MPs are debating whether New Zealand should get involved in securing and opening up the Strait of Hormuz to shipping again.

Labour is arguing that the Government was too quick off the mark signing an international statement which expressed New Zealand's readiness to do its bit.

Labour says New Zealand needs to be weary of getting involved because of the way the U.S. might go about things.

But I think New Zealand has no choice but to get involved in securing and opening up the Strait of Hormuz to shipping again.

For two reasons.

Back in 2024, we sent six defence personnel to help out behind the scenes with U.S. and British airstrikes on bases used by Houthi Militia.

The Government decided to support America and Britain with their strikes on the Houthi Militia - which is supported by Iran- because they’d been attacking ships in the red sea in retaliation for Israel's attacks on Gaza.

Our government said at the time that it wanted to do its bit to ensure maritime security for trade purposes, because the Houthi’s attacks were having an impact on world trade.

10 percent of New Zealand’s exports and about 20 percent of the stuff we import travels through the red sea between here, the UK, Europe and North Africa.

At the time, prime minister Christopher Luxon said: “Houthi attacks against commercial and naval shipping are illegal, unacceptable and profoundly destabilising.

“This deployment, as part of an international coalition, is a continuation of New Zealand’s long history of defending freedom of navigation both in the Middle East and closer to home.”

And foreign affairs minister Winston Peters said: “these efforts support international security and the free flow of trade on which New Zealanders rely.”

At the time, I was weary of New Zealand getting involved in the red sea. For two reasons.

One reason was that we had no idea what we were getting ourselves into and how long we might be involved and what else might be expected of us.

The other reason I was weary ofit;was what sort of precedent it might set.

And now, the chickens are coming home to roost on that part of it - with the precedent bit.

Because, whether we like it or not, there is no wayNewZealandcan‘thelpget theStrait ofHormuzup and running again.

We have to take part. Because, if it was good enough for us to defend trade routes back in 2024, the case is just as strong now.

If anything, the argument for getting involved in defending the oil shipping route is stronger than defending the red sea.

The other reason why I think there’s no way we can’t do our bit, is that we are so dependent on the Strait of Hormuz that it would be lame-as for us to just sit on the sidelines and watch other countries do the heavy lifting

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Mayor of Christchurch isn't too worried about the impact of fuel prices on the council at the moment but is keeping a close eye on things.

Phil Mauger told Canterbury Mornings that costs will be affected by the Middle East conflict, but a lot of the council's infrastructure runs on electricity.

"A lot of our fleet is electric, the boilers in the building are changed over to electric, we've got solar on our galleries"

"It's not critical yet, but we're certainly looking at it and keeping a very good eye on it."

They also discussed the Crusaders Express train taking fans to rugby games to the new stadium from Rangiora and Rolleston, the councils satisfaction survey, and if there are any updates from his 3am idea to fix Cathedral Square.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Even though the New Zealand government is making the fuel situation sound a bit more urgent than it had been up until now, sounding slightly a bit more antsy than it was, I bet it still isn't enough to satisfy the head of the International Energy Agency.

Fatih Birol is blasting governments around the world, not just ours, for not being as upfront as they should be about the economic carnage from the Iran war.

The International Energy Agency essentially works with countries around the world in the energy sector and, when there are supply disruptions like we have at the moment, gives advice on solutions. It's also in charge of deciding whether to dip into energy reserves to keep supplies going.

Fatih Birol is saying today that the fuel crisis is worse than the combined impacts of the three biggest energy shocks in modern history. And he says that we would be better prepared if we fully understood the magnitude of the economic impacts.

He doesn't think we are because he says our politicians are sugarcoating the situation and says he's had to come out and say what he's saying today because he doesn't think people fully understand the economic consequences of Iran shutting down the Strait of Hormuz.

And he's laying the blame at the feet of politicians who he says should be making people aware that this isn't going to end when the war ends.

Politicians should be making people aware that there are going to be consequences for some time to come. He says households need to be better informed about the magnitude of the challenge we are facing.

“I think they'd be better prepared if they understood what we are facing and what we are dealing with.”

Tell that to politicians though, eh? Especially politicians like the ones here who want to get elected later on this year.

I get it that the last thing government politicians, especially, want in an election year is to say that things are going to be pear-shaped for some time yet.

Because voters don't want to hear that. But I think in the medium to long term, I reckon the Government would have far more credibility if it did do what the head of the International Energy Agency wants it to do and be as upfront as humanly possible.

Because you think about it, all we're hearing from the Government is how much fuel supplies we've got. We're not hearing anything from the Government about what this is going to mean beyond that.

If our politicians had the guts, they'd be telling us right now.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This fuel situation is starting to feel like herding cats.

You’ve got the government, on one hand, going on about seven weeks supply. Don’t panic, keep calm and carry on.

The government is also talking about this rescue package for low-to-middle income earners.

Then you’ve got the hoarders filling up drums and jerry cans with petrol and diesel. I met one on the weekend.

He was doing the drums and the cans but he was also using the fuel tank in his boat for storage. He was a tradie and said all the farming mates he was out with are doing the same.

And now we’ve got businesses deciding to take their own course of action, and some are either putting their prices up or adding fuel surcharges.

One in Christchurch has just announced that, unless customers go to them, they’re going to have to pay an extra $5 while the fuel prices remain high because of the situation in the middle east.

It’s even offering free finance options for people with a community services card.

Didi, the rideshare outfit similar to Uber which operates in Auckland and Wellington, is also introducing a fuel surcharge from Wednesday. Charging passengers 5 cents per kilometre.

Which raises the question: is this reasonable, given we’re all in this boat together?

My view is that a specific surcharge is much more reasonable than a random increase in prices.

There’s a pie shop in the nelson area that has just announced that the prices of its pies are going up 50 cents.

The owner of the shop says the increase is happening immediately, and she’s doing it because the fuel prices have increased her costs by 20 percent.

She says she has no option.

The thing is, though, how do customers know her costs have gone up 20 percent? How does the bakery owner know that charging 50 cents more for a pie is what’s needed to cover that increase?

And more to the point, when this is all over and the fuel prices are down again, are the pies going to be 50 cents cheaper? I bet they won’t be.

Which is why I think a temporary surcharge is a fairer way of doing it.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I reckon the Government is going about this fuel price rescue package the wrong way. It seems to think it's doing the right thing picking low-to-middle income earners who, it assumes, are struggling to pay the higher fuel prices.

Of course, someone on the minimum wage, for example, is going to be harder hit by $3.30, $3.40, $3.50 a litre than someone earning $100K.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis says the people the Government wants to help are the working New Zealanders who have little option each day but to get in the car and drive to work. It wants to avoid a blanket cut to the fuel tax and it doesn't want to invent a new scheme of income assistance from scratch.

As the Minister puts it, she wants something that doesn't involve any paperwork. Which sounds like tax credits to me. But I think the Government needs to lift its sights and think a little bit more strategically about this.

It should be thinking about the wider consequences of higher fuel prices, however long they continue. And, instead of paying a few bucks to people on the lower pay grades, what it should be doing is providing support or providing interventions for the likes of food growers, food manufacturers, the transport and logistics sectors. Because all of those groups, they're paying higher fuel prices. But they don't just suck them up like your average motorist does. They pass them on, don't they?

Which means the low-to-middle income people being compensated for spending more on diesel and petrol for their vehicles will still be paying more for their bread and their fruit and their veggies. Any savings will just be cancelled-out by costs passed on to them from the food processors or producers, the manufacturers, the transport sector and the farmers at the supermarket checkout.

Maybe the Government's trying to avoid the type of criticism that would inevitably come its way if it did what I think it should be doing. Because there would be no shortage of people saying it was just looking after its people and the fat cat farmers and the corporate food manufacturers.

Can't you hear it? But all the Government would have to say to quieten-down those people is that, if it didn‘t, they’d be paying more anyway.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Zealand's economy wasn't doing as well as we thought, even before war broke out in the Middle East.

Latest Stats NZ data shows GDP rose just 0.2% in the December quarter – well under the Reserve Bank forecast of 0.5%.

Inflation hit 3.1% in the quarter, above the central Bank's forecast of 2.7%.

The Herald's Liam Dann told John MacDonald if the Iran conflict continues, we could be at risk of "stagflation" – a combination of high inflation and low growth seen in the 1970s.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

While I don't like the idea of us being dragged into the AUKUS military alliance with Australia, the UK, and the US, I think what the government's doing creating something along the lines of an ANZAC defence force - I think it makes a truckload of sense.

The plan is that by 2035 there'll be an integrated, combat capable Australia New Zealand defence force. Combat capable is the particularly interesting bit.

I don't know about you, but I was a little bit surprised when I heard about this plan. Although it does seem that it's been on the cards for a while now, especially when you consider some of the new kit that the Government's buying for the New Zealand Defence Force and how it matches what Australia's got.

As for AUKUS, Defence Minister Judith Collins was asked whether this will align us with it. And she said it won't. But the proof of course will be in the pudding. And it's probably easy in some ways for Judith to say that given that her political career is finishing up.

Nevertheless, in principle, I think it's a no brainer. As Judith said this morning, we're a very small country in terms of population, but our defence force has got to spread itself very thinly over a very wide area. Here, throughout the Pacific and the Antarctic region.

She says effectively joining forces with Australia is a much more clever way of making the most of our defence resources and making the most of Australia's defence resources.

So no argument from me. But I'm not convinced about us being able to do this without being dragged into the AUKUS alliance in some way, shape, or form. And I'm picking that former Prime Minister Helen Clark will be thinking along the same lines. Because last year, when there was speculation or discussion that the Government might be thinking about signing New Zealand up as some sort of second tier member of AUKUS, she said we shouldn't be touching it with a barge pole.

According to Helen Clark, if you’re an ally, you can get dragged into all sorts of things that you shouldn't be dragged into or don't want to be dragged into.

Although I think we're seeing that allies are learning to say no to each other a bit more often. Which is why Donald Trump's nose is out of joint.

But if we go on what Judith Collins is saying, and I'm prepared to, the New Zealand Defence Force will still think for itself and will still be in charge of its own people. She says, "We'll make our own sovereign decisions. These are our people in our uniforms." And here's what I think is the most reassuring part. Judith Collins says "If the Australians were doing something we weren't happy with, we'll pull our people out," noting that Australia would be free to do the same.

So the way I see it, this is nothing more than a common-sense approach for a tiny country which has let its defence force run on the smell of an oily rag for far too long. We're playing catch up now, sure, but we are dreaming if we think we can do it all on our own.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.