Lizards living near the Macraes gold mine in Central Otago run the very real risk of becoming lizard skin boots on the feet of Resources Minister Shane Jones. The self-described Matua is on the warpath because hundreds of workers are at risk of being laid off after a decision by the Department of Conservation to reject an application by the country's largest gold mine owner. Macraes Goldman in the Central Otago region, which is owned by the Canadian company OceanaGold, recently applied for a permit under the Wildlife Act to clear grass and vegetation on its current site in order to expand its operation. Last month, the Department of Conservation declined it, citing insufficient information about how the company would manage the relocation of lizards. Shane Jones is beside himself and while talking with Heather du Plessis Allan this morning on the Mike Hosking Breakfast, he labelled the decision makers in DOC a bunch of quislings.

“These lizards are as common as acne on a teenager. That's the first thing. Secondly, they are scattered throughout the entirety of Otago. Every time a farmer does something on his or her land, they don't need a special wildlife permit. This piece of legislation is actually older than my good self, but the most important thing is, does the public want jobs in Otago? Does the public want $700 million worth of export revenue? I do. And I'm of the view that the decision makers in this case have just taken the public for a ride.”

Well, he's promised he's going to do something about it and he's taking it to cabinet, and he'll override the DOC decision. Quisling, by the way, as a colloquial term for traito Vidkun Quisling was the Norwegian Minister of Defence who collaborated with the Nazis in the Second World War.

This is not the first time man has collided with environment. Remember the powelliphanta augusta snail in Westport? Solid Energy wanted to mine the snail's habitat, and there was a real hue and cry over that. Aren't we lucky that we are a country where people will take to the streets for the protection of snails? The snails were moved to different areas. Some were taken under the protective wing of DOC, and if you were a powelliphanta augustus snail you really did have a better chance in the wild because an oopsie at DOC saw the snails frozen one fateful Labour weekend. They were being stored in a refrigerator to be put into a habitat that suited them. After a few ups and downs, it appears the snails have survived the disruption. Twenty years after they were moved, the population has grown to 1884 with an additional 2195 unhatched eggs, and the species had been observed on camera laying eggs for the first time. It was tough but they adapted and good for them.

The Northern Expressway. Along with building the highway, NX2 —the coalition of companies that was charged with building the expressway— were also charged with building fishways. So inanga, or native white bait, could swim around the culverts and weirs that were required with the expressway. We've heard from your everyday builders and developers who have to count skinks and lizards before they can move earth on a project. In some cases they have to relocate the skinks and lizards. Sometimes they count the skinks and lizards, and the friendly neighbourhood cat reduces their number overnight by one or two. Then there's the taniwha, who've popped up during the construction of the Waikato Expressway and the Light Rail project.

Shane Jones asked the question: do you want lizards or jobs? Do you want a company that's going to get some export earnings in to help us get back on track, or do you not? We're not talking about taking a thundering great excavator and churning up the ground and leaving it a sad and sorry toxic mess. Modern day mining is vastly different to what it used to be. It's not even as if Mcraes said buggar the lizards – they said we will lovingly pick them up and transport them somewhere where they can live like they used to. But DOC said no, that’s not the plan we like. Come on.

When you get an attitude like this from DOC, then it hardens other people's attitudes. People might have said, love a lizard, if they can move them, that'd be great. But when you've got DOC saying no, that plan’s not good enough and they stall, and they ensure that companies have to pay more and more, and that people don't get to sign on to work, and Mcraes/Oceana decide stuff it. They do the sums, they do the number crunching, and they say it's not worth our while to be here and they leave - I don't think in this case that it is the best thing for New Zealand, that the lizards win.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

27-year-old Auckland engineer Shyamal Shah has been sentenced to two years, two months imprisonment for what is believed to be one of the largest public sector thefts on record – a 17-month scheme in which he managed to swindle roughly $1 million from his employer, Watercare.

The court was told yesterday that the theft and deception came about through Shah’s gambling addiction that started at Sky City Casino, then escalated after three men approached him and invited him to a residence where private games were being held. It was a racket where addicts were targeted and given a significant line of credit before payment is demanded, often through coercion. I mean, if we've ever seen any Good Fellas type movies, you've seen it before.

In Shah’s case, the court was told the defendant was shown photos of another man who had been violently assaulted after they didn't pay. So he was hooked, he was reeled in, and he turned a promising career in a promising life into a complete and utter train wreck. He will go to jail, his parents, who had taken a gamble and backed that their son was going to be an exemplary citizen, are financially ruining themselves to try and pay back as much of the money as they possibly can.

This is what a gambling addict looks like, and it comes at the same time as the nation's independent gambling regulator, the Gambling Commission, has issued a damning report into the Ministry of Health's problem gambling section, saying it is impossible to judge whether the services actually reduce gambling harm. The report recommended Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey and Internal Affairs Minister Brook van Velden reject the Ministry of Health request to increase a levy from $76 million to $92 million over the next three years. The levy comes from the gambling industry, which makes sense. A lot of people can gamble and just have, you know, $5 on the nose of a horse, a pretty chestnut at Race 9 at Te Rapa, but others can't, so the industry helps fund problem gamblers, helps fund assistance and help for problem gamblers.

But the Commission’s expert reviewer Doctor David Rees said when it came to the money that has been given to the Ministry of Health to help problem gamblers, we don't know if it's enough. We don't know if it's too much. And that's a point made by a number of people. There's a lack of data, a lack of understanding, we don't know what's working, and we don't know what's not working. Sounds like my hero, the Auditor General John Ryan. He said, I don't know this money's been well spent, there's no track of it, no record of.

So same again, the Ministry of Health gets millions of dollars from the gambling industry to help problem gamblers, does it work? Dunno! Ddn't really know. Matt Doocey said it's not good enough, symptomatic of what happened under the last Government. Doocey said in mental health and addiction services, increased funding had led to no material difference. And it's true, that's exactly what happened under the last Government. We're seeing lots of ads for the TAB right now: “You know the odds, now beat them”. In the pregame build up before the All Blacks there's always a punters report: what the totes paying for which player to score the first try. You can bet on anything and it's being very, very normalised.

As with every addict across every addiction, you start off thinking it's a bit of harmless fun, think you can handle it until you can't, until you've found yourself like Shyamal Shah, in the dock with your promising life and career absolutely ruined. All addicts need help to get the monkeys off their back, but just throwing money to the Ministry of Health and thinking there we go job done, is not good enough. They have to show that the millions of dollars they have been granted have done some good.

And this hasn't come out of the blue. In 2019, they were asked to account for the money. They didn't. In 2022, they were told to carry out a major strategic review of its problem gambling strategy and they didn't. And then they had the temerity to come back and ask for more money. Can we have another $11 million? No. If you want $92 million, then you have to show what you're spending it on, not just for the sake of the money and for the sake of proper accounting, but for the sake of the addicts. It's so hard for addicts to know they have a problem before it's too late. I'm talking about any addiction. And when you reach out for help, you need that help to be there.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I've steered clear of much of the sentencing changes proposed by the Government because it's a topic that we do canvas often. The Government campaigned on toughening up on crime and on criminals, and so far they seem to be delivering, so you know, leave them to it. But Paul Goldsmith's proposal that the government could introduce more minimum or mandatory sentences for crimes, meaning less power for the judges and more for the government, couldn't come at a better time as far as I'm concerned.

Currently, when penalties are established for different offences, lawmakers normally set out a “maximum” sentence. For example, the Government's newly announced coward punch offence has maximum sentences of either 8 or 15 years imprisonment, depending on the situation. Judges then have discretion to take into account aggravating or mitigating circumstances. So that's the maximum that can be set. A judge can't go right, that was just outrageous, that's 20 years for you - not allowed to do that, there's a mandatory term.

Late last month the government changes came into effect, capping sentence discounts that judges can apply. So in most cases now the most they can apply is 40%. If a judge thinks that would be massively unjust, they can exceed this discount cap but that will be the exception, not the rule. Now the Government's looking to introduce more minimum sentences so the judges can't start at a laughably low detention rate or give a remarkably soft sentence. There will be a minimum to which that can apply.

So for those who think that's an attack on the judiciary, Labour, or for those like Tamatha Paul, who think this is an attack on the poor, how do you defend these sentences? The 17-year-old knife wielding rapist who had robbed two men at knife point before raping a young woman at Albert Park in Auckland who was coming home after celebrating her 21st birthday. He raped her, threatened to kill her boyfriend. Her life has never been the same since.

The defence wanted home detention for a vicious rape at knife point. The judge said oh no, but am going to give you a 77% discount, for his youth, his guilty plea, no priors, and his attempt at rehabilitation. In the sentencing notes, the judge also seemed to take into account that he was criminally stupid. He was an idiot. Like, as in the old-fashioned version of idiot, barely able to string three words together in any language. So she gave him a 77% discount from her starting point. He ended up with two years, two months, and a week for a knife attack and rape and threatening to kill. And oh, sorry, forgot about robbing at knife point the two men earlier. On appeal, Peter Kosetatino's sentence was three years and 11 months. Again, no, no, no, a rape at knife point for a young woman whose life will never be the same? No.

Drunk driver Jake Hamlin who killed an innocent young woman? 12 months home detention. He's halfway through home and laughing. Quite literally.

The couple who murdered 4-year-old Ashton Cresswell – they were jointly charged with manslaughter. There were only the two of them there, the mother and her partner. Both of them stayed schtum. That's all you have to do when you're a baby murderer, you just shut up. That feral tart protected her partner at the expense of her little boy. The police’s hands are tied. They were jointly charged with manslaughter because nobody else could have done it. It was one of them. Police couldn't prove either one of them because both of them were protecting each other, so they pled guilty to reduce charges of neglect. And so for murdering that little boy and then staying schtum, his mother, in name only, got three years. And the partner got four years for basically torturing a child. So many children are being tortured right now, tortured and killed, and for that you get 3 years and four years.

Is it any wonder why the Government is interfering with the judiciary? Those are three good examples among thousands, thousands, and thousands of why the government has to interfere with the judiciary.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.