The Government’s plan for tougher sentences for people who don’t think twice about assaulting first responders and corrections officers is great. But I think there are some other people who should be included.

Doctors and nurses. These are the people who, it seems, can be at just as much risk of being attacked.

It’s brilliant that the Government has got the ambulance paramedics in their thinking. But the threat doesn’t necessarily go away once they’ve dropped someone off in the emergency department.

In fact, it could be argued that, at times, hospital staff are at more risk than prison officers. Because, in prisons, there are all sorts of precautions and measures in place to minimise the risk of violence. There’s none of that in hospitals, though.

Not that I see the new law being a solution to this problem we have, where some muppets think it’s ok to assault and injure the people who come to our rescue 24/7.

The ambulance guy I heard on Newstalk ZB this morning sounded like he’s in the “give it a go and see if it works camp”. Which I guess he’s more than willing to do given he said that his paramedics are assaulted pretty much every day. He said, at least, a couple of times a day. Prison officers - there were 900 assaults on them last year.

But guess what the numbers are for health workers? Numbers aren’t available for last year but, according to Health NZ data, there were about 14,000 assaults on staff by patients, family members and visitors between January 2023 and December 2024.

The number of assaults increased by 30 percent between the first half of 2023 and the second half of 2024.

Fifteen out of 19 health districts saw increases in assaults on staff over the period.

No assault on anybody is acceptable. Especially first responders. But, if we’re going to judge the situation on numbers, then you could say that the nurses and doctors in our hospitals are at much greater risk of being assaulted than fire, ambulance, police and corrections officers.

And emergency department staff, especially, should be protected by this new law. They’re not. But they should.

Then we get to the broader question as to how or why we’ve got to the point where a law like this is even needed.

How has New Zealand become a place where some of us have a complete disregard for people who are just here to help? That’s the wider question.

And I reckon there are two possibilities. One, the ambulance guy on the radio mentioned. The other is something much bigger.

First - alcohol and drugs. They are undoubtedly part of the problem. Because if you’re off your nut on alcohol and/or methamphetamine, you’re probably much more likely to have a go at a first responder, aren’t you?

More likely than if you weren’t. And, while I think it's great the Government intends to crack down on first responder assaults, I don’t think it’s going to make a big difference.

The other reason I think we’re seeing more and more of this violence towards first responders and hospital staff, is something much deeper.

And it’s something that I think we are all guilty of - to varying degrees.

Respect. Or lack of it. Society, in general, has way less respect for authority than it used to. And we are all more inclined to challenge authority these days than we used to be.

So, maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that there are some people who take that next-level and are prepared to fight against the authority of ambulance paramedics, firefighters, police officers, corrections officers, doctors and nurses.

Sadly, I think that horse has well and truly bolted and I don’t see us ever getting back to a time when the idea of assaulting or injuring first responders never entered anyone’s head.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by National’s Vanessa Weenink and Labour’s Megan Woods to delve into the biggest stories of the week.

Parliament's pressed pause to remember Te Pāti Māori MP Takutai Tarsh Kemp after she died yesterday as a result of kidney disease – what will happen going forward?

Doctors are unhappy with the Government’s new virtual GP service, are they right to be?

And what are their thoughts on taxpayer money potentially going to Moana Pasifika, with Whanau Ora’s funding of the association that owns them?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How do you feel about the prospect of paying higher income tax rates and more GST?

I think it’s inevitable. So does the Inland Revenue Department. Because of our ageing population.

Especially if people think we can have a whole lot more of us 65 and over —which is going to happen— and still provide the same level of assistance and support that is provided now.

So IRD is making its case for more tax in what’s called its “Long-term Insights Briefing”, which puts ideas on the table for governments to consider and to help the country plan for the future.

It’s saying cutting costs is one way, but it would be much better to generate more government revenue. To collect more tax. Which I agree with.

It’s saying today that the future is uncertain, and we need a tax system that can be changed relatively easily, which is why it's focusing on income tax and GST. Because those taxes already exist.

Income tax makes up 52% of the tax take and GST accounts for 25%. So there’s nearly 80% of the total tax take covered just through PAYE and GST.

Company tax, by the way, accounts for just 17% of the tax take.

Here are a few more numbers which IRD is using to justify more tax money coming in to cope with the ageing population.

At the moment, 16% of us are 65-and-over. But we’re on our way to, eventually, having a quarter of our population 65 and older and somehow, we have to pay for that.

Because as the Infrastructure Commission pointed out this week, we’re going to need less schools and more hospitals. But as we know, hospitals are a lot more expensive than schools and we’re going to have to find the money somehow.

IRD isn't giving any specific numbers. So it isn’t saying what it thinks GST could or should be increased to. Likewise, it's not saying anything about what income tax rates could be increased to. It’s just saying that we need to get used to the idea of paying more.

Which is another demonstration, isn’t it, of how the Government made a mistake reducing the amount of tax revenue it gets.

Because I know it talked about us paying less tax and reducing costs at the same time. But running a country costs money, you can only cut costs to a certain point.

And when you throw an ageing population into the mix —and the costs that come with that— we all have no option but to chip in a bit more money to pay for it all.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Infrastructure Commission's draft 30-year plan is the kind of big picture thinking we’ve been saying is needed, instead of the ad-hoc, politically driven approach we have at the moment.

Essentially, the Commission says we’re going to need less schools and more hospitals because of the ageing population.

It also says we’re going to need more roads and better roads, and we’re going to have to do some serious thinking about how we pay for them.

Its draft plan doesn’t go into too much detail, other than we’re going to have to have more user-pays.

Already, we’ve got one commentator floating an idea that I don’t necessarily like, but which I think is inevitable. Because, as the Infrastructure Commission is hinting at, the current way we fund roading in New Zealand has “yesterday” written all over it.

Once upon a time, it was probably feasible or sustainable for the government and councils to pay for it all. Or us to pay for it all through our taxes and our rates and not have to pay anything else on top of that.

But those days are gone. Which is why I think Matthew Birchall from the New Zealand Initiative think-tank is onto something.

He reckons that we should do away with the current road-user charging model —which has people driving the likes of diesel vehicles paying road user charges— and replace it with distance-based charging for all vehicles, on all roads. So the more you drive, the more you pay.

He says with vehicles becoming more fuel-efficient and electric cars growing in popularity, the current model isn’t fit for purpose. In the next decade alone, NZTA reckons it will be short of about $4 billion to $5 billion. That’s the next decade, let alone the next 30 years.

He says we need a fairer system that directly links road user charges to those of us who use the roads and how much we use them.

And, aside from being a very practical way of getting the money needed for roads, I reckon it would also work in favour of people who think we should all be on public transport.

Because, chances are, it might be cheaper in some instances to take the bus.

Matthew Birchall calls his idea “smart road user charging” – or smart RUCs. He says: “Under this system, fuel excise duty would be gradually phased out and replaced with distance-based charging for all vehicles."

He says road users would choose between an automated “pay-as-you-drive” system or a pre-purchased RUC licence, similar to the existing diesel RUC system. And he says charges would vary based on factors like vehicle type, weight, and time of travel, ensuring that costs are allocated efficiently and equitably.

I’m not sure about the equitably bit because I imagine people living in our bigger cities who might not be big income earners might live further out of town and, therefore, might be stung more than wealthier people living closer to the city.

But, broadly, I think it’s a great idea. In fact, I think it’s a no-brainer. I don't love it. But I think it is inevitable.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Opposition Leader has laid out his view of what's needed for peace in the Middle East.

A wavering ceasefire remains between Israel and Iran after scolding from the US President, although both claim breaches by the other.

Donald Trump claims his country's strikes this week destroyed Iran's nuclear programme, but early US intelligence indicates it's only set it back by months.

Chris Hipkins told John MacDonald diplomacy is needed from everyone.

He says bombing isn't the answer to ending a nuclear arms race, and anyone believing that should think again.

When it comes to the rising number of children bringing weapons to school, Hipkins says the issue didn’t come up when Labour was in Government.

Figures show 526 students were stood down, suspended, or excluded for using or having a weapon at school last year – up 80% on 2018.

Hipkins told MacDonald his party gave schools the power to search kids' bags, but it's not a realistic way to deal with this problem.

He says it's time to get the Ministry of Education, Police, and schools to think of proactive solutions.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If we choose to ignore or downplay this new information out today about kids taking weapons to school, we’ll be doing it at our peril.

Because what do you hear people say time and time again when something terrible happens? These are people in the news who might be commenting about a stabbing or a shooting, or something like that. What is it we hear them say time and time again?

“We never thought this sort of thing would happen here.”

We hear people in the United States saying it whenever there’s something like a school shooting. And you would think people over there wouldn’t be surprised, given it happens so often.

And we heard it here after the mosque shootings – which had a lot more credence because it’s true, we never imagined something like that happening here.

But this is why I’m sitting up and paying attention to these stats that have been released to under the Official Information Act.

Because we are kidding ourselves if we think that an increase in the number of kids being caught with weapons at school is anything other than the proverbial canary in the mine.

Last year, 526 students were stood down, suspended, or excluded for using or having a weapon at school. About 80% up on the numbers in 2018.

And I bet there’ll be no shortage of people of a certain age saying today that they used to carry a pocketknife around with them when they were young and it wasn't a problem.

But there’s a key difference between then and now, which is why I think we ignore these numbers at our peril.

And it’s got nothing to do with the weapons themselves. It’s all about the way society has changed and the attitudes and thinking of the kids carrying these weapons and the lives some of them lead.

Schools are like a slice of society. They’re not little bubbles that are totally isolated from the rest of their communities. Even if there hadn’t been any increase in the number of kids being caught with weapons – any amount of weapons getting past the school gate is way more concerning now than it might have been in the past because of that shift in attitude.

When you were a kid, if you snuck something into school that you shouldn’t have —a pocket knife or whatever— I bet it never crossed your mind that it might be useful if someone started giving you a hard time or something. These days, some people do think like that.

Example: in May last year, we had that young guy fatally stabbed by another school kid at the bus stop in Dunedin. The guy with the knife was charged with murder but was, eventually, found guilty of manslaughter.

Granted, it didn't happen at school, but it just as easily could.

These days, people not only have weapons, they’re also not afraid of using them.

That’s the big difference here. And that’s why we need to pay attention to these numbers out today. Because here in New Zealand we are brilliant at sticking our heads in the sand, thinking bad stuff won’t happen.

And we need to wake up and start doing more than just assume that schools have got this under control.

I see principals are saying today that they could do with a bit more support, in terms of the Ministry of Education putting more money into providing guidance for schools on how to deal with the issue of kids and weapons.

But that’s not enough.

We will never be able to wind the clock back and change this attitude shift that has been happening in recent years, where we have people carrying weapons who aren't afraid to use them.

Which means that we will never be able to stop some school kids from thinking that it’s perfectly fine to leave home in the morning with some sort of weapon in their bag or their pocket.

But we can do something about it once they arrive at school. And if that means random bag or pocket searches, then so be it.

Because, if we don’t, all the people with their heads in the sand will be rabbiting on about things happening here that they never imagined happening here.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger is in campaign mode for this year’s elections, saying that he thinks the Government might be onto a winner with its idea of forcing councils to put a cap on rates increases.

I’m wondering if Phil does actually think it’s a good idea, or whether he’s just saying it.

Because I think it would create havoc for local councils having Wellington telling them how much they could increase rates each year.

And this isn’t me banging the local democracy drum. This is me taking a commonsense view of things. Something you can’t always credit politicians for – whether they’re in central or local government.

This idea that Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has been talking about in the last 24 hours doesn’t fall into the commonsense category.

Because yes, every time I see my rates bills I think, “that’s a truckload of money”. And like you probably do as well, I wonder where it all goes.

But that's what we elect local councils for. We elect them to run the outfit and make the decisions and decide how much they need to charge us ratepayers to pay for it all.

And we have to like it or like it. Pretty hard to lump it.

Which is why it’s very tempting for politicians to bang on about keeping rates down and focusing on the basics. But here’s where all that talk falls over and here’s why it’s nonsense for the Government to think it can tell councils how much more to charge ratepayers each year. And here’s why Phil Mauger is wrong to say that it’s a good idea.

First of all: we’re part of the problem. Because even though we don't want to pay more rates, we want more from our local council.

We want libraries staying open later. We want footpaths fixed as soon as we see them start to crack. We want roads fixed, but we don’t want road cones. We want the council to lend us money for community projects but then, when the rubber hits the road, we cry poor and say we can’t afford to pay the interest.

We want, want, want. And that means one of two things: either the council saying no or the politicians saying yes, because they think it’ll get them re-elected.

The other major issue is the whole funding structure for local government.

Which is why I think the Government is taking a very narrow approach here. How on earth the Government thinks it could put a cap on annual rates increases without looking at the wider issue, I don't know.

And that wider issue is the fact that local councils are being asked to do more and more under their own steam, without any extra funding to make it happen.

Example: the Government wants more tourists coming here, but what about the infrastructure needed to support that growth? The Government doesn’t pay for that. Local councils do.

And the way things are structured at the moment, pretty much the only way they get the money they need to do all the things the Government and us ratepayers want them to do, is to charge rates.

And the more we and the government want the councils to do, the more rates we have to pay.

That’s why this talk from the Government about councils needing to manage their finances better is such nonsense. And Phil Mauger needs to see that too.

He thinks a rates cap could be a way of forcing the city council to look at the way it spends money, saying: “I’m open to it. I’m not saying it’s the best thing since sliced bread but I’m certainly open to looking at it. I want rates to be as low as they can.”

Phil, the only way that’s going to happen isn’t the Government putting a lid on rates increases. The only way that's going to happen is councils stopping themselves kicking cans down the road and not spending money.

We see it time and time again. Councils go for the stuff people can see and ignore the stuff people can’t see. Unsexy stuff like water pipes and sewerage pipes.

They ignore them so well that, one day, it all goes pear-shaped and suddenly they're facing a gazillion-dollar upgrade. And how do they pay for that? What's the only way they can pay for that?

Increased rates.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The US air strikes on Iran yesterday are a disaster. A disaster that New Zealand needs to stay well clear of.

Before yesterday, the prospect of it happening was a disaster-in-the making. And, now that it’s happened, it’s an absolute disaster.

Not because of what might happen today, tomorrow or the next day. But, what will happen when the world least expects it.

Not just in terms of what Iran itself will do. I’m talking about the inevitable terrorism activity because of what happened yesterday.

Because, if there’s something US President Donald Trump seems to have forgotten in all of this - before he ordered those bombers to fly to Iran and back - is that history often, if not always, teaches us something about the future.

When I heard about the attacks yesterday, the first thing I thought about was 9/11. When the world was changed forever after the Al Qaeda terror attacks.

Why do you think they happened? What was the lesson that you think might have been learned from that? That Trump might have learned?

The lesson 9/11 taught us was that the US and the Middle East don’t mix.

The September 11 attacks happened because of the United States’ history of supporting Israel. That was the nub of it. And it might be why the US has been shy of launching attacks on Iran in recent years. Until yesterday, anyway.

And what better display of the US supporting Israel can you get, than yesterday’s airstrikes?

Which is why I see some very grave consequences coming. As I say, it won’t be today. It won’t be tomorrow. And I hope I’m wrong. But do you really see these peaceful negotiations happening after yesterday?

Seven bombers flying 37 hours from Missouri to Iran and back. Bombing three sites - involving not just the stealth bombers, but other fighter jets and a US submarine, as well.

Seventy-five bombs dropped - including 14 “bunker busters”. Which, by the way, was the first time ever that these bunker busters have been used.

And then we had Trump and his military bosses crowing about “severe damage and destruction”. But then turning around and saying they don’t want war with Iran.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying that the US “is not looking for war in Iran” and that the “world is safer and more stable than it was 24 hours ago”.

That’s not how I’m seeing it, at all.

And Donald Trump saying after the bombings, “now is the time for peace”. Really?

Quite rightly, UN head António Guterres is saying “there is no military solution.”

He’s saying that the airstrikes are a dangerous escalation which “could rapidly get out of control - with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world.”

Which is exactly how I’m feeling about it.

And I hope that the most-involved New Zealand gets in all of this is sending the air force plane to help kiwis who want to get out of Iran and Israel. There are about 80 New Zealanders in Iran and about 100 in Israel.

And that needs to be it. Because this conflict is not something we need to be involved in.

I’m pleased to see the Foreign Affairs Minister keeping his cool and not banging the drum about New Zealand doing its bit. Defence Minister Judith Collins is the same.

In fact, Winston Peters says it’s the most serious issue he’s had to respond to during his whole time in politics. Likening the way the world is waiting to see what happens next, to the Cuban missile crisis in the early 1960s. When it looked like the US and the Soviet Union could go to war with each other after Soviet missile sites were discovered in Cuba.

So let’s get the Kiwis home who want to come home, and leave it at that.

Because, if we sign-up to anything involving Donald Trump, we’ll have absolutely no idea what we’re getting ourselves into.

Because, it seems, that the only country that had any sort of heads up before yesterday’s attacks was Israel. And I don’t want New Zealand having a bar of it.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.