission says these targets create an incentive to say no.  

The Christchurch Methodist Mission says nobody should ever be rewarded for denying someone a basic thing like shelter. Those are serious claims. 

Now, MSD says emergency housing targets are only one of 11 performance measures and no one faces disciplinary action based solely on that target. That's important context. 

But even Housing Minister Tama Potaka appeared surprised.  

On Q+A he said he wasn't aware of the performance agreements.  

Initially he described them as an operational matter and couldn’t talk about it, but later admitted he could understand why reasonable people might see them as creating an incentive to refuse legitimate applications. 

What else could it be seen as? 

That answer didn't fill me with confidence. 

Yes, the Government inherited an emergency housing system that had exploded.  

Nearly 5,000 people were in emergency accommodation in late 2021, costing around $340 million a year.  

Reducing those numbers is a worthwhile goal. In fact, the Government reached its target five years early, with emergency housing falling to just 591 people by the end of 2024. 

But here's the issue. 

If someone genuinely needs emergency housing, they should get emergency housing. Full stop. 

End of story in New Zealand. 

Targets should measure how quickly we get people into stable, permanent homes—not how effectively we reduce the headline numbers. It’s election year, of course they want to headlines to look better. 

Q+A also found that for 16 consecutive months there were more than 1,000 additional inquiries about emergency housing each month than formal applications.  

So, people were saying they needed a house but were put off from actually putting an application in because staff were grading them, stopping them. 

The most common reason given when applications weren't approved was simply, "the need can be met in another way." 

The need can be met in another way? Was that living in a shop front? Was that living in a car? Was that staying in the park?  

We can always make the stats look better, can’t we? But this matters. 

This matters because the Government also wants police to have new move-on powers over rough sleepers. Put them in jail, which I’m not fully against.  

If people are being turned away from emergency housing while at the same time being moved off the streets, where the hell are they supposed to go? 

This story has the potential to become a defining issues of this election—not because New Zealanders don’t oppose tough rules, but because as Kiwis we expect some kind of fairness. 

Clean up the streets by all means. 

Just don't clean up the stats at the expense of the people who genuinely need help. 

LISTEN ABOVE

EDITORIAL:&nbsp;
I have been one of the strongest supporters of giving police the power to move rough sleepers on. &nbsp;
I've said repeatedly that we need to clean up our streets. &nbsp;
We need safer city centres. &nbsp;
We need people sleeping in parks, doorways and shop entrances helped.&nbsp;
Helped into accommodation, not just left there.&nbsp;
But yesterday, watching Q+A, I found myself asking a very different question.&nbsp;
At what cost do we achieve that?&nbsp;
Because if the allegations uncovered by Q+A are correct, this isn't just about reducing emergency housing numbers anymore. &nbsp;
It's about whether government targets have created pressure inside MSD that could influence decisions affecting some of our most vulnerable people.&nbsp;
Documents obtained under the Official Information Act show MSD managers are assessed on a range of performance measures, including reducing the number of people receiving emergency housing grants. &nbsp;
Staff are graded as "exceeding", "achieving" or "needs improvement", and the documents state that if performance doesn't meet expectations, an improvement plan can follow.&nbsp;
So we are grading people on whether they keep people out of emergency accommodation.&nbsp;
That should concern every New Zealander.&nbsp;
The Auckland City Mission says these targets create an incentive to say no. &nbsp;
The Christchurch Methodist Mission says nobody should ever be rewarded for denying someone a basic thing like shelter. Those are serious claims.&nbsp;
Now, MSD says emergency housing targets are only one of 11 performance measures and no one faces disciplinary action based solely on that target. That's important context.&nbsp;
But even Housing Minister Tama Potaka appeared surprised. &nbsp;
On Q+A he said he wasn't aware of the performance agreements. &nbsp;
Initially he described them as an operational matter and couldn’t talk about it, but later admitted he could understand why reasonable people might see them as creating an incentive to refuse legitimate applications.&nbsp;
What else could it be seen as?&nbsp;
That answer didn't fill me with confidence.&nbsp;
Yes, the Government inherited an emergency housing system that had exploded. &nbsp;
Nearly 5,000 people were in emergency accommodation in late 2021, costing around $340 million a year. &nbsp;
Reducing those numbers is a worthwhile goal. In fact, the Government reached its target five years early, with emergency housing falling to just 591 people by the end of 2024.&nbsp;
But here's the issue.&nbsp;
If someone genuinely needs emergency housing, they should get emergency housing. Full stop.&nbsp;
End of story in New Zealand.&nbsp;
Targets should measure how quickly we get people into stable, permanent homes—not how effectively we reduce the headline numbers. It’s election year, of course they want to headlines to look better.&nbsp;
Q+A also found that for 16 consecutive months there were more than 1,000 additional inquiries about emergency housing each month than formal applications. &nbsp;
So, people were saying they needed a house but were put off from actually putting an application in because staff were grading them, stopping them.&nbsp;
The most common reason given when applications weren't approved was simply, "the need can be met in another way."&nbsp;
The need can be met in another way? Was that living in a shop front? Was that living in a car? Was that staying in the park? &nbsp;
We can always make the stats look better, can’t we? But this matters.&nbsp;
This matters because the Government also wants police to have new move-on powers over rough sleepers. Put them in jail, which I’m not fully against. &nbsp;
If people are being turned away from emergency housing while at the same time being moved off the streets, where the hell are they supposed to go?&nbsp;
This story has the potential to become a defining issues of this election—not because New Zealanders don’t oppose tough rules, but because as Kiwis we expect some kind of fairness.&nbsp;
Clean up the streets by all means.&nbsp;
Just don't clean up the stats at the expense of the people who genuinely need help.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

Nick Mills: MSD incentive to reduce emergency housing needs to go

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/39e29060-4c10-4526-aacb-b478001049a4/transcript

Wellington's Michelin star winners Steve Logan and Mark Limacher join the show

In 1 playlist(s)

Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips