/on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/rss ¾ÅÒ»ÐÇ¿ÕÎÞÏÞ Tue, 15 Jul 2025 20:29:43 Z en /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/andrew-dickens-overreacting-to-the-un-again/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/andrew-dickens-overreacting-to-the-un-again/ I’m always amazed at how much credence the United Nations is given in domestic New Zealand politics.  The left loves the UN pronouncements on New Zealand’s stances because if reinforces their view that we’ve got much to feel guilty about.  Meanwhile the right somehow believes that the UN can supersede our sovereignty and is an enemy to be repelled at all costs.  But the UN is actually an ineffectual bureaucracy.  A giant global virtue signaller judging its signatories to an idealistic standard that is often unachievable in the modern world.  There’s nothing wrong with the UN writing these reports because it might be nice to live in a world full of unicorns,  but they’re just words and often have little deep context.  David Seymour obviously took offence at one such report and in a fit of pique late one night, drunk on the power of being Deputy Prime Minister, fired off an angry letter signed Grumpy of Epsom.  That’s obviously not his job, and it’s right that he’s been told off about it.  And that's about that. It's caused a minor tiff amongst the coalition partners because of process and pecking order, but it's not the major crack in the coalition that some claim.  And don't worry about so called international embarrassment because the world has a lot more to be embarrassed and worried about rather than some little report by an arm of the UN that criticises one piece of legislation in a very small country globally.  So, chill out about the UN. They’re not the boss of us. They’re not the boss of anyone. That’s their biggest problem in getting anything tangible done.  Tue, 15 Jul 2025 18:12:55 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/andrew-dickens-the-great-polytech-flip-flop-we-re-all-paying-for/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/andrew-dickens-the-great-polytech-flip-flop-we-re-all-paying-for/ Here we go again.  The polytechs that were centralised by the last government are going to be de-centralised by the current mob.  It's not quite back to the future because it won't be the same as we had before the politicians started tinkering. There will now be ten polytechs run locally, six others will have to prove their financial viability, but it still feels like we're going back to where we started from. And this ideological flip flop isn't free.  The Labour Government allocated hundreds of millions of dollars over several years to support the merger and transformation of the vocational education sector. And now National has budgeted $200 million to fund the reversal. Key Cost Drivers in this change include swapping out the IT and systems integration across multiple institutions from centralised to local.  Obviously, staff restructuring, which includes finding new staff for the polytechs and firing some staff created in the centralisation.  Then there's branding and communications and legal and compliance costs. It isn't cheap and at the end of the day, we're back to square one.  The same things happening over at Health New Zealand. It's happening all over the country as the government reverses Labour's changes. People are packing up their desks that they packed up four years ago. Now who to blame? Labour for coming up with the new ideas in the first place, or National's dogged determination to reverse everything the last mob did because they've built their brand on not being Labour? I don't know about you but the whole thing feels like wasteful government spending, and are we substantially better off? Mon, 14 Jul 2025 18:01:46 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/andrew-dickens-we-want-less-bureaucracy-until-we-dont/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/andrew-dickens-we-want-less-bureaucracy-until-we-dont/ I find it ironic that the government and the electorate are once a gain keen on getting rid of some of the layers of our council bureaucracy. First NZ First’s Shane Jones publicly questioned the role of regional councils, pondering whether “there’s going to be a compelling case for regional government to continue to exist”. Then Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told Mike Hosking that the Government was looking at local government reform. On Friday Matthew Hooten wrote a piece about Regional Councils reiterating Chris Bishop’s question that he’s been asking many local councillors.  Is there any point in having regional councils.  So it's on the table.  Of course the battle against bureaucracy is alive and well around the world. Duplication of services and excessive layers of governance means that savings could be made easily and safely and it's something we've always discussed. Last term the government reformed District Health Board from 20 boards into a single entity Health New Zealand or just that reason but the new government has taken against that and they've announced a return to locally delivered healthcare because they believe that in regional decision making is the best way to go. We're still waiting to see what that will look like.  Meanwhile reform of regional councils looks awfully like the formation of Auckland's Super City.   A reform that has a heap of enemies because of it's devolution of power away from communities.  As Hooten says the reason we hate the Super City are the Council Controlled Organisations a move that was supposed to replicate State Owned Enterprises.   But the problem there is that we can't but shares in CCOs so they become the worst of things. A mongrel hybrid of Council bureaucracies and Private Monopolies.  So we seem to like amalgamating public bodies but then when it happens we moan that our voices are no longer heard and that bureaucracies have become too huge and out of control. So, what is it people. Sun, 13 Jul 2025 18:07:16 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/andrew-dickens-another-poll-same-discontent-winston-still-standing/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/andrew-dickens-another-poll-same-discontent-winston-still-standing/ Another poll. Another rush of fevered opinion, and yet still so far away from an election.  The poll business is booming. Once upon a time we had just the two TV networks in the game, but now they’ve been joined by others.  Keeping the opinion writers in business and politics as the leading news driver in this country.  So this one was paid for by the Taxpayers Union and it breathlessly reports that New Zealand First is on the rise and is now the third most popular party.   Winston may be 80, but it looks like he’s here to stay. And the two major parties are pretty equal at 30 odd each - there is no dominant party right now in New Zealand.  Other than that, the other take away is that we don’t like the leaders of the major parities.   Both leaders have popularity rankings less than 20%, and that’s because they’re both demonstrably a bit average.  That’s particularly concerning for National and the Prime Minister, who learned that 80% of New Zealanders don’t rate him as PM.  It reflects a deep dis-ease about where the country finds itself.  In a week where we found that we grew not one jot in the last financial quarter, people are wondering why we’ve got so stuck in the mire.  National’s easy answer at the last election was that Labour was useless.   But 18 months into National’s governance I feel people are still wondering where we’re going and whether, maybe, they’re a bit useless too.  I blame politics and the urge to politicise every issue and polarise the voters. Our current default position from our politicians is the other side is crap. Vote for us.  But the country is saying you’re both crap. There is no truth teller out there leading the way through the murk.  And in this vacuum of leadership Winston shines by just doing the basics as a Foreign Minister well and not being useless.  Thu, 10 Jul 2025 18:10:49 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/andrew-dickens-the-reserve-bank-and-the-government-need-to-work-in-tandem/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/andrew-dickens-the-reserve-bank-and-the-government-need-to-work-in-tandem/ For a while now I’ve been thinking that the Reserve bank and the Government are working at cross purposes for the country.  Yesterday the Reserve Bank kept the OCR at the same rate it’s at. The reason: increasing inflation and little or no growth in GDP. Now the Government has an agenda of growth, growth, growth.  So reduced interest rates could help stimulate the economy that has some very flat spots in between primary produce and tourism.  But the Reserve Bank's purview is inflation, and low interest rates fire on consumerism and inflation. So, the rate isn't lowered. It's fair to say the Reserve Bank won’t do what the Government would like it to do.  Meanwhile, the Government pulls back on all government spending, including stuff that fires on an economy, like construction, public builds, roading, and more.  If you want proof: Government accounts in the 11 months to the end of May for investing and operational activities was $3 billion less than forecast and $6.4 billion less than the same 11 months a year ago.  So, the money isn’t stirring.  And as the interest rates have fallen, we’re not using the cheaper cash to spend. Our farmers and our businesses and households are choosing to pay back debt instead.  The Government wants private capital to invest in this country, but the cash isn’t cheap, and the investments aren’t coming, and as I said before why would anyone want to invest in this country when even the government is keeping it's wallet shut? So welcome to year three of recession with no change in sight unless the policies of the Reserve Bank and the Government work in tandem. Wed, 09 Jul 2025 18:01:40 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/andrew-dickens-hipkins-needs-to-front-up-and-face-the-heat/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/andrew-dickens-hipkins-needs-to-front-up-and-face-the-heat/ Chris Hipkins was on with Kerre Woodham yesterday, as well as with Ryan Bridge on Herald NOW, and he talked about the Covid inquiry – insinuating it was slanted against Labour because New Zealand First is now part of a National government and had drawn up the scope of the inquiry to benefit them.   It also came out that he has drafted written responses to the questions the Commission might ask of him, but he is non-committal about fronting up for a verbal grilling – a good cross examination. Now also on the table is Jacinda Arden, who doesn't look like showing despite the wish of many for her to be held to account.   But the thing about this Commission is that it is not a trial, it's an inquiry. It's a show trial, really. It's a political thing and Chris Hipkins is still in the political game, unlike Jacinda Ardern. So he needs to handle this thing well.   He was the Minister of Health during the pandemic. In fact, he was the Minister of just about everything, because he was the most competent in his party. So if he wants to be the leader of this party going into the next election, he really must turn up and face that cross examination of what he was part of.   But we know what he did – it's already there and black and white. But what we don't know is the thought processes that drove his actions, and we haven't had the chance to question him. And what we don't know is his thoughts, with hindsight, as to what he might have done better. So if he's honest about learning lessons about pandemic management because there's gonna be another pandemic in the future, then he really must turn up and face the heat.   It'll be good for him. It'll be good for us. If he doesn't, the conspiracy theorists that he mentioned yesterday will bring all their bias to bear against him next election.   Chris Hipkins has choices: face up and tell the truth, stand apart and let speculation by what he calls “conspiracy theorists” run wild, or just quit. Quit his aspiration to become Prime Minister one more time and enjoy a retirement from public life.   It's in your court, Chris.  Tue, 08 Jul 2025 22:30:00 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/andrew-dickens-should-jacinda-ardern-come-home-and-front-the-covid-inquiry/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/andrew-dickens-should-jacinda-ardern-come-home-and-front-the-covid-inquiry/ Question: should Jacinda Ardern come home and appear before the Royal Commission into our Covid response? I think she should.   I could understand though if she doesn't. Because just as she became the symbol of our successful response to the pandemic, which we rewarded with a supermajority in Labour's second term, she also then became the symbol of everything that we did wrong.   And there's a significant number of people who have been weaponised against the former Prime Minister because of the things they resent, and they want a holding to account. They want a Nuremberg trial, as you heard from my texts, you know, they want fines, they want jail.   But they won't get that, even if she did come back. This is an inquiry about Covid to understand everything they got wrong as well as everything they got right. Now, I'm sure Jacinda Ardern, even if her conscience is completely clear, she would be worried about the consequences of coming home and being at the front of this investigation for her family, for her personal safety, for her own mental health.   And the feeling is that she won't – you can read between the lines in the recent Women's Weekly interview that home is not on the radar.   But remember, she will not escape the inquiry. No one will. There are enough people being called to give us the full and frank dissection of everything that happened at the beginning of this decade, and that is important because there will be another pandemic one day.   So let's get into it with or without former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.  Mon, 07 Jul 2025 19:31:43 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/andrew-dickens-you-cant-escape-tax/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/andrew-dickens-you-cant-escape-tax/ Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop is into the US for a range of meetings across housing, planning, development and transport.  Notably - he's visiting New York to speak to city officials about their introduction of "CONGESTION PRICING" and how its faring.  Over there - the results of charging people to use the roads in peak times have looked promising so far, and Bishop says he wants "to learn some lessons he could take back here"  it appears congestion charges are inevitable.  And not just for the basket case that is Auckland.  Tauranga and Wellington are in the firing line. And the point about them is not just to ease the congestion on our roads but it would be a white lie to assert that it's not a money maker.  So when, not if, Chris Bishop comes back and pulls the pin on congestion charges in this country the question is who gets the money?  I think it's a no-brainer that any money raised in a district should be reinvested in that district. That is Wayne Brown's position on the matter. The government's own the State Highways in our cities and so if money is collected from them, it will go back to the government.  But it has to then find its way back to the cities and not be lost in the consolidated fund. The legislation that has already been proposed to do that but never underestimate the Government’s ability to hold onto any revenue if they can so stay vigilant. The other thing to note about congestion charges overseas is that the cities have alternative transport options.  in New York and London it’s the underground and the subway.  Auckland’s CRL rail project means that the city will have an alternative.  But introducing it elsewhere would be unfair.  It’s an irony that the electorate’s unwillingness to invest tax money into public transport means that pressure is now mounting to take money off them for congestion. You can’t escape tax. And make no mistake about congestion pricing this is a tax.  Not technically. Taxes are generally used to raise revenue for broad public spending. Congestion pricing is designed primarily to manage demand and change behaviour.  But it’s the government taking money off you and spending it for everyone. That's a tax. So it would be very rich for a National party to claim that they're not a party of taxation and that dishonour rests only with the left wing.  I haven't met any politician who doesn't like a good tax but some are too shy to admit it. Sun, 06 Jul 2025 18:04:31 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-nationals-week-of-law-and-order-announcements/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-nationals-week-of-law-and-order-announcements/ The award for most press releases and announcements on a single issue must got to National this week. Law and Order was front and centre - announcements about everything from first responders to coward punches. It was an assault of announcements.  Now, announcements don't make streets safer. Announcements don't fix problems on their own.  This was a targeted campaign to reinforce the idea their tough on crime. That they're on the side of the victim.  Why are they doing this? Because it's one of the now minority of issues on which they outpoll Labour - from the last Ipsos survey.  So, they've been going health for leather on law and order. Meanwhile, Labour's overtaken the right for the party most trusted to fix the economy.  I know for a lot of you listening, this is laughable. They got us into this mess, etc, etc.  And I agree with you - I think it's like a protest vote against the incumbent when cost of living is high. Would you actually go and vote for that person tomorrow? Or are you just sending a signal of unhappiness?  You never truly know, but National's clearly alive to the fact it's becoming an Achilles' heel.  The actual numbers are in range: OCR nearly neutral at 3.25%, inflation at 2.5%.  But there's a politically painful time lag between numbers getting into band and voters feeling it in their pockets.  Luxon's team have identified this problem. Their short-term solution is to bash the supermarkets. Hard. And repeatedly.  It's almost like they've finished with the mongrel mob so now they're taking on the other gangsters - Woolworths.  An announcement on "next steps" is already being touted, months out.  So, Labour bashes National on cost of living, National will bash the supermarkets.  And guess what? Nothing will happen to the prices you pay at the weekly shop. Thu, 03 Jul 2025 18:12:15 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-there-should-be-instant-fines-for-loss-of-data/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-there-should-be-instant-fines-for-loss-of-data/ Yesterday was a bad day for some of my pet peeves.  I couldn't find a carpark in town, I had to visit a supermarket, and Qantas suffered a data hack.  Nothing drives me more crazy than a business —big or small, although in this case very big— asking too many personal questions and getting too many personal details about their customers.  Unnecessarily so.  Now. There's a good argument for why Qantas needs your details - if you're flying then they require your passport number, your date of birth, your addresses in case things go wrong, etc.  I get that. But if they are collecting such sensitive information —our secrets and the secret to our identity— then can they not keep it safe?  No, they can't.  Yesterday, 6 million Qantas customers had names, email addresses, phone numbers, birthdates, and frequent flyer numbers stolen. They reckon no credit card data was taken.  But honestly, who cares? The information that was taken is bad enough.  And what will they do? Apologise, send a letter, and then move on till it happens again.  We should have instant and aggressive fines. Once your private data is hacked from your third-party customer service centre, there's no getting it back.   It can and will be used, sold on the black-market to gangs of losers wanting to rip you off.  They've opened a can of worms.  The sooner these guys get properly punished for being so cavalier with our information, the sooner it stop it getting stolen.  And then they might also start asking themselves whether they really need our data in the first place.  Wed, 02 Jul 2025 18:26:51 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-the-coalition-is-stealing-labours-thunder/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-the-coalition-is-stealing-labours-thunder/ You know immediately when something makes good political sense.  You can usually tell, not by listening to the Minister announce it, but by listening to the Opposition oppose it.  Crime is topic du jour as the Government's rolling maul of thundercloud announcements continue.  It's one of the party's strongest, biggest levers to pull - it's one of the few election issues on which the Nats outpoll Labour. So it's no wonder they've pulled out all the stops this after a few weeks of shaky polling and being on the defence.  The problem for Labour with crime is simple: nobody trusts them.  The facts are as follows: crime went nuts. Labour's policy was reduce the prison population.  Which is what makes this such a hard week for Labour, not the Greens and TPM who sing a different song on law and order, but for Hipkins.  How do you credibly stand up and argue against longer sentences for thugs who bash first responders? How do you oppose getting tough on coward punches? How do you oppose fines for people stealing cuts of meat or booze from the supermarket?  The answer for Labour so far has been, you do oppose these things. They have come out against almost every single change.  And that plays into the perception they're still weak on crime.  That they haven't been to the gym to get stronger, tougher on crime, they've instead further withered.  Of course, this problem could be solved if we knew anything about what Labour is planning, policy wise.  But Chippy' strategy is shock and awe - they're holding cards very close to the chest until the election. In the meantime, they do the run the risk of looking weak while the Coalition steals the thunder. Tue, 01 Jul 2025 18:03:48 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-can-we-trust-ai/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-can-we-trust-ai/ The robots are coming, and they reckon they'll be better than us humans at doing difficult, complex stuff - like being a doctor.  Microsoft announced overnight "an artificial intelligence system that performs better than human doctors at complex health diagnoses".  That's according to the Guardian, who say the company's AI unit is creating a “path to medical super-intelligence”. So, Microsoft reckons their robot system “solved” more than eight of ten case studies. The question you then start asking yourself is: do you trust AI to make important health decisions like that? Even though doctors don't always get it right, the thought of a computer deciding my fate is just weird.  But if it's shown to work reliably, and it's accurate, I suppose why not?  China meanwhile is into the robots, big time.  A company there wants a humanoid robot cleaning our dishes and washing our clothes in a matter of years. They want one robot for every home.  This, I can get onboard with.  But you've got ask, with the robots apparently taking over lots of jobs, what are we going to do once they've completed their mission? 77% of companies are either using AI in business or actively trying to. Year-on-year growth of more than 100%. 77% of all devices being used have some form of AI.  I get why it's happening in everything from health to housework, it's far more efficient. But with all the work being done by others, what's left to occupy our time?  Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:17:44 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-will-the-crime-crackdown-make-much-difference/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-will-the-crime-crackdown-make-much-difference/ The government's so-called crackdown on crime is more than just tough talk but that doesn't mean it'll make much difference to crime.  That's not for want of trying. It's because the Courts are a law unto themselves.  They apply sentencing discounts like they're Briscoes Sales - 90% off for remorse. 10% of for your family report. You're free to leave the dock with time served on that murder charge! We look forward to welcoming you back to Court again soon!  We all know the story - Covid lockdowns happened, communities fell apart, lives were thrown off kilter, crime spreads. Police HQ, the Courts and the government went softer on crime. Wraparound services trumped a good ol' whack around the back of the ears.  The authorities lost control of the streets. We lost faith in the authorities. And now here we are, having elected a government to do something about.  Couple of their new laws come into force yesterday - including caps on sentencing and new aggravating factors.  These are real changes. Not just rhetoric. But... whether they actually make a difference or not will depend on whether the Courts get the message - they're the ones with the real power here.  Look no further than the current aggravating factors they're not using properly.... assaulting a first responder, ambulance paramedic, ought to get you a tougher sentence.  But, the ambulance staff and first responders say it's fallen by the wayside. The Courts weren't focussed on that when making decisions.  They have a lot of leeway and a lot to weigh up. So now the government's had to step in again to extend and expand this provision to include more first responders and up the penalties.  Assaulting a first responder with intent to injure could get you up to seven years.  BUT is just like the ads you see on TV selling TVs and Sofas - up to 80% store-wide is not the same as 80% store-wide.  There's big enough leeway to drive a truck through... and enough to ensure the application of this law may not match is intentions.  Sun, 29 Jun 2025 18:00:27 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-will-pill-popping-really-help-with-our-deeper-issues/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-will-pill-popping-really-help-with-our-deeper-issues/ If you've got a health problem, if you've got a mental problem, if you can't sleep, if you're fat, enormous, obese, don't worry.  All your problems can be solved with a pill, an injection. a prescription - or even no prescription.  That's the clear message we've been getting from regulators.  From Tuesday, the Hollywood weight-loss drug Weygovey, like Ozempic, will be available here, not for diabetes, but to shift weight.  People aren't being told to not get fat, they're being told once they get too big, a drug will make them small again.  Melatonin will now be available over-the-counter for those who can't sleep. Forget counting sheep, or wearing yourself out with exercise, pop a pill and go to sleep.  You can now get an ADHD diagnosis from your GP or nurse practitioner - usually, you'd need to see a psychiatrist.  We're prescribing ten times the amount of meds than we were 15-odd years ago.  We spoke to a guy this week on the show with ADHD who said the law change is a good thing, but he also warned about TikTok - lots of young people are getting diagnosed by TikTok and running around telling everyone they've got a neuro disorder when, actually, they're just spending too much time on their phones and hunting for likes. The question is whether as a society, as a species, all this pill popping medication is evolution or insanity.  Is the fact we've we're wealthy enough to eat ourselves half to death then fix it all with a simple twice-weekly injection a sign we're smart, or incredibly stupid? Thu, 26 Jun 2025 18:10:07 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-paying-for-our-ageing-population/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-paying-for-our-ageing-population/ It's obvious to anyone paying attention that we don't have enough young people working to support the cost of health and Super for the elderly.  This problem is going to get much worse in the coming decades.  All this is spelled out in a Treasury report, which Thomas Coughlin published in the Herald today.  This is not new. We've known this for a long time.  Future governments will either have to take a sledgehammer to spending on health or raise the age of Super.  The obvious answer is to raise the age of Super. It'll happen eventually, of course, just not while Winston's around.  But the other thing we could cut is our expectations.  Boys born in the early 1960s (who are reaching 65-years-old) could expect to live to around 79 years on average, and girls to around 83 years. Boys born in the early 2020s (the latest data available) could expect to live to around 88 years on average, and girls to around 91 years. So we've added about 10 years to our lives.  This is very expensive. This is only going to get better, or worse, depending on how you look at it.  Now, I was speaking to a woman in her 70s this week who firmly believes when you reach the age of 80, you must choose: the pension or the health care.  How can we afford to fill our hospitals keeping 80+ year-olds alive, and keep paying their pensions, and not send the country bankrupt?  I know this sounds jarring. I know it sounds cruel.  But isn't it fair to ask how we plan to fund the very expensive, long lives we are now planning to live? Which, by the way, was not the intention when the pension was set up, when it was universal - the age has blown out massively hasn't it? I know. It sounds a little jarring. But if we're on the road to financial Armageddon, as this Treasury report makes clear, is not fair to ask how long we're wanting to stay on this road and exactly what our destination is?  Wed, 25 Jun 2025 18:16:10 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-the-limits-to-freedom-of-expression/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-the-limits-to-freedom-of-expression/ It's just amazing the shear breadth and diversity of things we get outraged by on any given week.  Whether its Brian Tamaki, who after literally decades taking to the streets and stirring the pot, nobody should be outraged by. Or whether it's a bunch of chicks in bikinis rolling around in cow's milk trying to make a buck on OnlyFans. The Police were called.  Yes, I kid you not. Couple of lasses, bikini clad, making some wholesome down-on-the-farm country-style content. And SAFE gets involved.  Then MPI contacts the Police.  What on earth are the police going to do with two girls, one cow? Who on earth would they arrest? Some might say the cow was lucky to be milked. Besides, what's more indecent? Girls in bikinis or the naked cow?  The answer of course is rather simple. Police will do nothing. MPI will do nothing. Because there's actually nothing to do anything about.  Same goes for Brian and his gang of thugs. To be fair to him and them, I didn't pay any attention to their protest at the weekend, I was too busy enjoying my long weekend.  But from what I've read, a few flags were burnt and signs waved about. People are calling for hate speech laws and restrictions on speech and all sorts of things.  Guess what? That also won't happen. And nor should it.  The bar for criminal charges is rightly high. People must be free to air their views - no matter how distasteful or wrong.  Boils must be lanced, so long as they're lanced peacefully.  Besides, you don't have to look too far into the world section of your newspaper this morning for a glimpse at why we should value freedom of expression. Russia. Iran, anybody? As for the udder story, so long as the cow's aren't being mis-teated, I'm heifer it! Tue, 24 Jun 2025 18:01:12 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-investment-is-about-attractive-offers/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-investment-is-about-attractive-offers/ A couple of investment-related revelations from the Government this week proves a couple of basic points about business: you've got to sell something people want, and you've got to do it at a competitive price.  Take the golden visa numbers the Government's crowing about.  The golden visa category changes are netting results. This where we give residency to wealthy foreigners, but they've got to buy their way in.  In the three months since the Government changed the rules, we've had 600 people apply via 200 applications.  The old category had 116 applications in 2 and half years!  So clearly loosening the rules, allowing property and bonds to be included as investments, and lowering the amount required, has given this visa the rocket up the jacksie it needed.  Half the applicants are American.  So you've got a bunch of wealthy American families —fed up with Trump or on the hunt for a new bolthole, whatever— and suddenly, our requirements are at least as competitive, or more competitive to similar options, and voila!  You get some wins. That's potentially $845m invested. But what they're essentially buying is our lifestyle - they want a beautiful, safe place at the bottom of the world to call home. Or home away from home.  The numbers Seymour revealed in his press conference yesterday on overseas investment show that while we've made that process more attractive, more competitive, you've still got to have something worth selling at the end of the day.  Which in this case is an attractive investment.  You can make it as easy and hassle-free to invest here as you want but if the opportunities aren't here, if the potential for wins aren't there, the investment won't follow.  Overseas investment decisions are now being made twice as fast after Seymour's intervention, but the number of applications have gone down in the last year. Why? Because the property market's gone kaput.  Which is not to say the process shouldn't have been simplified. But it just goes to show, if you want investment, you've got to have something attractive on offer. Right now, the lifestyle is what we've got going for us. Mon, 23 Jun 2025 18:18:15 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-were-the-us-strikes-on-iran-really-a-success/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-were-the-us-strikes-on-iran-really-a-success/ So we now know the Americans used seven B-2 Stealth bombers to attack Iran's three nuclear sites.  They used a dozen bunker-buster bombs - the first time these massive 140o KG big boys have been used in combat. They flew in the dark of night, dropping the payload just after 2 AM local time.  They fired Tomahawk missiles from US Navy ships nearby. Decoys were used to throw the Iranian off the scent - some of the B-2's attacked from the US East Coast, while others flew across the Pacific.  B-2 bombers that attacked flew from Missouri while a different set of B-2s flew west over the Pacific to throw off Iran They called it Operation Midnight Hammer. They claimed it was successful. But what we don't actually know is how successful and what success means.  Satellite imagery doesn't show you what's happening underground.  The bunker buster bombs are designed to blow stuff up around 60 metres underground.  Nobody but the Iranians know exactly how deep their enrichment facilities are hidden. Nobody knows how thick the concrete is they put on top of it.  It's possible the main guts of their facilities haven't been hit at all.  And then you ask, what does success mean?  If success is destroying Iran's nuclear capability, well that hasn't happened. Some scientists were taken out in Israel's first strikes but not all of them.  Iran has very smart people with knowledge of nuclear weapons and enrichment. China has been sending them uranium. This strike will have set them back, but this is a country who's shown time and again  not just how capable they are, but how determined they are to have nuclear Weapons.  It doesn't mean the strike wasn't worth it it if they wouldn't negotiate, but also, success depends on how you define it.  Sun, 22 Jun 2025 18:09:10 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-we-shouldnt-ignore-conflict/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-we-shouldnt-ignore-conflict/ I’m as guilty as the next Kiwi of complaining about the tyranny of distance, but the fact is we’re bloody lucky to live far across the ocean and out of harm’s way.  We’re at least 10,000 kilometres away from the nearest nuclear weapon launch site, whether it’s China’s Jingxian Province or the United States' Pacific Coast.  That doesn’t mean we’re immune to threats and fallout from conflict, nor should we ignore them. Foreign Minister Winston Peters this week remarked he’d never seen such an uncertain geostrategic circumstance as the one we’re currently living in. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute published its yearbook Monday with a warning that the risk of a nuclear weapon being used is increasing. Most of the nine nuclear armed states are either upgrading or replacing their stockpiles.  Over the next few years, it estimates the rate at which new nuclear warheads replace old ones will accelerate to the point where, for the first time since the Cold War era, we’ll have an overall increase nuclear weapons.  No matter how far from the frontlines we may be, and how safe we may feel as a consequence, it doesn’t mean we don’t or shouldn’t care about the rest of the world. We Kiwis love travelling the globe and experiencing all the complexities and differences it has to offer. In doing so, we learn to appreciate our own backyard that wee bit more.  This Matariki weekend I'll be taking a moment to be grateful that when I look to the night sky, I'll see stars rather than incoming missiles and drones.  Wed, 18 Jun 2025 18:05:44 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-is-run-it-straight-really-that-dangerous/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-is-run-it-straight-really-that-dangerous/ The moral outrage over Run It Straight competitions is a tricky one.  As more and more young men ran at each other head-on and tried to knock each other out, as the injuries piled up, the outrage was palpable. Lots of pearl clutching and horror.  The reaction from some rugby stars and sporting legends was more nuanced, for obvious reasons.  They also run full steam ahead at one another on a Saturday, with great risk of personal injury and even death. Certainly, the chance of broken bones and concussion.  They do this because A. They enjoy it. B. It's often all they've ever known. And C. Presumably, because it pays well.  And that's the problem with the outrage over Run It Straight.  They had a guy in the news yesterday who won $20 thousand in trials held in Auckland. He's booked a spot in a final in Dubai. The money, he says, is putting clothes on his kids backs.  He said this: "We got to pay off some debts and stock up the fridges and the cupboards, food for our little ones, especially with the economy and stuff like that here in New Zealand. Nothing's cheap these days." He saw it as a couple of hours work with a huge payday.  I happen to think if somebody wants to play a high-risk sport like rugby, or UFC, or anything with horses, then good on them. It's their life, I'm not here to judge.  The question for the rest of society —and this is what our listeners most often email me about with Run It Straight— is ACC.  To qualify for ACC, your injury has to be the result of an accident. An accident is basically something you didn't intend to happen, happening. A mistake.  Run It Straight is bloody dangerous but I think ultimately, its injuries are accidents, like rugby or horse riding.  The system doesn't judge based on the threat of injury, just whether it's an accidental one or not.  Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:11:27 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-the-economys-been-a-sick-patient-for-a-long-time/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-the-economys-been-a-sick-patient-for-a-long-time/ If growth is the game we're in then the Reserve Bank should keep cutting interest rates.  The problem is growth is not the game they're in. They're in the business of taming inflation, and that's about it.  The Government ditched the dual mandate —introduced by the last lot— that saw Adrian and Co. also focus on keeping people in jobs. Maximum sustainable employment.  That's now gone and inflation's in the band.  So the bank is going to take things slow. Ease the next few cuts over a longer period of time out of fear they'll overcook it again. They'll be thinking about Trump's tariffs and the fear of price hikes, even though these haven't materialised —even in the data out of the States— as yet. They'll be worried about the Middle East and the price of oil.  It's an imported cost and it's in everything, not just our cars, but transport of goods, production, you name it.  It directly and indirectly contributes up to 30% of our inflation when the price is high – like when somebody's dropping bombs in the Middle East.  But that wouldn't be my main concern if I was setting monetary policy.  Sure we'll get a solid growth number of around 0.7% for Q1 on Thursday, but there've been a couple of signs this week of things being a bit shaky in Q2 – the one we're in now.  Yesterday it was a Mayday call from the services sector – going backwards for the month, again. This time, a bigger drop than last. And again, way out of whack with our trading partners. Our golden dairy run will continue but there are signs production will be up this year on last, which could effect price.  Cutting rates sooner and faster would help avoid any surgical complications as we revive the economy, which as been a very sick patient for a very long time.  Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:04:33 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-a-lot-going-on-in-the-world/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-a-lot-going-on-in-the-world/ The Prime Minister’s jetting off on a diplomatic mission this week and he’s heading into a very undiplomatic world. Israel and Iran are going at it. Netanyahu says Tehran is close to producing a nuclear weapon. As missiles and drones fly across the Middle East, talks for a nuclear deal with Iran’s leadership in Oman are on hold. The UK is mobilising fighter jets in the region as Iran warns it will strike western targets if they dare support Tel Aviv.  Israeli’s blockade of Gaza continues despite protests from this country and most others through the UN and sanctions. Talks in Turkey to end the war in Ukraine haven’t stopped the violence. Diplomacy has so far failed.  China continues buying oil from Russia and tacitly keeping its war in Europe alive. The US continues supporting Israel, keeping its wars on Gaza and Iran alive. China and the US themselves are doing direct battle of a different kind on trade. We’ve got politically motivated assassinations in America. Marines and national guard troops on the streets of Los Angeles. All this as the global economy splutters along under the weight of it all and I haven’t even mentioned Pakistan and India.  As Luxon prepares to meet with Xi Xinping and then attend a NATO leaders meeting in the Netherlands, the big question is not what to do, but where to start? New Zealand's influence in all of this is, is course, is limited. Most of these conflicts date back further than the birth of our nation. We rely on the United Nations - who's P5 VETO power renders is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike. Utterly useless. This no the first time the world has faced a collision of crisis involving wars backed by competing global superpowers. While diplomacy has failed to prevent them, history tells us it's also the best and only way to eventually solve them.  Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:01:37 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-luxons-rhetoric-is-starting-to-match-the-reality/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-luxons-rhetoric-is-starting-to-match-the-reality/ It’s fair to say Christopher Luxon’s had a rough run at the top. The transition from CEO to PM hasn’t been all that smooth. His approval ratings have been way out of whack with those of any predecessor at the same time in their reigns. We hardly saw a honeymoon. One of the problems has been communication. You ask people and they tell you: it’s hard to connect with him. We don’t really get what he’s about.  His loudmouth coalition partners have largely filled the personality void to his detriment. As a business executive, you’ve got to optimistic. You’ve got to project positivity, and that positive, upbeat style has jarred with the reality of our economy.  The more he said things are improving and this economy is turning a corner, the more out of touch he has sounded.  Jacinda Ardern encountered this problem when she refused to call the cost of living crisis a crisis. You lose the room. It's like a bit like trying to entertain a crowd of Metallica fans with a choir - a bit of a bum note.  And that problems has befallen Luxon. Until now.  Despite this morning's card data going sideways, there’s no doubt the economy’s on the up. We’re about to see another jump in GDP next week as we get Q1 data, which follows positive Q4 data. Treasury reckons this current year will see growth hitting almost 3%. Thanks to our exporters and global conditions, there’s light at the end of the tunnel. You can feel it - shops are filling up. Manufacturing’s on the up. Company’s are hiring.  And this is massive for Luxon because it means his rhetoric is starting to match the reality.  It’s the missing piece of the puzzle that could turn his political fortunes around.  Thu, 12 Jun 2025 18:03:26 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-the-dial-has-shifted-in-farming-and-emissions/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-the-dial-has-shifted-in-farming-and-emissions/ I’ve been reflecting this Fieldays week on how much the dial has shifted in farming and emissions. We had Chris Hipkins on the Herald Now programme Tuesday admit they essentially don’t currently have a policy in putting agriculture into the ETS.  It was a signature policy platform under Ardern. We had to do it, they told us. It was immoral not to.  Farmers had to pay a higher price, and who cares if it’s CO2 or methane, emissions are emissions.  Labour’s now open to ditching that altogether and softening its tone on farmers. This is happening for two reasons. 1. People are alive to the fact that without our strong agriculture export prices, our regions would feel a lot more our main centres right now: economically depressed and limping along. Actually, selling a bunch of stuff we already know how to do well is exactly what a small trading nation likes ours should be doing. 2. The Government has successfully changed the narrative on emissions, basically through repetition: our farmers are the most efficient in the world. The world demands meat and dairy. If we cut back and burn the farmers, bite the hand that feeds our regional economies, somebody else meets that global demand with, you guessed it, higher emitting meat and dairy products.  So for reasons of basic economics and political reality, the dial has been shifted in farming and emissions.  Labour’s a little late to the party, but at least acknowledging the landscape has well and truly changed.  Wed, 11 Jun 2025 18:11:47 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-nobody-wants-to-give-more-money-to-councils-who-waste-it/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-nobody-wants-to-give-more-money-to-councils-who-waste-it/ If you're in Auckland and waking up this morning feeling poorer, it's because you are. It's because we all are.   CVs down 9%, rates are up 6% at the start of the month – that's an extra 223 bucks a year. Now the CVs aren't the market value, obviously, but the market value of our houses has also dropped.   And so it's right that we feel poorer, we are. But spare a thought for Wellington – CVs down 24%, rates up 17%. No, thank you.   Everyone's asking why are we paying more when our houses are worthless? The answer is just because it's how councils collect money, and they have few options to do it any other way.   I saw a graph yesterday in defence of councils – this is a tax as a percentage of GDP,  over the last 130 years, since the 1800s. The blue line was central government. They tax us through income, y’know, spending via GST, a whole bunch of stuff was up around 30%, peaked at about 35% of GDP.   Greedy. Disgraceful. Poor. Old in orange. Your Councils basically flatlining for the last 70 years at 2% of GDP. This is why they want more options to make money, like charging rates on government buildings in their districts. Because yes, the government doesn't pay rates at present. Bit rude, isn't it? We have to.   It's why Wayne Brown wants other levers to pull, like bed taxes. But here's the problem: they have a good argument for more funding streams, but they keep blowing up their sympathy with dumb, expensive, useless stuff like cycleways, and raised pedestrian crossings, and road calming measures, and food scrap bins we have to pay for. The list goes on.   The problem councils have is that nobody wants to give more money to somebody who wastes it. For as long as that keeps happening, their sympathy tank is on empty.  Tue, 10 Jun 2025 19:42:49 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-serial-protestors-arent-helping-anyone/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-serial-protestors-arent-helping-anyone/ Honestly… it’s time Greta got a grip. This is a stunt. She’s sailing on a yacht with a diesel motor, which they’ve been using because the sails haven’t been up. There’s been photos and video, Greta doing the Titanic at the bow, on her merciful mission to save the Middle East onboard the vessel complete with Aircon and TVs and Instagram. As for being kidnapped, this must be the first time a victim has broadcast their own hostage video. How does that work? It’s a tiny yacht. How much aid can you actually have on board? There’s no doubt Palestinians desperately need aid because of Israel’s inhumane blockade. Unfortunately, they’re not going to get any from this attention obsessed Swede.  This is the problem I think people have with protesters. Not the ones who protest and then do something useful like become scientists and invent a solution to global warming. Protesters who protest for the sake of it and change causes with the wind.  One day it’s the climate and oil is the devil and the house is burning down. Then the next it’s powering through the Med on a diesel laden yacht to rescue Gaza.  And it’s a bit like a drug.  John Minto is a case in point. Serial protester. Most recently seen promoting a bounty tipline for hunting out Israeli's holidaying in New Zealand.  You name a cause; he’ll get behind it. In Europe they’re defacing ancient artefacts, throwing soup on paintings and confetti on the Court at Wimbledon. While they’re doing all these ridiculous stunts, hoovering up social media followers along the way, they claim, as Greta did yesterday, that it’s not about them. It’s about the Palestinian people, not me, said Greta.  The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Mon, 09 Jun 2025 18:06:12 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-how-much-will-winter-cost-us-this-year/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-how-much-will-winter-cost-us-this-year/ She was a chilly weekend.  Even in Auckland it was only 5 degrees.  We had the heat pump cranking the entire weekend. I spoke to a friend in Marlborough who had the fire going all weekend. They had a proper frost there.  It's right about now you start thinking... how much is all this going to cost me? The answer $250 for May for a house of two persons, one dog.  Already we've spent $70 for June.  This is one of the few bills I pay in our household so it's one of the few I notice.  It's not going through the roof... and is tracking roughly the same as last year.  And disclaimer... our place is old and cold, poorly ventilated and you basically need either air con or heat all the time. There is good news on the energy front for 2025, not that it directly affects us as much, more the big industrial users.  Forsyth Barr released an energy note on Friday... they reckon we'll avoid another big energy crunch this winter. The next one is due 2026.  That means no risk of blackouts. The reason we've avoided this is because electricity producers did a deal with Methanex. And we've had rain - so the hydro lakes have been given a top up.  To avoid future blackouts, we'll need to cut industrial demand and burn more coal.  And that brings us to gas - a shortage of which caused last year's energy price crunch. Forsyth Barr reckons the government's push for gas is unlikely to solve out problems.  It takes two to three years to get a gas field up and running. First you have to find it. Right now, nobody's even looking. No fields are being explored.  By the time you get gas out of the government's $200-million budget buy-in, the energy shortages will likely have passed. It's one thing to let the producers go it alone, it's another to put our money on the line to develop these fields.  There's a genuine question about whether this is smart investment in our future or if taxpayer money is being wasted. A bit like the heat escaping from my old house.  Sun, 08 Jun 2025 18:01:37 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-my-take-on-the-m%C4%81ori-party-house-debate/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-my-take-on-the-m%C4%81ori-party-house-debate/ Well that was as chaotic as you'd expect.  I caught the first half of Parliament's debate on the haka-gate: Winston Peters went full attack dog, Willie Jackson fought back, Waititi brought a noose into the chamber, and Adrian Rurawhe, former Speaker and Labour MP, had the most sensible and respectable take of the debate.  I've had the pleasure of interviewing him a few times. He's a humble, quiet and observant sort of guy. He's quick to a smile and enjoys a good argument.   Not that you could hear it in the House yesterday. Loads of interjecting. Lots of noise.   Adrian gets respect because he shushed his own Labour colleagues while he was up on his feet.  He made two decent points.  1. The Privileges Committee is meant to be bipartisan. The fact this punishment was not, is a bad thing. Why? Because now it's open season, governments —of any persuasion— can weaponize its punishments against their political opponents. This is not a good thing. As he points out, this was the government punishing MPs, not the Parliament. Which it ought to be.  Herein lies the problem with Parliament these days - there is no agreed standard of behaviours that's universal to all MPs. Getting physically up in somebody's grill is considered okay by some. The House is meant to be about what comes out of your mouth, not how close another MP is to it.  2. Rurawhe scolded the Māori Party for not apologising for their bad behaviour. He spoke of his cousin Dame Tariana Turia. She never skipped a vote, worked hard for her people and spoke on every bill before the House. The question really is whether Te Pati Māori actually wants to be in Parliament or whether it wants a separate one. If it wants the latter, which its website says it does, and doesn't turn up half the time or gets suspended for breaking rules, you've got to ask yourself why they're there in the first place.  All in all, aside from Adrian's wise words, there's a few hours wasted the House won't get back.    Thu, 05 Jun 2025 18:03:09 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-are-supermarket-sales-really-sales/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-are-supermarket-sales-really-sales/ The Commerce Commission reckons we need fewer items 'on sale' at the supermarket.  That would mean less yoghurt on special at $4.99, fewer $1.99 chocolate bars at the checkout, and just less price yo-yo-ing in general. This is counterintuitive. The job of Commerce Commission, through the Grocery Commissioner, is meant to score us cheaper prices and boost competition, right? So, what the hell is going on here? This morning, they announced they want to change the rules around what the supermarkets can charge suppliers. Foodstuffs and Woolworths purchase $15 billion of goods from suppliers each year and control 82% of the retail market.  When they do this, suppliers will discount prices by about $5 billion a year through rebates, discounts, and promotional payments. This ensures their stock is on sale. If they need to move a boat load of it, they can do on special and quickly, because we all love a bargain. The Supermarket tsar says if you’re a new, smaller supermarket chain opening up, you can’t compete with that cause you don’t have the buying power and economies of scale. Now this is where I think the tsar takes one of many leaps of faith. They reckon we consumers are overall worse off because of these specials and discounts.  The tsar says: "Consumers lose out because prices jump around more. This can mean the average price is more expensive and it’s harder for consumers to assess the value of products.” They don't offer any evidence this is actually happening, and that a change would make things cheaper. Leap of faith #2 is that this saving will be passed on to the consumer via the supermarket. Is there not a floor in this logic? Does essentially banning discounts actually make prices cheaper? If so, by how much? $5 billion? Remember the industry’s revenue is $25 billion a year.  If all of the discounts were handed down the chain of command to us shoppers, we’re expected to believe general prices would fall a whopping 20%? Remember when the Grocery Commission was set up under Labour, we were told the supermarkets were making excess profits of $365m a year.  There's a bunch of other changes, too.  Some of this stuff is just proposed. Suggestions. Voluntary.  Some stuff needs consultation. Then further review. Others need 12 months. Others form part of a new report aiming for 2026. By the time this is finished I will have not only lost the will to shop, but also to live. Wed, 04 Jun 2025 18:04:32 Z /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-international-spending-is-up-but-is-it-really-a-win/ /on-air/early-edition-with-ryan-bridge/opinion/ryan-bridge-international-spending-is-up-but-is-it-really-a-win/ Tourism mojo.  Louise Upston fired off an enthusiastic press release last night.  "International visitor spend on the up” it proclaimed. New data, which we get from the International Visitor Survey, showed a 10% jump in spending on the previous year. Sounds impressive, right?  Sounds like we’re getting somewhere. Finally shaking off the Covid cobwebs.  But this is where we start to see the spin doctors earning their keep.  Let’s not forget we’ve been dealing with inflation outside the band over that year. Which means stuff costs more - restaurants and hotels included. So, are we actually getting more out of tourism than we were, and is the jumping up and down justified? Well, the measure of success ought to be pre-Covid, when everything was shut down, we battened down the hatches and kissed the world goodbye. By that measure, spending is still only 86% of what it was in 2019. Now, the very same Minister responsible for last night’s press release was the same Minister responsible for firing one off on March 4th this year celebrating a big boost in tourism spending - up to, you guessed it, 86% of pre-Covid. So, the long and the short of it is, nothing had changed in real terms between March’s PR exercise and June’s! The Aussies and most of our big competition for these international tourists reversed the trends and brought them back a long time ago. The number of tourists travelling around the world recovered to pre-pandemic levels last year. Instead of celebrating no real success month after month, we ought to be asking why we’re still such a long way off the hip, hit destination we were five years ago.  Tue, 03 Jun 2025 18:02:11 Z