/on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/rss ¾ÅÒ»ÐÇ¿ÕÎÞÏÞ Wed, 31 Dec 2025 00:30:24 Z en /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-compulsory-kiwisaver-is-a-no-brainer/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-compulsory-kiwisaver-is-a-no-brainer/ Winston Peters’ idea of making KiwiSaver compulsory is a no-brainer. It’s not a new idea. But it’s a great idea. It’s also something the NZ First leader has been against before now. But what good is a mind if you can’t change it? But I’m not totally on board with all aspects of his policy, which he says will be part of NZ First’s offering in next year’s election campaign. I’m open to the contributions increasing. Starting at 8 percent of our pay and, eventually, reaching 10 percent. Which is going way further than the current coalition government, which is increasing minimum contributions from 3 percent to 4 percent. But Winston, can you please drop this idea of giving us tax cuts so that we can afford to put more into our KiwiSaver? I know why you’re doing it. Or why you’re saying it. Because the first thing people are going to ask when you tell them that as much as 10 percent of their pay is going to disappear and go straight into their KiwiSaver, is how they’re supposed to be able to afford it. Instead of talking about tax cuts, we need to be told to work out how we’re going to do it. Because, until politicians have the guts to say that sort of thing, the retirement savings black hole is only going to get bigger.  We’ve seen already how pointless tax cuts are. We get a few extra bucks in our pocket and the Government gets a whole lot less in its pocket. Yet somehow, it’s still expected to pay out things like the NZ Super pension to anyone and everyone once they turn 65. We can’t do that with the Government getting less revenue through tax. The only way we could, would be to do something that I’ve been advocating for a while now - means testing people for the pension. But we’re not going to get Winston Peters pushing for that, are we? LISTEN ABOVE Mon, 08 Sept 2025 01:20:13 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-the-ocr-is-just-a-piece-in-the-economic-puzzle/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-the-ocr-is-just-a-piece-in-the-economic-puzzle/ I think we need to calm the farm a bit over the Reserve Bank cutting the Official Cash Rate.  Sure, it’s going to mean a slight reduction in how much interest we pay for our mortgages and business loans - and there’s talk of more reductions to come.   Which is all good news. But are we really out of the woods yet? I don’t think we are.  But if you listened or saw some of the reports yesterday and last night and this morning, there was ridiculous talk about the nation collectively heaving a sigh of relief. Which is nonsense.  One report I heard was a bit more accurate, when it said the cash rate has become something of a national obsession.  I saw a guy on TV last night - he was a first home-buyer - and he was saying how great the OCR cut was because it meant he’d be able to pay his mortgage off years earlier. Which just didn't make sense at all. Because, when he gets his mortgage, he’ll know how much things change over 25, 30 years.    The point I’m making, is that the Official Cash Rate - when it comes down to it - is just one factor when we’re talking about something like the cost of living.   Which is why I think we need to calm the farm. Because it isn’t necessarily the light at the end of the tunnel that people are banging on about, because there are so many other factors that determine whether you and I feel as if we have a bit more money in our pockets.  I was talking to someone about this earlier and they said ‘oh hold on a minute….it wasn’t that long ago that you were saying that as soon as the cash rate starts coming down, you’ll see that as a sign that things are on the improve and you’ll feel more positive about things.’  Now, first of all, I couldn’t actually remember saying that. But let’s assume I did - because I don’t have the greatest memory.  So let’s say that that was my view of the world a month or two ago, it isn’t now. Because so much has changed.  Just like the Reserve Bank Governor himself is saying to the people criticising him for saying there’d be no cuts to the cash rate until the second half of next year, and then going and announcing a cut yesterday.  Things change. And if it was my view a few months back - as someone reminded me earlier this morning - that an interest rate cut would be the light at the end of the tunnel; well, that was then and this is now.  A few months ago, we didn’t have manufacturing plants closing down because they couldn’t afford the power; we didn’t have the country being so short of power that the Government was talking about importing gas; and we still have business owners saying they’re hanging on just to “survive ‘til 2025”.  Businesses are going under at a faster rate than they have in years and $400 power bills aren’t uncommon for your average home.    I’m not wanting to be the prophet of doom or anything. I’m just pointing out a few of the things that aren’t just going to disappear because the Official Cash Rate is lower than what it was this time yesterday.  Then there’s all the stuff happening around the world. Which we have no influence over. The positive side is that inflation caused by the prices we pay for stuff we bring into the country is down.   But if you can predict where that might go by the end of this year, then you know more than I do. The US economy is slowing down. But there’s also China and the Middle East to be weary of.  Which is why - when I think about all that stuff - I say that let’s just pause, take a breath, and see the cut in the Official Cash rate for what it is. A piece in the puzzle. And that’s all.  LISTEN ABOVE Thu, 15 Aug 2024 01:46:46 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-history-never-repeats-except-for-boot-camps/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-history-never-repeats-except-for-boot-camps/ Even though it’s just been a few days since the Abuse in Care Inquiry report was released, the Government needs to be a bit quicker on the uptake and should be pulling the plug on its boot camp trial.  It won’t do that, though. In fact, any government would be the same. Because, if there’s one thing politicians at all ends of the political spectrum are terrified of, it’s being accused of flip-flopping.  Can you imagine the noise if Children's Minister Karen Chour had come on the radio this morning and said “look, after reading through that report we got the other week, we think now isn’t the time to be sending kids to boot camps.”  This is the same minister who said last week that she couldn’t guarantee kids won’t be abused while they’re at boot camp.  Which she had to say, didn’t she? It was the only thing she could say. Because how could she possibly say anything different?  Back to this morning, though. And, instead of saying the Government didn’t want to repeat the same mistakes of the past, she was saying how her life was turned around when she was young by the influence of just one person, and she hopes the same thing will happen at boot camp.  But now is not the time to be getting into boot camps. Here’s why.   In the abuse inquiry report that came out last week, there are 138 recommendations for the Government to consider. But it’s recommendations 70-to-75 that I think are relevant to boot camps.  And they relate to doing away with institutional environments for young people. Minimising them and, eventually, eliminating them altogether.  It says the Government should prioritise closing facilities that “perpetuate the institutional environments and practices that led to historic abuse and neglect in care.”  Which is what a boot camp is, isn’t it? An institutional environment. Similar to the boys homes or borstals of old, where some of this shocking abuse happened.  The Prime Minister is saying “no, no,no, no, no. Our boot camps will be different.” He’s saying that, this  time around, the boot camps will have psychologists and social workers working with 10 young people who’ll be there.  They won’t be isolated from family. All that stuff. But why would you still go ahead with boot camps when this report is telling you not to?    There was an excellent editorial piece in the NZ Herald at the weekend which quoted the report saying: “Research demonstrates that ‘boot camps’ and other harsh ‘short, sharp, shock’ interventions for youth are ineffective at reducing repeat offending”. That’s in last week’s report.  The NZ Herald article also mentioned a study in 2018 by former chief science adviser, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, which said “boot camps do not work and ‘scared straight’ programmes have been shown to increase crime”.  But the Government isn’t listening. Because it’s got a coalition agreement to maintain.   So there’s no way it’s going to tell everyone up at boot camp that it’s had a change of heart. But it should.  Mon, 29 Jul 2024 01:07:33 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-if-we-were-really-tough-on-crime-wed-do-this/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-if-we-were-really-tough-on-crime-wed-do-this/ Law and Order is going to be one of the Government’s top priorities over the next three months - as part of its latest action plan which, like the last one, is a bit of an announcement of an announcement.  Two of its action points, though, is to launch a military-style academy pilot for serious and persistent young offenders (14-to-17 years olds we’re talking about here); and introduce legislation to toughen sentencing rules to ensure what it calls “real consequences for crime”.  Which is all very well. But I reckon the Government has left-out something that, I’m picking, is a problem for a truckload of people when it comes to crime. And it’s probably left it out because it’s in the too hard basket.  This particular thing has been in the too hard basket for years and looks like it’s going to stay there.   I’ve got a true story about something which happened in Christchurch just last week, which shows how much of an issue this particular thing is. Especially, when it comes to dealing with some of our youngest troublemakers.   But first: the law and order announcement from the Government yesterday came at the same time as new statistics show that ram raids were down 83% in the 12 months to August last year; and that 74% of children and young people put through fast-track youth offending programmes haven’t been referred back. Which sounds like success to me.   But, like most things, there’s a fly in the ointment. These stats relate to offenders 14 and older. Not the likes of the young creeps who turned-up at a person’s house in Christchurch one day last week and started causing a bit of a disturbance.  They were throwing rocks at the house. Which isn’t on, of course, and so this person’s partner went outside and chased them off.  That night, though, these kids came back —with a few more in tow— and this person I talked to said not only did they come back, and not only were there more of them, but one of them had a knife that looked to be longer than 30 centimetres.  So they called the Police. And when the cops turned up, these kids didn’t even try to run away and the one with the knife started yelling “we’re only 13, we’re only 13”. Because they know the cops can’t do anything with anyone younger than 14.   And, apparently, some of these ratbags were even younger than 13.   So, this person and their family were terrorised. Left with a bill for repair to their house and a car window that there’ll be no reparation for. All because these kids are under-14 and know full-well that, because of that, they can pretty much do what they want and get away with it.  The only crimes someone younger than 14 can be charged with are murder and manslaughter. Thankfully, we’re not talking about something as bad as that here. But I reckon if the Government is as tough on crime as it says it is then it would be taking this issue out of the too-hard basket and doing something about it.  Because, as this person who was terrorised by these kids last week said, they even went to the central police station the next day to double-check that the officers who had turned-up were right. That they couldn’t do anything about these little monsters.  And they were told ‘yep, that’s the law’. Even if a group storms onto a property, terrorises the people there, and threatens serious violence —even if one of them is carrying a huge knife— it is illegal but, if they’re younger than 14, nothing can be done about it.  As you would expect, this person impacted by these out-of-control monsters in Christchurch last week thinks the law is nonsense, and these kids need to face serious consequences. And so do I.  Tue, 02 Jul 2024 01:10:33 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-the-countrys-falling-to-bits/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-the-countrys-falling-to-bits/ So I get unwell, turn my back on things for a week-or-two, and the country just falls to bits.  This time last week, the Prime Minister and his “A-listers” were stuck on the tarmac after yet another air force breakdown.  Then a few jokers got the toolkit out up north, loosened a few things on a power pylon up there, and then the thing came crashing down. Black-outs. Simeon Brown trotting out his serious face.   These things surely don’t happen in threes, do they? If you’re in New Zealand - yes, they do.  And if Simeon had put-away the serious face on Friday night, he had it out again on Saturday morning and right through the weekend - saying he wasn’t happy with KiwiRail and how they’re looking after their “assets”, after the steering on the Aratere packed a sad and it ran aground.   Assets? Remember this is the outfit that’s been told since the coalition government came into power late last year that it needs to be more “Toyota Corolla” and less “Lamborghini”.  I wonder how Nicola Willis is feeling about the old Toyota Corolla line today?   When the Finance Minister pulled the plug on the big upgrade of the inter-island ferries because she reckoned Labour had gone ga-ga and was just writing-out blank cheques for KiwiRail, she said: “The Ferrari is not the only car in the garage, I think it’s time to see if there’s a Toyota Corolla”.  And, naturally, there is no shortage of people lining-up to say our infrastructure isn’t even Toyota Corolla. Because the thing about the Toyota Corolla is that they keep going, don’t they? Our national infrastructure doesn’t. And I’m more than happy to jump on the bandwagon and say, yep, it’s an absolute embarrassment.   But first, here’s what Infrastructure New Zealand’s policy director Michelle McCormick had to say when she was on with Mike earlier. She said we’re dreaming if we think it’s just the ferries that are the problem.  And Michelle McCormick reckons we are lucky people weren't injured or worse with the ferry grounding. And I think she's spot on. You don’t need to be an infrastructure expert to know that.  And I thought she made a very good point, when she said that it’s not just about being miserly when it comes to spending on repairs. We’ve also been miserly when it comes to training people to do the repairs.  Then we had Associate Finance Minister David Seymour dancing on the head of a pin when he was on with Mike. But, eventually, he admitted the air force plane breakdown was internationally embarrassing.  Which of course, it is.  And, maybe if the ferry thing hadn’t happened over the weekend, we’d have more people making a noise about that power pylon falling over because that just doesn’t happen on its own, does it?  So surely, that meets the threshold of being something of a national embarrassment, as well.  And I’d be willing to put money on the power pylon issue being another outcome of this oily rag mentality that seems to have taken over when it comes to building and maintaining key infrastructure in New Zealand.  Because what other excuse do we have? It’s all just been a run of terrible bad luck? Yeah right. Dream on.  We are a bunch of scrooges when it comes to spending money on infrastructure. I don’t think we used to be. But we certainly are now.  Scrooges, Skinflints. Whatever label you want to use, that’s what New Zealand has become. And we are paying the price for it.  And the only solution is to start spending serious money where it is seriously needed. Because, whether we like it or not, we need to accept that New Zealand has become an infrastructure basket case.  LISTEN ABOVE.  Mon, 24 Jun 2024 00:28:53 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-cllr-climate-change-levy-is-a-no-brainer/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-cllr-climate-change-levy-is-a-no-brainer/ If you care about the future generations as much as you say you do - or think you do - then you’ll have no problem with Christchurch city councillor Sara Templeton pushing for the council to charge a new levy to help with the cost of adapting to climate change.  Her argument is simple. How can we say it’s fair to expect future generations to not only live with the consequences of climate change, but to pay for it, as well? To carry the financial burden?  And she is spot on. It’s not fair.  But I tell you what. While I think she’s right, and that this is the sort of thing we should be doing, I bet we won’t.  Because there’ll be no shortage of people banging-on about Sara Templeton and her cycleways, Sara Templeton being anti-car and Sara Templeton ramming climate change down our throats. There’ll be no shortage of all that noise.  And many of Sara’s fellow councillors will hear all that and they’ll get spooked - as politicians do - and they’ll keep kicking the climate change can down the road.  If there’s anything we should learn here in Canterbury from the water disaster in Wellington, it’s that councils nationwide need to get their heads out of the sand and, if stuff must be done, they need to get on with it. And ratepayers need to front up with the money.  And you might say ‘oh all that stuff in Wellington is about maintenance of the pipes’. Yes, correct. But the reason they’re in the situation they’re in up there is that councillors up-and-down the country over the years have only been concerned about the here and now. Or the here, now and the next election.  And I bet that’s what will happen in Christchurch with this idea that ratepayers pay a special climate change levy, over and above their rates.  But I think it’s a no-brainer. We have to do it.  Sara Templeton is pushing to have this new levy included in the Council’s long-term plan, which it’s working on now.  She’s being very realistic, and she isn’t saying they should be charging it on top of the 15 percent rates increase that’s on the cards for the next year. She’s saying that, once rates increases are back into single figures, that’s when this new levy would come into effect.  It cracks me up how we often hear people banging-on about the debt being left behind for future generations by central governments. But this so-called concern about future generations is all talk, if we aren't prepared to have some skin in the game.  And that’s what Sara Templeton is calling for. She wants us to put our money where our mouths are and to stop expecting someone else to pay for the gazilions that are going to have to be spent to adapt to climate change.  If you’re like me and you think that the climate emergency the city council declared back in 2019 was just a piece of PR. Then how can you possibly disagree with what Sara Templeton is pushing for?  As she says, the council is dreaming if it thinks it’s going to halve emissions by 2030 - a goal it set itself not long after it declared the climate emergency.  And let’s not forget sea level rise. Pretty much every time you mention this, you get the counter-claims that sea-level rise has nothing to do with global warming.  Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is - sometime pretty soon, we are going to have to start moving people away from coastal areas. It’s going to happen here in Canterbury. Maybe sooner than we expect. And do you think the insurance companies are going to turn up to that party? Of course they’re not.  Do you expect the young kids and teenagers of today are going to be delighted to pay for that  problem, which they didn’t create? Of course they’re not.  And not only that. They shouldn’t be expected to pay for it all, either.  As Sara Templeton is saying, this new levy wouldn’t be like a lotto win for the council. It wouldn’t cover all the costs that are going to come from adapting to climate change. But it would help. And that’s why I think it’s a no-brainer.  And yes - it’s quite possible that you and I might not see any benefits from this new levy in our lifetimes. Because this is a long game we’re playing here.   But is that reason enough not to do our bit? Of course it isn’t.  Sun, 04 Feb 2024 23:44:15 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-why-should-the-slackers-get-the-same-pay/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-why-should-the-slackers-get-the-same-pay/ Is it just me or do you see fishhooks in the Government’s Fair Pay Agreements legislation too?I mean it sounds great, doesn’t it? If you and I do the same job, we get the same minimum pay and conditions. Which is the Government’s way of reversing elements of the deregulation of the labour market that happened 30 years ago when National was in government and did away with collective worker rights and replaced them with the Employment Contracts Act. Which, over time, has meant more and more of us signing individual contracts with the outfits we work for and negotiating our own terms and conditions. Which is fine if you’re the type of person who has the wherewithal to do that. And by wherewithal, I pretty much mean the confidence to say to an employer that ‘I think I’m worth this much, and these are conditions I’m after while I’m working for you’. But, like anything in life, some people are better at some things than others, and the Employment Contracts Act probably hasn’t turned out to be the saviour for some New Zealand workers that the National government back in the day claimed it would be. As Grant Robertson put it last night: the reduction in wages that resulted from the Employment Contracts Act 30 years ago wasn’t an accident - it was intentional - and he went on to say (quote) “Today we turn that around”. And so the current Labour Government is saying today that it has delivered on its promise to do something to improve a lot of the people Workplace Relations Minister Michael Woods described in Parliament last night as being “the most vulnerable” - and he included in those the essential workers who kept things running during Covid. National and ACT oppose the Fair Pay Agreements big time. Because of the numbers in the House, they knew they couldn’t stop the legislation - but both parties say if they are in Government after next year’s election, they’ll be getting rid of Fair Pay Agreements. One of National’s main beefs is that employers will be forced to negotiate an industry-wide agreement if 10 per cent of people working in a particular sector want to start bargaining or negotiations. So, let’s say you work at Pak‘nSave - if 10 per cent of all the people who work in supermarkets around the country get together and decide they want to negotiate a pay agreement for the lot of you - then your supermarket and all the other supermarkets will have to come to the table and thrash out a deal. The Government is saying that this would ensure fairness. The National Party is saying it would mean mandatory union deals and would make businesses less competitive. The Council of Trade Unions - or CTU - says agreements like this will make it easier for employers to hire and keep staff.Just quietly, it’ll probably be good for business for the unions too if they’re going to suddenly be involved in negotiating agreements that, back in the day, were called “awards”. That was a term I remember from watching the news when I was a kid. There always seemed to be one of those guys from the wharfies unions on the TV banging on about awards. In 2022, we call them Fair Pay Agreements. Back then, they were awards. But, essentially, they’re the same thing. So you can understand why the likes of Business New Zealand and employers aren’t fussed about this at all. And I can understand that - even though I know there will undoubtedly be employers out there who have been quite comfortable screwing people down when it comes to their individual employment agreements. And, for most businesses, this will be complex and for some, it will mean reduced profitability.But for me - I really question the so-called “fairness” of these Fair Pay Agreements when what they will do, is ensure everyone gets paid the same for doing the same job, irrespective of how much effort they put into it. Would you really want to do a genuine hard day’s work, and get paid the same as the slacker you work with who does the absolute bare minimum and always seems to have something wrong with them and “can’t come in today’? I certainly wouldn’t. And this is where I see this whole thing going pear-shaped. If you’ve worked anywhere, you’ll know the sort of person I’m talking about. The one who always seems to be last in, in the morning, and first out the door at the end of the day. The one who says they’d love to help you out, but they’re “just too snowed under, mate”. Under the pump. If you work in retail, maybe you bend over backwards for customers - but this other person you work with is rude and never goes the extra mile. Yes, you could negotiate a pay rise or be rewarded for going above and beyond, but that’s up to your employer. And if your employer is already having to pay everyone extra as a minimum, your employer may not be so keen. Well, under these new Fair Pay Agreements, you may as well just do what the other turkey does because they’ll be getting paid the same as you. Same base pay, same base conditions. And that doesn’t sit well with me, at all. This article has been edited. An earlier version didn’t clearly state that Fair Pay Agreements set a minimum standard for pay and conditions and allow for performance-based rises. Thu, 27 Oct 2022 01:50:23 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-give-zac-guildford-his-first-division-second-chance/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-give-zac-guildford-his-first-division-second-chance/ There’s a bit of you-know-what going down at the Woodend Rugby Club, over whether or not former All Black Zac Guildford should be taken on as a coach. Or “troubled” former All Black Zac Guildford - as pretty much every news article about the guy describes him. Which I think is putting it mildly. Someone who has consistently struggled with alcohol and gambling addictions; who is currently on home detention after stealing $40k from his grandfather and $60k from a friend; and who has admitted using methamphetamine and cocaine, they’re more than just troubled aren’t they. He also assaulted a woman in 2019 and, remember too, there was also the incident in Rarotonga back in 2011 when he got boozed-up, ran into a bar naked and assaulted a couple of people. And he’s been so addicted to gambling, he even sold his 2011 Rugby World Cup medal to get a few thousand bucks. How sad must that transaction have been? And it seems, doesn’t it, that every time Zac Guildford has screwed-up there’s been someone willing to give him a second chance. But, to be fair, he seems to blow it every time. And that’s why, as some people involved with Woodend Rugby are concerned, Zac Guildford is not only troubled - he is trouble full-stop - and they don’t want the club taking him on as a coach. Guildford himself has confirmed to us today that he’s been in talks with the club about coaching the club’s Division 1 team, but nothing’s been confirmed yet. A news report out today saying two club committee members have quit over it and some sponsors aren’t happy either. According to the report I’ve seen, his potential appointment was announced at the club prizegiving at the weekend. And so the people who aren’t happy about it are saying they’re not happy because it’s all been done without the club going through the proper process. Apparently, no vote has been taken at committee level - and so one of the committee members who has reportedly quit is saying they’ve had a gutsful of the club not following the proper procedures. But I think that’s just code for saying they don’t want Guildford. The word is too that, even though there’s been no vote, the majority of committee members don’t want him coaching either. So you can imagine what it must’ve been like at the weekend when everyone turned up at the prizegiving and the “big announcement” was made. Was that a pin dropping that I just heard? Now I’m no athlete, but one thing I’ve learned, especially as all our kids have been involved in some pretty intense sporting activities, what I’ve learned from that is at whatever level - you need a coach you can rely on. Someone you know is going to turn up at training, who’s going to turn up on match day or race day almost before everybody else. And I’ve got to say that, based on what I’ve seen and heard about Zac Guildford, I think I would really struggle being confident that he would turn up at training, would turn up on game day on time, wouldn’t go AWOL - and that’s just the coaching stuff. What about trusting that he wouldn’t turn up at some club event off his nut or help himself to money at the clubrooms or defraud the club in some other way? Because, as we know, these are all things he’s shown he’s capable of. BUT, let’s think about it this way too. Unlike someone else who’s been in the news this week, Zac Guildford doesn’t hide his shortcomings. He’s done some pretty crappy things - I’m not sure how much lower you could get than stealing $40,000 from your grandfather. But he’s never pretended to be a pillar of society, when he isn’t. Unlike our friend from the Bay of Plenty who we’ve been talking about this week. And yes, he’s been given plenty of chances to turn his life around. But let’s not forget that this is someone who grew up with gambling and drinking all around him. When he was in court earlier this year for stealing the money from his grandfather and a friend, a member of his family spoke about Trackside TV being on 24/7 and addictions being normalised. Here’s a quote from one of Zac’s uncles: “From a very young age, the law for us was to gamble, watch the horses, and drink alcohol as a family.” I’m not saying that excuses him from any of the appalling things he’s done. But it provides a bit of context. And it’s why I think the people at the Woodend Rugby Club who aren’t happy about Guildford being signed on as coach of the Division 1 team, need to pull their heads in and think about the opportunity they have. I’m not talking about the opportunity for Zac himself. I’m talking about the opportunity the club has to teach the kids involved in the club, especially, that just because someone stuffs things up - it doesn't mean they shouldn’t be given another chance. It could go pear-shaped. Of course it could. But it could also be something that Woodend Rugby Club could be extremely proud of. And it could be a lesson for us all, that even someone like Zac Guildford - who has let himself and other people down time-and-time again - even someone like him, can eventually turn their life around. Being part of something like that, would surely beat winning any trophy or club title. Surely. Thu, 11 Aug 2022 00:42:29 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-at-last-a-cap-on-water-bottling-madness/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-at-last-a-cap-on-water-bottling-madness/ How nuts was it that two water bottling companies were able to access some old industrial land north of Christchurch, and use the age-old water consents that went with the properties to take billions of litres of aquifer water, stick it in plastic bottles and ship it overseas for people to drink? And not pay a single cent for the privilege. 8.8 billion litres a year - or 24 million litres a day. It was absolute nuts. And yesterday, the Court of Appeal said it was nuts too. And it didn’t stop there. It said Environment Canterbury regional council (ECAN) cocked-up big time by allowing it to happen back in 2017. “Cocked up big time” wasn’t exactly the terminology the Court of Appeal used. I don’t think it used the word “nuts” either. But that was the gist of it. The whole thing was nuts. And ECAN cocked up. And I couldn’t agree more. It’s exactly what the thousands of people who marched through the streets of Christchurch back in 2019 thought. And it’s exactly what the Aotearoa Water Action group - which started the whole legal challenge - thought too. Quite rightly, it said that ECAN had acted unlawfully when it cobbled together existing water consents originally issued for meat processing and wool scouring operations on the two sites, so that the water bottlers could help themselves to water from Christchurch’s aquifers. They didn’t even publicly notify it. So the legal challenge started in the High Court but didn’t get anywhere so the Aotearoa Water Action group went to the Court of Appeal which announced yesterday that it thought what ECAN did was definitely unlawful, and it should have required the companies to apply for a fresh consent because water bottling was not what the original consents were intended for. The tricky thing is, that would have gone nowhere because all the aquifer water that ECAN is responsible for is fully allocated - so it effectively rorted its own system. Absolutely shameful. So take that ECAN. And take that Cloud Ocean Water and Rapaki Natural Resources, the two companies involved. Who may all yet appeal the ruling and they’re being pretty tight-lipped on that front at the moment, which isn’t surprising given the decision only came out yesterday. But, for now anyway, let’s give the thumbs up to the Court of Appeal and celebrate the fact that common sense seems to be prevailing. And your version of common sense is probably different from the next person’s. You might think the Court of Appeal’s decision is common sense because you’re opposed to anyone making money out of a natural resource like water. You might think it’s common sense because we were being ripped off by the bottlers who weren’t paying anything for the water. Maybe you were brassed off with ECAN for rorting its own system and allowing the bottling to go-ahead. Or maybe you were just anti the whole thing because it was foreigners making the money out of it. Whatever your reason for opposing what was going on, it should never have happened. I’ve already seen comments today asking why people were so outraged and opposed to the Chinese water bottlers taking aquifer water and selling it, but weren’t so upset about farmers all around Canterbury taking truckloads of water and spraying it on their paddocks. I’ve heard it said that the amount of water used to irrigate just four dairy farms in Canterbury over 12 months, is about the same amount used by the whole of Christchurch city every year.  So it’s probably quite fair to ask why people were so anti-water bottling, but not so concerned about irrigation. Because farmers don’t pay anything for the water, do they? They invest a whole lot of money into the irrigation schemes and the equipment needed to get the water onto the paddocks - but, just like the water bottlers, they don’t pay a cent for the water. So is it time to put a price on water? If you want to bottle water - you’ve got to pay for it. If you want to irrigate your farm - you’ve got to pay for it. I wouldn’t be in favour of charging farmers for water. For the simple reason that they already invest heavily to get the water where it’s needed. And why would you burden farmers with more costs when - unlike the Chinese water bottlers - the money our farmers make generally stays here in New Zealand. And that’s why I’m delighted with the Court of Appeal’s decision. I wouldn't care whether the bottlers were from China, Timbuktu …anywhere. The fact that they paid nothing and New Zealand saw none of the profits, was ridiculous, and ECAN should be ashamed for allowing it to happen. Thu, 21 Jul 2022 01:06:52 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-police-crackdown-more-likely-to-be-a-letdown/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-police-crackdown-more-likely-to-be-a-letdown/ When Chris Hipkins took over as Police Minister from Poto Williams a month ago, I thought to myself ‘mmmm, he knows how to get stuff done but I don’t know if he’s the rottweiler some people think we need a Police Minister to be’. Which was the problem with Poto wasn’t it? She was seen as a pushover - which didn’t do much either for what some people thought of the Police Commissioner. And when people looked at the two together they came away with the impression that the Government is soft on crime. So yesterday, as far Chris Hipkins’ mild-mannered standards go, he well and truly came out firing with what’s been described in the media as a Government crack-down on gangs. I know its Chris Hipkins but when I saw him on the news last night, I was struck by how even the boy-next-door was such a contrast to his predecessor who, let’s face it, was a disaster as Police Minister. But old Heatgun Hipkins, if we had Crusher Collins I think the Government’s going to need a similar sort of nickname for Hipkins, old Heatgun was talking tough yesterday. “We want to hit gangs where it hurts,” was what he said. That was echoed by Justice Minister Kiri Allan who was riding shotgun at the announcement yesterday. She said: “Hitting them where it hurts. We’re going after guns, vehicles and cash.” Which took me right back to the old Hill Street Blues TV cop show. Remember that one? And what would the cop in charge say every morning? “Let’s be careful out there”. That’s what Heatgun Hipkins was like yesterday. So I think we can agree that the Government has certainly upped the tough talking, at least, and is putting a few more tools in the police and justice toolkits to try and do something to tackle what has been an increase in gang membership and an increase in gang tensions. The things they’re talking about are: • New warrant and search powers to find and seize weapons from gang members involved in gang conflict • Expanding the range of offences where police can seize and impound cars, motorbikes and other vehicles • Up to five years prison for a new offence of discharging a gun with intent to intimidate • Seizing cash worth more than $10,000 if it looks like it might have come from some form of criminal activity • Adding watches, jewellery, precious metals and stones; motor vehicles and boats to the list of high value goods that can’t be sold for cash • And doing more to sort out youth crime and reduce offending National, of course, is saying they don’t go far enough and the Greens are saying it’s just a knee-jerk reaction to try and get Labour up in the polls. This is no revelation. Of course what the Government announced yesterday is designed to get more brownie points from voters. Just like all the banging on National’s been doing about getting tough on gangs, politicians don’t do all this for us, they do it for themselves. Nevertheless, it seems life is going to get a bit more difficult for the gangs. And I can’t imagine anyone, other than the gangs themselves, thinking that’s a bad thing. But is it going to be enough to convince people that the Government isn’t soft on crime? More importantly, is it going to stop people wanting to join gangs? I don’t think it is. Is what the Government announced yesterday going to see more gang members in court and punished for their illegal activity? I don’t think it is because you can have all the rules and laws you want, but if the Police aren’t resourced adequately to enforce the laws then they’re useless, aren’t they? Which is why people like gang expert Jarrod Gilbert are saying that it’s a good thing the Government hasn’t gone further and banned gang patches. Which is one of the things National’s been demanding. It might sound good but do you really think the Police would have the time and resources to enforce it? Of course not. And, for me, that’s the nub of this whole thing. Politicians have forever been making laws that can’t be enforced. And if the Government was really serious about “hitting the gangs where it hurts” then it would have announced at the same time that it was also investing heavily in building up our police force. So, my take on it is that the Government is doing a lot of huffing and puffing but I think this so-called “crackdown” is more likely to be a let-down. Thu, 14 Jul 2022 01:22:20 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-trevor-mallard-is-anything-but-a-diplomat/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-trevor-mallard-is-anything-but-a-diplomat/ We probably all know - or, at least, know of - someone who has been an absolute shocker at their job, but somehow they’ve gone on to get themselves an even better job somewhere else. They might’ve been a manager who was a real bully or played favourites or was a complete control freak; or they might’ve been a fellow worker who had no idea what they were doing, complained all the time, and were a general pain in the backside. They might’ve even driven people out of the place with their behaviour. Either way, not the sort of person you would imagine moving on to a better job. But, somehow, they do and you’re left scratching your head and asking yourself ‘how the hell did that happen?’. And that’s how I’m feeling about Trevor Mallard. As announced yesterday, he is retiring from Parliament and his current role as Speaker of the House, to become New Zealand’s Ambassador in Ireland. In fact, I’m not just scratching my head. I think it’s outrageous that the Prime Minister has given him such a cushy role, when we all know he is a complete plonker. Which is being generous really. Because he’s just awful. Well, that’s my honest opinion - anyway. And it wasn’t that long ago that I was saying that I thought he’d lost the plot. I wasn’t on my own thinking that. And I don’t feel any differently today. Who can forget the ridiculous way he behaved during the big protest at Parliament earlier this year. Turning the sprinklers on the protesters - even though it was pouring with rain anyway - and blasting the Barry Manilow songs over the loud speakers. An absolute embarrassment. It was cringing. Behaving that way, as the most senior person not just in Parliament but at Parliament. In charge of pretty much everything, and there he was cranking up the sprinklers and blasting the music. Which was bad enough on its own but let’s not forget either the time he accused someone working at Parliament of rape - and then had to backtrack and reach a legal settlement over it all. But still couldn’t keep his mouth shut and went on to use parliamentary privilege to say that the person had committed a sexual assault. Judith Collins once said he was the biggest bully she had ever seen in Parliament. And I can’t argue with that. I saw him on TV the other week when he appeared before a select committee at Parliament and he was grilled about his handling of the anti-mandate protest. From what I saw, I thought he was menacing towards the MPs asking the tough questions. And I thought he was just a bully-boy the way he barged through journalists when he left the meeting room. Just an awful, awful person - in my honest opinion. And others seem to think the same way. It was only last week that a poll done for TVNZ found that only 17 percent of people approved of the way he’s been performing as Speaker. But, despite the way he’s behaved, despite what the people who pay his salary think of his performance (that us taxpayers I’m talking about), and despite the things he’s done and the misery he’s caused, Trevor Mallard is moving on to be our diplomat in Ireland. I looked up a definition of diplomat and this is what I found. A diplomat is “a person who can deal with others in a sensitive and tactful way”. Sensitive. Tactful. Trevor Mallard. I don’t think so. Yet, the Prime Minister thinks he’s the man for the job in Ireland and so he’s off. If there’s a silver lining in all of this, it’s the fact that we won’t have to put up with him any longer. And let’s hope his successor is nowhere near the national embarrassment Mallard has been. But it is galling, isn’t it, that someone like him can be rewarded in this way. In fact, it’s not just galling - it is outrageous. Tue, 14 Jun 2022 01:10:01 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-are-we-too-quick-to-be-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-are-we-too-quick-to-be-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people/ If you started the week not knowing the name Simon Henry, you probably know it now. He’s the rich-lister who is the founder and chief executive of chemicals company DGL Group who is under fire - quite rightfully, might I add - for saying some appalling things about Nadia Lim, whose name I’m guessing you did know at the start of the week. Masterchef winner and judge, co-founder of My Food Bag, creator of the lockdown TV cooking show, organic farmer - she’s done and is doing a whole lot of things. And she is somewhat reluctantly in the news today because of what Simon Henry said about her in a media interview - calling her “Eurasian fluff”. He was talking about My Food Bag not performing well since it listed on the sharemarket with a journalist from the National Business Review. Here’s what he had to say about the company’s sharemarket prospectus document. "When you've got Nadia Lim, when you've got a little bit of Eurasian fluff in the middle of your prospectus with a blouse unbuttoned showing some cleavage, and that's what it takes to sell your script, then you know you're in trouble." And he suggested that Nadia Lim uses her "sensuality" to sell her products. He said she was "a TV celebrity showing off her sensuality". By the way, just for clarification, the only picture of Nadia Lim in the My Food Bag prospectus has her standing around a barbecue in a casual v-necked camisole top with jeans. The top has no buttons. So he’s talking out of his backside, or his rear cleavage. I think I said this yesterday, I think (in my honest opinion) that Simon Henry has shown himself to be a complete turkey with these comments. And I don’t appear to be alone. The response has been pretty swift. KiwiSaver provider Kiwi Wealth has added Henry’s company, DGL Group, to its investment exclusions list. So Kiwi Wealth has blacklisted it. Nadia Lim herself has said overnight that she didn’t want to get involved in this whole thing but that changed on Wednesday night when she found herself sitting opposite a young flight attendant on a trip from Christchurch to Queenstown. Here’s what Nadia Lim said about that overnight on social media: "I smiled at her and she smiled back at me and I actually felt a little bit emotional. She was a young woman of Asian descent, like myself, and I thought 'How do you feel when you hear things like that? Or read things like that?'" And what she’s commenting on there, in particular, is Simon Henry’s description of her as “a bit of Eurasian fluff”. I don’t think I’ve heard anyone refer to a woman as a “bit of fluff” since the 1990s. In fact, I’ll tell you the year - it was 1997 and I was in London and this media company guy I was working for was going on about “bits of fluff”. So these comments from Simon Henry in 2022 feels very old-school to me and, in my opinion, he deserves everything that’s coming to him. But I know there will be others too who think there’s nothing wrong with what he said. They’ll look at the fact that he’s successful and rich and probably be quite willing to turn a blind eye, because….well, because he’s successful and rich. Yes, he’s successful (whatever that means). And yes, he is rich. He’s also shown himself through these comments to be an arrogant turkey. There are a lot of arrogant turkeys around, I know. He’s not alone. But most of them limit their sexism and misogyny to drinks with the boys on Friday night. That doesn’t excuse it. But when someone tells a reporter to quote them, and then goes on to say what Simon Henry said about Nadia Lim - and not just Nadia Lim, about all women of Asian descent - then that takes it to next-level ignorance and arrogance. Now, even though I’m condemning Henry, it does raise the question whether these types of things get blown out of proportion these days due to the simple fact that, as a society, we are very quick to get outraged on behalf of other people. As Nadia Lim herself has said, she didn’t want to get involved but then felt she had to when she realised how other women of Asian descent might be impacted by Simon Henry’s big mouth. So if she wasn’t going to make a noise about it, why am I? Why has Kiwi Wealth got involved and blacklisted Henry’s company? Simon Henry wasn’t having a go at me. He wasn’t having a go at Kiwi Wealth. Nevertheless, we are outraged - on behalf of Nadia Lim. Do you think we are too quick to be offended on behalf of other people these days, and is that a threat to free speech? Or, do you think we do need to call out people when they say offensive things - even if they're not targeted at us or affect us? I say we definitely do. Fri, 06 May 2022 00:36:47 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-hey-trevor-stop-ganging-up-on-the-77-year-old/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-hey-trevor-stop-ganging-up-on-the-77-year-old/ Has anyone checked whether Trevor Mallard has been wearing any blue or red bandanas recently?  In case you don’t know, blue is Black Power and red is the Mongrel Mob. Or, if you’re in America, blue is the Crips and red is the Bloods.  The reason I ask this is that the Police are apparently planning some sort of crackdown on gangs – and one of the things they’re going to be targeting is intimidating behaviour.  And I reckon if it’s going to have any hope in hell of working, they’re going to have to start at the very top and crackdown on the Chief Intimidator himself, the Honourable Trevor Mallard, Speaker of the House.  Because, as we’ve been hearing in the news, he’s been doing some weird things lately.   Irrigating the lawns – even though it’s raining – and even though he’s got guests camping outside.  Playing music loudly at night. All night. Not inside – but outside.  Real intimidating stuff.  But now, he’s gone above and beyond and he’s picking on a poor-old 77-year-old retired man who is facing the prospect of not being allowed to go to the place he loves for the next two years.  A place this 77-year-old retired man has been going to since 1979. 43 years. And now, he’s been told he’s been trespassed for two years and to stay away.  You imagine being that 77-year-old retired man. You’ve paid your taxes. You’ve always had a smile on your dial – even when you’ve fallen out with your mates or been given the boot by your boss.  You’ve always made sure that you’re dressed up to the nines and you certainly haven’t let yourself go. The way you’ve looked after your hair is a real credit and has been an inspiration for silver foxes up and down the country.  You imagine being that 77-year-old retired man who, when you discovered you were getting more of the pension than you were entitled to, you paid it all back. It was nearly $20,000 – but you paid it back. All of it.  You’ve always been the life and soul of the party. Sometimes you’ve kept us waiting – but you’ve always eventually turned up.  And like every New Zealander worth their salt, you’ve stood up for this place. You’ve put this country first. New Zealand First – that’s what you’ve always said. New Zealand first.  And even though you’re 77, and probably entitled to take things a bit easier, sitting in front of the TV all day is not for you.  “Make sure you stay curious and try to learn new things”. That’s what the ageing experts say you should be doing – even when you get to 77. And that’s exactly what you’ve done. But the old bully boy’s telling you off for it.  You saw something was going on at the place you’ve been going to day-in, day-out for the past 43 years – the place you love. And so, you put your suit on, put a comb and some Brylcreem through your hair, and went down there and had a chat with a few people. You were curious and active – a poster boy for old age.  But now, at the age of 77, you’re being told off like a naughty schoolboy.   And who’s the bully boy who’s told you off? It’s old Trevor again – waving the big stick yet again. Old Trevor – irrigation enthusiast and Barry Manilow fan.  And he’s told you, Winston Raymond Peters, that you are banned from going to Parliament for two years. And do you know what? I think old Trevor has well-and-truly lost it this time.  And he’s not just picking on you Winston Raymond Peters. He’s told another ex-MP – Matt King – that he’s trespassed from Parliament for two years.  Former ACT MP Stephen Franks is another one too.  All were banned for two years because they had the gall to turn up to the anti-mandate protest at Parliament.  I said it at the time when he used the sprinklers on the protesters, that Trevor Mallard was a national embarrassment.  But this latest behaviour takes it to the next level, doesn’t it?   And if Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern doesn’t sack Trevor Mallard from the Speaker role ASAP, then I think she will run an even greater risk of becoming a 43-year-old retired politician in a year or so’s time.  As far as I’m concerned, Trevor Mallard’s goose is cooked and he has to go.  Wed, 04 May 2022 01:06:08 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-wealth-tax-would-be-a-waste-of-time/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-wealth-tax-would-be-a-waste-of-time/ It’s often said that marketing plays on people’s fears. You know what I’m talking about - things like those ads on TV that talk about the house being full of bacteria we can’t see and if we really want to be good parents and keep our family safe we should be spraying this or spraying that on every surface every five minutes. Create the fear and present the solution. All in 30 seconds. Elections are the same. Politicians love to get us all worried about something. Even better if they can get us worried about a whole lot of things. Think back to the last election when some voters were apparently so terrified about the Greens getting into government that, instead of voting for National like they normally would, they voted for Labour which, as we know, walked away on election night with a landslide victory. And so we have it that, more than a year away from the next election, some political parties are already trying to get us all scaredey-cat about taxation. It’s come to something of a head in the past 24 hours after Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern got herself well-and-truly tied up in knots yesterday when she was interviewed about taxation. She was asked if she stood by the reassurance she gave back in 2020 that a wealth tax would not be introduced while she was Prime Minister or, whether she had gone back on that and Labour would be including a wealth tax in its policies for next year’s election. Even if you’d wanted to believe her, she was pretty unconvincing - dancing on the head of a pin as politicians always do - going on about the need to review taxes and work out whether everyone is paying as much tax as they should. And then going on to say that Labour hasn’t even worked out its tax policy for next year’s election. As I say, pretty unconvincing. And, not surprisingly, it’s been interpreted - and portrayed by some - that she’s about to do, or has done, some sort of U-turn on her previous reassurances that a wealth tax will not happen “on my watch”. The National Party and the ACT Party have jumped in boots-and-all because the Prime Minister has given them the perfect opportunity to do what politicians do best. They love us being scared about anything and everything, because that’s how elections are won and lost. “If you’re not scared about this, you should be. And then, once I’ve convinced you to be scared about it, vote for me - because you won’t need to be scared anymore’. And so today it’s taxation and, in particular, whether or not Labour has plans to introduce a wealth tax. There were two interviews on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning - one after the other - that I thought highlighted a problem and delivered a potential solution. The problem was the lack of money in this country to get our infrastructure up to scratch. The potential solution was the wealth tax idea. And, on the face of it, I thought ‘yeah, more revenue for the government, more money to spend on infrastructure’. But then I read of a report by the OECD done back in 2018 which said wealth taxes do not collect as much revenue as you might think, because property values can go down, and people go to great efforts to avoid them. The OECD wasn’t making this up, it said this because it’s seen it happening in countries that already have wealth taxes. Another issue too pointed out by the OECD is you can be rich on paper, let’s say via having a highly-valued house, but that doesn’t mean you have a truckload of money to splash around. And so that’s why I think introducing a wealth tax here in New Zealand would just be virtue-signalling, and the level of bureaucracy that would be required to make it work, and the effort that would have to go into it wouldn’t be worth the return the government might get. Put simply, I think it would be a waste of time. Tue, 03 May 2022 02:54:10 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-dont-just-blame-the-current-government-for-rising-crime/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-dont-just-blame-the-current-government-for-rising-crime/ The Government is soft on crime. Two people are in the news today saying that. One is National Party leader Christopher Luxon. The other is retailer Christine Davis whose shop was robbed twice last week. She’s had a gutsful and is pointing the finger at the Government. On Mike Hosking’s show this morning, she made the claim that since Labour came into government, retail crime has gone through the roof. She’s saying it’s a disgrace. She says we’re not seeing the police as much as we used to and she’s had enough. I can fully understand where she’s coming from. But I don’t agree with her that it's just the current government’s fault. Just like I don’t agree with Christopher Luxon when he says it’s all the fault of the current government. I’ll explain what I mean but, first, did you see the security camera footage of that ram raid at the mall up in Auckland? It was on the TV news last night and it’s been all over the internet. That was an absolute shocker. It was at the Ormiston Shopping Centre in east Auckland, in the early hours of yesterday morning. Three cars were driven through the entrances to the mall and about eight people could be seen on the footage running around nicking stuff while the cars raced around the mall. From what I saw on the news, they weren’t mucking around and it was just so weird seeing cars driven inside a mall like that. Not to mention incredibly dangerous. As the mall people said, it was just so lucky the cleaners weren’t there at the time because it could’ve been disastrous. Now I know ram raids have been happening for years here in New Zealand - I remember being woken up by a hell of a noise one night when I was living in Wellington years ago, looking out the window and seeing a car inside a bottle shop across the road and thieves helping themselves. But when did we become a country where ram raids aren’t out of the usual and where they’re taken to the next level and we have turkeys like the ones involved in this thing up in Auckland thinking ‘we’ll just go down to the mall, drive through the locked doors and take whatever we want’? When did that happen? Well, according to Christine Davis - who was the retailer talking on Hosking’s show this morning - it started happening when Labour came into government. And she’s saying today that these things are happening simply because Labour is soft on crime. The Government’s response to that is that it’s put 1400 extra police on the beat since it’s been government and so it can’t possibly be soft on crime. Not guilty, your honour! National’s police spokesperson Mark Mitchell was also on with Hosking this morning. He said frontline police are struggling to cope because people who should be locked up are being let back onto the streets, and because crims know that the police pursuit policy means the cops won’t chase them and chase them and chase them until they get them - and so they’re getting more and more brazen. And he’s not wrong there, is he? Because these ram raids are exactly that, aren’t they? They are just brazen. I can’t even imagine entertaining the idea of driving a car through the front door of a mall. Can’t imagine it. But if I did think about it, even for a minute or two, the police pursuit policy or the hopeless Police Minister or the overworked police officers wouldn’t come into the equation. I would just be driven by my greed and desperation - and that greed and desperation would not just be the fault of the current government. It would be the fault of a justice system which seems, time and time again, to be stacked against the victims of crime. Just today, there’s a story in the news about a 19-year-old who raped and abused girls and women at parties being sentenced to a year’s home detention. There’s another one about a woman who stole $1 million from her employers being released from prison after serving less than half her jail sentence. That’s the justice system. Not the current government. What about the scores of people kicked out of their state houses because the previous National government thought it would be good for the finances not to have all those houses on the books? That’s not Labour’s fault. And what about the fact that kids from a very young age these days are so materialistic, and having the latest shoes worth hundreds and hundreds of dollars, and the latest iPhones worth thousands of dollars, seems to be the Holy Grail. What about that? That we’ve just let the gangster culture permeate everything to the point where if you can’t afford to live like the rappers in the videos, you’ve gotta nick the stuff you need to live like the gangsters in the videos. And you’ve got to behave like the gangsters in the videos - even if that means driving a car through the front door of a mall at one in the morning and just taking whatever you want. You can’t blame the government for that, can you? Really? This situation we find ourselves in here in New Zealand in 2022 is not about the government-of-the-day getting soft, it’s about society getting hard. Selling off our state houses, creating demand for useless stuff that most of us can’t afford, and waking-up one day and wondering why it’s gone so pear-shaped. Wed, 27 Apr 2022 00:33:01 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-we-are-sitting-ducks-in-the-south-island/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-we-are-sitting-ducks-in-the-south-island/ I’m feeling for everyone in the South Island as we watch what's happening in the North Island and hear the experts tell us it's only a matter of time before Delta makes its way here. I think yesterday was probably one of the most, if not the most, disturbing day during this whole pandemic. Because we had the news about the 39 new cases in Auckland and Waikato; we had the news about the man in his 50s who died in hospital from COVID; and we had, what appeared to be, a government sitting and waiting to see what happens next. And I think for the first time since the pandemic began last year, we also had people other than the Government talking about tighter restrictions. Waipa district mayor Jim Mylchreest, for example, said using roads as borders is difficult because there are all manner of roads snaking in and out of areas, so it’s not really effective. You can imagine it - there’s a checkpoint on the main drag, but there’s bound to be a back road somewhere, and you can go wherever you want.  So when you’ve got no clear steer coming from the Government, there will be no shortage of potential solutions being offered up. Such as my idea that we shut down movement of people between North Island and South Island until as many of us as possible here in the south have been fully vaccinated. We have been COVID-free for months but, as the experts are pointing out, if Delta can cross the Tasman, it will get across Cook Strait. Siouxsie Wiles is one of them. She says everywhere is vulnerable, especially places with limited access to hospital care. Which has been an issue in the South Island, particularly, ever since health funding started to be based on population levels. This goes back to the 1990s, if not earlier. And Christchurch intensive care specialist Geoff Shaw is saying there is real concern throughout the South Island about hospitals getting overwhelmed. GPs are concerned too. So we can’t wait. And that’s why I think that the border between the North Island and the South Island should be closed as soon as possible, with only essential health, police, military and supply chain workers allowed to travel between the islands. It would only be re-opened once 90 per cent of those of us here in the South Island who are eligible for the vaccine (that’s anyone over the age of 12) have had both of our COVID jabs. The South Island is an asset in New Zealand’s pandemic response.  Its COVID-free status means our hospitals aren’t over-run and we are in the position where we can send medical staff to Auckland to help out. This is happening on a daily basis at the moment.  Our businesses are also operating at higher levels than businesses in the north, and generating revenue for the Government through the tax take. This is an asset worth protecting. So, how long might we shut ourselves off from the North Island? Well, that would depend on how long it took to get to that 90 per cent vaccination rate. The looming Christmas holidays would be a great motivator, wouldn’t they? But, irrespective of how long it would take, closing the border between the North Island and South Island has to be up for discussion because, at the moment, we are sitting ducks. Thu, 07 Oct 2021 02:51:03 Z