A mate was telling me last night how surprised he was that he was breath-tested by the police yesterday afternoon.

If he’d been riding an e-scooter, though, he would have been waived straight through.

If he’d been riding an e-scooter he also wouldn’t have been drug-tested. He also wouldn’t have had to have the thing registered like any other vehicle.

Which the AA is saying today is nuts and needs to change. Because even though the number of e-scooter injuries is going through the roof, e-scooter riders and e-scooter companies don't pay any ACC levies. And I agree with the AA.

Because when a vehicle is registered, it enables all sorts of things. One of which, is to charge ACC levies.

Which is way overdue for e-scooters, especially when you consider these new stats which show that ACC paid-out nearly $15 million for e-scooter injuries last year. Which was a 50% increase on the year before.

The number of injuries were up across all age groups. Although, one-in-four people injured were in their 20s. About half of the claims were for soft-tissue injuries. More than 1-in-20 were for fractures and dislocations.

People bang on all the time, don’t they, about people coming here from overseas and getting free ACC cover. The reason for that being that you can’t sue in this country and so we have to provide cover for people from overseas.

But the exact same thing is happening with e-scooter riders. Because they don’t have to pay ACC levies, they’re getting free ACC cover.

And if you don't like the fact that tourists get ACC for free, then you should be just as brassed-off about e-scooter companies and e-scooter riders getting the same.

There have been numerous efforts over the years to have e-scooters recognised as vehicles. None have been successful.

So the Automobile Association is trying again. Writing to the outgoing Transport Minister and the incoming Transport Minister, as well as the minister for ACC, telling them that the time has come for e-scooters to be registered.

The particular point that the AA is making is that the number of privately-owned e-scooters has reached the point where these things are not novelties anymore.

It’s not unusual for someone to own their own e-scooter and the laws need to catch up with that. They need to reflect that.

And it’s not as if the people who do own their own e-scooters don’t recognise the dangers. Most of the time they’re dressed up like Darth Vadar, aren’t they?

Full-face helmets and all of that. Plus, the protective clothing. And the speeds these things can get up to still blows me away.

Then you get the muppets on the Lime scooters and all those other rental scooters, riding as if there's no tomorrow. The one thing I’ll say about the people who own their own e-scooters is at least they put some effort into keeping themselves safe with the helmets and all that.

Another thing the AA wants to see is e-scooters being allowed in cycleways. It also wants e-scooter riders to be tested for alcohol and drugs. It wants them banned from using mobile phones, as well.

The Government has said it’s “open to changes”. As it should be. In fact, it should more than open to them, it should be getting on with it.

You’ll remember how, at the end of last year, motorcyclists were fired up about their ACC levies going up.

Motorcycle Advocacy Group New Zealand was even going to the Human Rights Commission about it, because motorcyclists are facing an 80% in ACC levies over three years.

And, at the time, I said if that’s what needs to happen —given that motorcyclists are at much greater risk and potentially more likely to need ACC cover— then why shouldn't they pay more cover?

As far as I’m concerned, the same goes for e-scooter riders. And the e-scooter rental companies too.

Because, like motorbikes and anything else on two wheels, they are inherently more dangerous than something on four wheels, and our transport laws need to recognise this.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the first Politics Friday of 2025, John MacDonald was joined by Matt Doocey and Megan Woods to dig into some of the biggest political stories of the week.

New data reveals that ACC paid out almost $15 million for e-scooter injuries last year, a nearly 50% increase on the year before – is it time for the businesses operating them to pay levies?

What does Megan make of Shane Jones honing in on the banks and their dealings —or lack thereof— with fossil fuel companies? Is it wise to sell off the country’s state-owned assets? And the new school lunch programme has seen some criticism – would Matt eat the meals?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I like to think that I care about the climate and climate change. Well, I know I care.

But, like most of us —if I’m really honest— I’m all a bit token on it.

Which might be why I’ve got absolutely no problem with Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones taking on the big banks for refusing to lend money to the fossil fuel industry.

I’m not like some people who I actually know —friends of mine— who are deeply committed to trying to do something about climate change. And it shows through the way they live their lives. I go along with the recycling and all that, but that’s about it.

If I was more of an eco-warrior, maybe I’d be ripping into Shane Jones for threatening the banks with a private members bill which —I’ll admit— could set quite a precedent. Because if Parliament forces banks to do business with the fossil fuel industry, what could be next?

And if I was more of an eco-warrior, maybe I’d be jumping to the defence of the banks and saying that they have every right to decide who they do and don’t do business with. Which, technically, they do.

But, despite all the things the fossil fuel industry gets accused of, it is not an illegal operation.

Which is why Shane Jones is planning this intervention to force banks to drop their “woke” approach and to stop treating people who own petrol stations, for example, like second-class citizens.

There’s similar talk across the Tasman. Peter Dutton —the opposition leader who could very well be prime minister in a few months in Australia— is saying the exact same thing as Shane Jones.

Which I agree with. If you’re running a perfectly legitimate business, then banks shouldn’t be allowed to close their doors to you.

Where this has all come from is a thing called the Net Zero Banking Alliance, which is a global thing that banks around the world have signed up to.

It’s voluntary, but a pretty good sell job has been done on it, obviously. Because all up, there are 136 banks around the world involved.

136 banks in 44 countries with assets worth about $NZD100 trillion.

The purpose of the alliance is to get banks to lend money to businesses and industries that align with the idea or the goal of having net zero emissions by 2050.

So you can see why the banks here have been pulling the pin on lending money to petrol stations. Because petrol is "bad" and doesn’t do much for achieving your net zero emissions by 2050.

And I’m perfectly happy if the banks want to be part of this. Good on them.

I’m perfectly happy if they want all their mobile mortgage managers to run around the place in EVs because that would align with zero emissions. Go for it.

I’m perfectly happy too for the banks to give all their staff free bus passes – although it would be us customers who would end up paying for it.

What else? Solar panels at all branches? Yep, go for that too.

But turn your nose up at petrol station owners and the general fossil fuel industry? No thanks.

Because, whether the banks like it or not, they are legitimate businesses - just as legitimate as any other sector. And what the banks are doing is wrong.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.