/on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/rss 九一星空无限 Fri, 31 Jan 2025 04:53:43 Z en /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-time-to-end-the-e-scooter-free-ride/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-time-to-end-the-e-scooter-free-ride/ 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.  Thu, 30 Jan 2025 23:51:50 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-banks-vs-fossil-fuels-a-cultural-battleground/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-banks-vs-fossil-fuels-a-cultural-battleground/ 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. Wed, 29 Jan 2025 23:50:25 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-which-assets-to-sell-what-about-these-ones/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-which-assets-to-sell-what-about-these-ones/ Generally speaking, when something isn’t making you any money, you try to get rid of it. That’s in business, especially. And it looks like that’s the approach National might want to take with state assets too. Christopher Luxon says he’s open to it, and I am too. To a point. And maybe not in the way Christopher Luxon is thinking. The Prime Minister is saying that state asset sales are not on the agenda this term - but he’s willing to take it to the next election. But let’s be honest, he’s more than just open to it. Especially when you hear him saying things about “recycling” assets making good sense if you’re not getting an adequate return on your capital. But when I say I’m open to the Government selling-off some of its assets —or our assets— the approach I would want to see taken is a bit different from what most people think of when they hear talk about governments selling assets. Anyone who opposes selling public assets —and these can be assets that are owned by the government but also owned by other outfits like local councils— argue that once something is sold you can’t get it back. Which I get. It’s like finding yourself in a bit of financial strife and selling an old heirloom or something precious to you because you need the money. And then, down the track, you really regret it. Once something’s gone, it’s gone. Which is how some people will be feeling about the PM saying that state asset sales are not on the agenda this term - but he’s open to it and willing to take it to the next election. And he seems to be up for asset sale - like his predecessor, Sir John Key, who said on 九一星空无限talk ZB this morning that, if he needed urgent health care today, he wouldn't give two hoots about who owned the bricks and mortar. And maybe that’s an easy thing for someone with plenty of money behind them to say. But if you put that aside, he’s actually spot on. If something happened to you today, all you would care about is getting the treatment you needed. And, if the government is going to down the track of selling assets, this is what it should focus on. It should be trying to find buyers for all of our hospital buildings. It should be trying to find buyers for all of our state school buildings. It should be selling all of the things that actually suck money away from the key public services that are provided inside those buildings. Because the challenge when it comes to selling anything, is finding buyers. The Christchurch City Council discovered that a few years back when it wanted to sell City Care because it wasn’t making it any money. But I bet that if we put all of our hospitals and schools up for sale —I’m talking here about the bricks and mortar— I reckon the Government would have no problem finding buyers. As former Labour and ACT party politician Richard Prebble puts it in the NZ Herald today: "If we want to be a first world country, then are we making the best use of the Government’s half a trillion dollars plus worth of assets?” And I would argue that owning the bricks and mortar that Sir John Key talked about isn’t the best use of government capital. Owning hospital buildings isn't, nor is owning school buildings. Because who cares who owns the buildings? Tue, 28 Jan 2025 23:32:50 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-planning-for-retirement-in-your-40s-really/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-planning-for-retirement-in-your-40s-really/ What do you think someone in their 40s is thinking about right now?   I can think of a few things, and I bet it’s not retirement. Even though we’re being told today that that’s what someone in their 40s should be thinking about.  But I bet they’re not.  I reckon if someone is in their 40s and they’re a parent with kids at school, they’ll be cursing about all the back-to-school costs. But they’ll probably also be loving the fact that the holidays are pretty much over.  What else might people in their 40s be thinking about right now?  Maybe, with it being January, they might be thinking about trying to get a new job this year. Some of them will be thinking about getting a job full-stop.   If they’re in their 40s and they run a business, they’ll probably be hoping they can get through this year just like they got through last year. They might even be looking at their mates who have a job and get paid a salary and be thinking that working for someone else doesn’t actually look that bad after all.  There will be people in their 40s dealing with relationship break-ups. Some will be moving on to the next one, blending families and all of that.  They’re just some of the things that a person in their 40s might be thinking about right now.  But do you think anyone in their 40s is thinking about their retirement? In fact, not just thinking about it, actually planning for it. How likely do you reckon that is? Very unlikely.  But apparently they should be.    That’s according to the author of a new report out today which says “oh you know how we’ve been telling you that you need to have a million bucks in the bank if you want to have a comfortable retirement? Well, you might not need that much after all.”   In fact, you might even get away with having just $120,000 in the bank.   That’s the “no frills” version of retirement, by the way. If you want the frills, you’re going to need a million.   So where’s this thing today about young people proactively planning and preparing for their golden years coming from?   It’s coming from Massey University’s financial education and research centre, which has looked at spending by people who are retired now, and they've worked out that $120,000 in the bank could be enough for a comfortable “no frills” retirement.   They’ve found that retirees in urban areas spend less than retirees in provincial areas. But they pretty much put that down to things being more expensive in provincial areas and people having to drive more in provincial areas.   But even though they’re saying that $120,000 might do it instead of a million, they say that some other form of income after the age of 65 is needed for a really comfortable retirement.   And this is what Associate Professor Claire Matthews wants people in their 40s to be thinking about right now.   She says the standard of living most people hope to have when they retire requires more than just NZ Super, and that requires long-term thinking and planning.   But I think that kind of talk is unrealistic for the reasons I mentioned earlier. People in their 40s have got enough on their plate without thinking about retirement.   Granted, we are light years ahead from where we were when I began my working life, now that we have KiwiSaver.   In fact, I reckon people closer to my age —I’m 56— I reckon a lot of us are pretty distracted with life too and retirement isn’t really on our radar.   Sure, I’m doing the KiwiSaver contributions each fortnight, but that’s it.   And I’ll be totally honest with you, when it comes to my retirement, I’m probably preferring not to think about it.   Which I know is pretty reckless.    But it’s for the exact same reasons why I think someone in their 40s today won’t be giving too much thought to how life is going to be once they hit 65.   It’s called life. And doing what you have to do in the here and now.    Tue, 28 Jan 2025 00:38:44 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/best-of-2024-john-macdonald-this-is-the-most-pointless-piece-of-road-safety-advice/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/best-of-2024-john-macdonald-this-is-the-most-pointless-piece-of-road-safety-advice/ Do you know what the most pointless piece of road safety advice is? Drive to the conditions.  I get it and it’s well-meaning. But it’s pointless. A waste of breath. Because some people are incapable of doing it.  And it would seem from some of the reports in the past 24 hours about those two buses which went off the road yesterday on the Twizel-Tekapo highway after hitting black ice, that perhaps the drivers of those buses knew nothing about how you should be driving in sub-zero temperatures.   So they either didn’t know how to drive to the conditions - or just didn’t care.   This isn’t a one-off, either, by the way, and, I reckon the time has come for us to stop mucking around with this “drive to the conditions” nonsense and do one of two things.  We either follow the lead of some European countries and make winter tyres mandatory on all vehicles. Or, as soon as we know temperatures are going to be sub-zero where there’s a state highway, we close the road. We don’t wait around until the road is frozen over and it’s too late.  I see the guy in charge of the bus company involved in yesterday’s crashes is disputing any suggestion that they were going too fast.  He would say that, though, wouldn’t he?  It’s not like he’s going to come out and say ‘oh yeah, those muppets I pay to drive my buses have got no idea about driving to the conditions’.  So, instead of relying on some bus company owner in Auckland, I’m going to give more credence to the eyewitness account of a chap by the name of Tony McClelland, who was on the road at the time. I bet he isn’t buying what the bus company guy is saying, either.   He was driving from Christchurch to Omarama. And he’s been in the news saying that the road conditions on that highway yesterday morning were the worst he’s ever seen.  He hit black ice himself near Tekapo Airport, nearly lost control of his van and almost ended up in a ditch. So he called the police and asked them to close the road.  Here’s a quote from what he’s saying: “You're looking at minus-5, minus-4 degrees, foggy conditions - that State Highway should have been closed. No doubt and it wasn't. There's just a big black sign up by the airfield saying 'dangerous conditions, black ice'. That's how people die."   Thankfully, no one did die. One person has serious injuries and two others have moderate injuries. And thank goodness those buses ended-up where they did - off the road and not in the middle of it.  But back to Tony McLelland. Once he’d called the cops, asking them to close the road, he thought about turning back but decided to press-on. But he stuck to 60kph. And it wasn’t long after that that he saw these two buses “flying out of the fog”. That’s what he’s saying.  And here’s how he describes what he saw. "They were not doing 60. They were not doing 80. They were doing at least 100, probably a little bit more."  And he obviously drives that road quite a bit, because he says it’s not uncommon to see drivers hoofing along at 100 kph during winter, when there’s black ice on the road.  But this sort of nutbar driving happens everywhere. Less than two weeks ago, police caught a driver doing 134 kph in icy, foggy conditions on the road to Aoraki/Mt Cook - with the whole family on board.  This was on State Highway 80. It was around minus-3.  The day after that, the police came out with a warning, saying the number of people driving at “horrendous” speeds in winter conditions is appalling.  Over a two-week period, 26 people had been caught doing speeds over 120 kph in icy conditions.   So what happened yesterday isn’t an isolated one-off. It’s happening on an all-too-regular basis and just telling people to “drive to the conditions” is worthy, but lame.  Mon, 30 Dec 2024 20:09:11 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-ending-violence-a-challenge-for-all-of-us/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-ending-violence-a-challenge-for-all-of-us/ If you think the violence action plan announced by the Government yesterday has no relevance to your life - think again.   It’s one of many plans that are part of this overall 25-year strategy to eliminate family violence and sexual violence. The big strategy was launched in 2021, which means it’s got about 22 years to run.   It’s got a big price tag too, the long-term strategy that is. $1.3 billion. And, as part of this latest action plan, the Government’s going to review how the money is being spent to make sure it’s focused and streamlined to make sure that every dollar being spent is making a difference.   As for the goal of eliminating family violence and sexual violence by 2046, I think the harsh reality is that we’ll never eliminate it. But I’m not saying that we shouldn’t bother trying.  I’m sure that if we spoke to someone involved in trying to end violence, they would say that the 25-year strategy is “aspirational”. They’d tell us that it’s something to aim for - which is better than the alternative. Which is doing nothing.  And I’d agree with that. The question, though, is what you do to try and get somewhere towards eliminating violence.  Which is why I said before, if you think the violence action plan announced by the Government yesterday has no relevance to your life - or nothing to do with you - then you need to think again.  The obvious thing you can take from that is that we are all potential victims but also instigators of violence.  You’ll know as well as I do that it’s not just people in certain parts of town who are at risk. Violence is everywhere. There’s violence in houses with kids' bikes and toys outside. There’s violence in houses where the cops turn up every now and then to have a word. But there’s also violence in houses with beautiful hedging and front gates that only open when someone presses a button.  Physical violence, sexual violence, verbal violence, psychological violence.  And if it isn’t you who has experienced some or all of those things. There’s a pretty good chance that someone you know has.  It might be a friend, a relative, or that really friendly neighbour down the street who always seems to be smiling.      That friend, relative, or really friendly neighbour down the street who always seems to be smiling could also be the one being violent behind those closed doors.  Which is why this plan announced yesterday - and the bigger picture strategy that it's part of - will only achieve something if we do our bit.  And when it comes down to it, doing our bit is pretty easy. It isn’t necessarily comfortable or pleasant or convenient. Because, doing our bit to reduce all kinds of violence, requires us to give a damn.  It requires us to listen out for those raised voices across the fence. It requires us to do more than just shrug our shoulders and say “oh they’re at it again”.  It requires us to run the risk of losing friendships or straining family relationships. Because if someone is picked up for acting violently or aggressively, I bet it must be damn embarrassing.  Not to mention the fact that it can be very easy sometimes to convince ourselves that doing something or intervening will only make things worse for the person suffering the violent abuse.   You know: “If I go over there now or if I ring the cops, he’ll just get more fired and up and then she’ll really wear it.”  Or: “If I go over there now or if I ring the cops, there’ll be a rock through our window tonight.”  See what I mean? But I genuinely believe that, if this stuff the Government’s going to do has any chance of succeeding, then we need to stop being a nation of scaredy cats.  And I’m including myself there. Because there have probably been countless times where I’ve turned a blind eye or considered myself too busy - or any of the millions of excuses we can be very good at coming up with to avoid “getting involved”.  “That yelling next door’s been going on for quite some time now - maybe I should poke my head in. But if I don’t get to the supermarket, there’ll be nothing for the lunches.”  Driving home late at night. “That young woman back there looked pretty drunk - she probably shouldn’t be out on her own like that. Maybe I should go back and check on her. But I’ve got an early start. Need to get some sleep.”   Time and time and time again we come up with excuses not to do anything. And that is what needs to change.  For me, that is the one big thing we could all do to really make a difference and to give this 25-year plan to eliminate family violence and sexual violence by 2046 some chance of success.  LISTEN ABOVE Mon, 16 Dec 2024 00:14:47 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-motorcyclist-acc-levies-a-human-rights-issue-really/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-motorcyclist-acc-levies-a-human-rights-issue-really/ Even as a scooter rider, I think these motorcyclists who are kicking up a fuss about their ACC levies going through the roof don’t have a leg to stand on.  It’s quite possible too that the motorbike guys will think that someone who rides a 2-stroke Vespa isn’t even a real motorcyclist.   And they’re free to think that, but even though the ACC levy is going to increase by almost 80% over the next three years, you won’t find me running off to the Human Rights Commission.   I’m not joking there either, because that’s exactly what Motorcycle Advocacy Group New Zealand has done.    So here are the numbers: in three years’ time the ACC levy for anyone who registers a motorbike will be $532. At the moment, it’s $297. So, yes, a truckload more money. It’s an increase of nearly 80%.   And the motorbike people think they’re being unfairly targeted when you consider that the ACC levy for car drivers in that same three-year time period is going to go from $42 a year to $64 for drivers of petrol cars. For EV drivers, the levy will go from $42 a year to $122 a year.   So the motorbike people have lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, saying it isn’t fair that they’ll be paying more than $800 a year when car drivers will only be paying a maximum of $122 a year.   They say it would be much fairer if everyone just paid a flat rate of $140, but I disagree.    In their complaint to the Human Rights Commission, they say that as a minority group of New Zealand citizens, motorcyclists are being unfairly singled-out and the increases will particularly affect people on low incomes who rely on motorbikes as an affordable form of transport.   Here’s a quote from their submission: “Although motorcyclists only account for only 0.26 percent of all ACC accident claims, they bear a disproportionately high financial burden.”   So you look at that stat, and it could be very easy to think that they have a good point. If so few ACC claims are being made by motorcyclists, why are they paying way more than other people on the road? But it’s not about the number of crashes - it’s about the severity of the injuries.   For me, it comes down to the fact that —when you’re on the road on two wheels— you are at so much more risk. And I don’t have a stat to back this up but I bet you that when a motorcyclist is involved in a crash, chances are they require a lot more medical care than someone in a car.   That’s what ACC itself says too – it says the cost to the country of motorcycle accidents is extremely expensive.   This is because of the kinds of injuries someone can get if they’re on a motorbike and get involved in a crash.   And, unfortunately, a lot of the time those crashes aren’t caused by the motorcyclists themselves, they’re caused by muppets in cars and other vehicles.   If you’ve ever ridden a motorbike or a scooter, you’ll know how key it is to make sure that other drivers have seen you. Example: when you’re heading down the road on your motorbike and there’s a car approaching an intersection on your left.   You can never be sure they’ve seen you unless you catch their eye. I do it every time, try to make sure I catch their eye. Always have. Because, quite often, what I find is that the car driver at the intersection is actually looking beyond you.    They’re looking out for larger vehicles and they can completely miss you.   Not that us motorbike and scooter riders are completely innocent, either. I don’t know how many times I’ve given into the temptation —when traffic’s at a standstill— to undertake, and ride through the space to the left of the built-up traffic.   I don’t know how many times I’ve said to myself I’m never doing that again and I have done it again.   Nevertheless, riding a motorbike or a motor scooter is not compulsory. It is a choice. It is a choice that motorcyclists make knowing full well that riding on two-wheels is way riskier than riding on two wheels.   And, because we acknowledge that risk, we also need to accept that if we come to grief, chances are we’re going to need more support from the health system.   And, because of that, we have no reason to complain about paying higher ACC levies than other road users.   Fri, 13 Dec 2024 00:24:20 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-hey-winston-more-fairy-dust-less-bull-dust-please/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-hey-winston-more-fairy-dust-less-bull-dust-please/ When Finance Minister Nicola Willis said “I have delivered” yesterday —after announcing the Government’s so-called plan for the Cook Strait ferries— what she really meant was: “I’ve had a gutsful of this lot fighting over it and I’m out.”   She was throwing her arms in the air because she’s had enough of NZ First and ACT squabbling over what should happen with the ferries, and so she went to the Prime Minister and said, “I’m done”. She said to Christopher Luxon, “if Winston thinks he can do better, then let him do it”.   And, as of yesterday, he is apparently going to do it in his new role as Minister of Rail.   That’s my theory on how things have played out behind the scenes in the lead-up to yesterday, but the evidence is there.   Because it’s obvious, isn’t it, that there’s been a spat in Cabinet. Which is why they’ve managed to do absolutely nothing over the past 12 months.   They’ve been squabbling over whether they should get ferries capable of transporting trains. And they’ve been squabbling over whether the ferry service should continue to be a government-run thing or whether it should be handed over to the private sector, which is what David Seymour wants.   He thinks Bluebridge runs a pretty good operation, so why couldn't another private operator do the same?   But, either way, I reckon even died-in-the-wool National supporters can’t deny that this ferry thing has turned into a real cluster, and what happened yesterday was a circus.   And everyone sitting around that Cabinet table should be hanging their heads in shame.    The big negotiators. The big talkers. It’s come to nothing and it’s going to be the second half of next year before we have any idea what’s going to happen, and 2029 before we see any new ferries. And that’s probably being pretty optimistic.   It was Winston Peters who got the iRex project underway in the first place when he was in government with Labour between 2017 and 2020.   On 九一星空无限talk this morning he admitted that he’s even embarrassed by how it’s all played out, but he's the guy who's going to fix, apparently.   There was no information forthcoming yesterday about the trains being capable of carrying trains or not. Nothing about the cost. And Winston Peters wasn’t budging on that when he spoke on radio today, either.    "Help is on its way," is all he would say.   All this bravado a year after Nicola Willis pulled the plug on the iRex project, saying it had gone way over budget and she was going to come up with a cheaper alternative.   Remember her banging on about getting a Toyota Corolla inter-island ferry service, instead of the Ferrari service she said the iRex project had become?   Well, it was all talk. We don’t even have a Toyota Corolla. We’ve got a Hillman Hunter - and that’s being kind to the clapped out ferries that are servicing Cook Strait at the moment. It’s also being unkind to Hillman Hunters.   And we will be using the Hillman Hunters until at least 2029 because of the Government's inaction.   What a circus. Thu, 12 Dec 2024 00:08:30 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-im-scratching-my-head-over-the-greyhounds-being-scratched/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-im-scratching-my-head-over-the-greyhounds-being-scratched/ I have never had a problem with greyhound racing so you’re not going to hear me singing the Government’s praises for banning the sport.   But I am scratching my head. Because there are so many things about this move by the coalition that just don’t make sense to me.   On one hand, the Government wants more people working, but it’s happy to see about 1,000 private sector jobs go down the gurgler within two years.   It wants to grow the economy, but it’s happy to say goodbye to the $160 million the sport generates every year.   The Government wants to rescue the greyhounds, but it’s happy for livestock to be stuck in a crate and shipped overseas.   Not to mention the fact that horse racing and rodeos are fine, but dogs chasing a lure around the racetrack is a no-no.   Here’s another one: the Government wants to rescue the dogs, but is happy to spend less on school lunches.     See what I mean? It makes absolutely no sense to me. And that’s not just because I’ve never been concerned about greyhound racing.    What this is, is a left-field move by a right-leaning government which I thought Winston Peters did a pretty good job of announcing yesterday. Considering he’s like me and doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with the sport.   Here’s what he said to a select committee earlier this year: "Dogs love racing. Just like horses. Three o'clock in the morning, everybody's quiet and they're out there having a race in the paddock.   "So before we rush off, there are certain instinctive things that animals like, and one of them they will do whether you're going to organise the race or not."   So with so many unanswered questions, this is when the conspiracy theories start to emerge. Especially when you consider that the greyhound racing people themselves had just one hour’s notice before yesterday’s announcement.  So here are a couple of my theories: Winston Peters has done a deal with Cabinet to get more government money pumped into the horse racing industry, in exchange for banning dog racing.   The only potential fly in the ointment with that theory is that some people think this greyhound thing is the so-called thin edge of the wedge and horse racing will be next on the chopping block.   But as long as Winston Peters is breathing, I don’t think we’ll see that happening. And that could be a long time because Winston is the Keith Richards of New Zealand politics, isn’t he?    Another theory of mine as to why this all came so quickly and out of the blue, is that the Government wanted something to keep the greenies happy when it looks like its new ferries aren’t going to be capable of carrying trains.    That might be stretching it a bit, but see what I mean? When a government does something like this, which doesn’t really marry-up to its general way of thinking, we all start to wonder what’s really behind it.   The reaction so far has been at both ends of the spectrum, as you would expect. The greyhound racing people say they are devastated. The SPCA people say they’re ecstatic.   Edward Rennell is chief executive of Greyhound Racing New Zealand. He got the phone call 45 minutes before yesterday’s announcement.   He says the greyhound racing of today is different to the greyhound racing of yesterday.   Yes, 13 dogs died last race season from injuries, but, according to the saving animals people themselves, more racing horses die each year.   And yes, greyhounds probably do have a much more comfortable life when they’re re-homed with humans than they do when they’re racing.   But their animals for goodness sake. And I can’t help feeling that the Government has taken its eye off the ball with this decision.   Especially a government that bangs-on all the time about dealing with the cost-of-living crisis, growing the economy, getting more people into work and sorting out the education system.   It makes absolutely no sense to me.    Wed, 11 Dec 2024 00:28:54 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-our-handling-of-gloriavale-is-a-national-shame/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-our-handling-of-gloriavale-is-a-national-shame/ Surely this is the final straw for Gloriavale. Or, more to the point, surely it’s the final straw for the Government.   Because it is absolutely shameful that it still exists.   This final straw, by the way, is the Court of Appeal ruling announced yesterday that the BNZ has every right to close the community’s bank accounts. For the simple reason that it doesn’t want to do business with them anymore.   And good on the Court of Appeal. More to the point, good on BNZ, which could turn out to be the outfit which does the most for those poor sods stuck there.    It will probably also force the hand of all those businesses on the West Coast that have been quite happy to turn a blind eye, as long as they get to do business with them and make a crust.   Because aside from being a place where kids are treated like slaves, where women are treated like sex slaves and lord knows what else, it is also a large business. A large financial entity which includes two trusts and 13 companies.   And there are many people who have done alright out of Gloriavale. They’ve made money servicing their property and everything else that needs doing at a place like that. But for how much longer? The lawyer representing the people who have escaped the place and who took Gloriavale to court for ripping them off with all the crazy work hours is saying today that Gloriavale should be shut down. He’s putting responsibility for that on the Government. I would like nothing more than for that to happen, but I’m not sure whether the Government actually has any powers to do that. But either way, this has to be one of this country’s greatest embarrassments. That, for years now, concerns about Gloriavale have been raised and —aside from the odd court case where creeps who have committed sex crimes have been hauled before the courts— Gloriavale’s been allowed to just keep on keeping-on. What happened, which led to yesterday’s ruling, is BNZ told Gloriavale that it wanted to close all of its accounts – citing its human rights policy. Gloriavale said ‘you can’t do that’, claiming that if they lost their bank accounts, their whole future would be in jeopardy. So they took the bank to the High Court and managed to get an interim injunction which forced BNZ to keep the accounts open. The idea was that there would be a hearing down the track to decide whether BNZ would be in breach of its contract with Gloriavale if it closed the accounts. But the BNZ wasn't going to sit around and wait for that to happen, and it went to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal considered the case and released its finding yesterday that BNZ has every right to choose who it does and doesn’t do business with. The fact that it has a human rights policy makes it pretty clear, I reckon. Although I bet there will be some people going through BNZ’s list of other clients to see if it’s following its human rights policy to the letter and isn't just singling-out Gloriavale. But I wouldn’t even care if the BNZ was singling-out Gloriavale because that place needs to go. And if shutting down its bank accounts is one way to force it out of existence, then bring it on. Mon, 09 Dec 2024 23:53:21 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-on-why-the-government-should-be-hitting-the-brakes-on-controversial-bootcamps/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-on-why-the-government-should-be-hitting-the-brakes-on-controversial-bootcamps/ The minute the defence force said it didn’t want a bar of the new youth boot camps, the Government should have put the brakes on then and there. It didn’t, though, because it had talked a tough game before the election and like hell it was going to back away from that promise now. But it should have. So, let’s give the Government another chance and let’s see if it’s prepared to stop being so gung-ho now that we know that two of the kids who did a runner from the programme were involved in what appears to be some sort of car-jacking attempt at the weekend. I don’t hold out much hope. But, at the very least, the Government should be pressing pause. It should be pressing pause until it’s worked out whether this is a full-on residential programme or whether it’s still happy to have the kids go in-house for a bit and then send them back to the lives they came from in the first place. Because why would you do that? It should be pressing pause to see if it can get the military involved on a much greater scale. The scale that it talked about before getting into government - without actually talking to the military. It should be pressing pause until it gets Oranga Tamariki properly on-board. Because, let’s face it, boot camps are the last thing OT wants to be involved with. I know that because I have some familiarity with OrangaTamariki and I know that sending kids to boot camps goes completely against its DNA. It should also be pressing pause so that it can get advice from actual experts in this field. Instead of pressing on blindly with something that it knew it could get votes for - but, at this point anyway, looks like something doomed to fail. Not that Phil O’Reilly feels that way. You’ll know him from his time with Business New Zealand. But he was also a member of the welfare advisory group that was in place during the last version of the boot camps under John Key’s government. He said on 九一星空无限talk ZB this morning that boot camps work and he hopes the Government doesn't lose its nerve. If you’re thinking ‘hold on a minute, these two kids weren’tactually under lock and key because they’d finished what’s called the “facility-based” part of the programe and were in family or community placements, and so why do you want to write-off the boot camps because of that?’ If you’re thinking that, then doesn’t the fact that they did this when they were away from the boot camp show you that this idea doesn’t work? Since these two did a runner, and since a third young person who was involved in the programme died in a car crash, the Government has been at great pains to point out that other kids involved have got back into education or found work. Which is great. Don’t get me wrong. But it’s not enough to convince me that the Government should just keep on keeping on without, at the very least, talking to a few experts, trying to get the military more involved, and deciding whether this “community placement” part of the programme is actually a good idea. Mon, 09 Dec 2024 00:30:29 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-heres-one-solution-to-the-power-price-problem/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-heres-one-solution-to-the-power-price-problem/ I’ve been reading a report the OECD released this morning, and it’s occurred to me that, if we want our businesses to survive, there is a very simple thing we could or should be doing to help.   When I say we, I’m meaning the government upfront. But, for this to happen, I think we’d all pretty much have to agree to it as well.   That’s because it would mean giving businesses a better deal on something that all of us have to pay for —whether we own a business or not— and that’s electricity.   So this report I’m talking about is the OECD’s 2024 economic outlook. There was one earlier in the year and Volume 2 came out at 5 o’clock this morning.   It assesses how things are in all of its member countries and one of the key messages that comes through loud and clear is that, if we want to see better economic times here in New Zealand, we need to do something about the electricity market.   You’ll remember how earlier in the year some manufacturing plants shut their doors when wholesale electricity prices went up so much that they were seven times higher than what they’d been 12 months earlier.   This report seems to focus on futures electricity prices – or “forward prices” as they’re also known. Which is when electricity users can sign-up for a set price for their electricity for a certain period of time.   The idea being that big businesses especially know what their power bills are going to be, and they don’t get surprised or caught out by “spot prices” - which are the prices charged for electricity that vary from hour to hour.   So the futures market is a bit like fixing your home mortgage instead of having it on a floating rate.   Interestingly, this OECD report talks about futures electricity prices being a problem but my recollection of the manufacturing closures this year is that they were forced by spot price increases.   Either way, the OECD says electricity prices are a significant problem – which is why I think all businesses, big and small, should get government subsidies for their electricity bills.   In fact, one of the headlines in the report —in bold— says it is essential to tackle high electricity prices.   Here’s a direct quote, and bear in mind that these comments are specific to New Zealand. The report says: “High futures electricity prices for industry will exacerbate productivity problems by weakening business investment, especially in the green and digital transitions, as electricity is a core input for both.”  “The electricity regulators and the government have launched reviews of the electricity market. Despite previous reforms to improve competition, electricity futures prices are high and above the threshold considered sustainable for the economy in the long run.”   The OECD report also says: “These reviews should re-examine separating the generation and retail operations of large electricity companies to boost competition in the futures market and provide industry with more hedging options.”   For me, what it says there about separating the power generation and power selling arms of the big power companies is a no-brainer. And Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones has already been making noises about that.   But can you imagine how long that is going to take? Which is why I think that, in the more immediate term, we should all be subsidising businesses for what they pay in power.   We should be doing that because businesses are vital for the economy. We should be doing it because businesses keep our smaller communities, especially, alive. When small-town businesses go, so do the people.   And not just for the big outfits, we should be subsidising the power costs for every business. More than 90% of all businesses in New Zealand are small-to-medium enterprises.   Now I know the way the tax system works, businesses already get subsidised power in some respects, being able to claim back the GST they pay on their power bills.   But I don’t think that goes far enough.    And I know that business is all about the free market and making a go of things on your own, but when you’ve got the OECD saying today that power prices have been and will continue to be an impediment to economic growth in this country, then you have to listen to that.   More importantly, you have to do something about it. Which is why I would be more than happy for all businesses in New Zealand to have cheaper power bills ASAP through electricity subsidies.  Thu, 05 Dec 2024 23:21:10 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-traffic-lights-arent-the-solution-for-church-corner/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-traffic-lights-arent-the-solution-for-church-corner/ Let me paint you a picture. A picture of over-the-top traffic management.   So you’re heading up Riccarton Road in Christchurch, and you get to the traffic lights near Hanson’s Lane where the Athol McCully garden shop used to be back in the day – just before the Woolworths supermarket.   You get to that intersection and the lights are red. So you stop, of course. And then, when they change to green, you keep going up Riccarton Rd towards the church on the corner.   And you get to that intersection where traffic coming from Sockburn and Main South Rd has to give way to you, if you’re heading west and veering to the right to go up Yaldhurst Rd.   At the moment, you can just cruise straight through because there’s a Give Way sign controlling the drivers coming from Main South Road who want to turn right to get onto Riccarton Rd to, maybe, head all the way into town and head over to Ilam.   But after a decision by the Christchurch City Council yesterday, instead of drivers heading westbound having the automatic right of way and being able to head up Yaldhurst Rd without stopping, they’ll come to a set of traffic lights at that intersection.   So, if you’re heading west up Riccarton Rd, you’ll stop at the lights at Hansen’s Lane and then, potentially, have to stop again a little bit further up the road.   If you’re veering to the left to go down Main South Road there’ll be no change, but if you’re heading up Yaldhurst from Church Corner, there’ll be another set of lights to deal with. Over the top.   It’s over the top because traffic at Church Corner is going to become way more congested than it is now.    It’s over the top because, even though the numbers say it’s one of the most dangerous intersections in the city, does it mean that we need traffic flights at all the spots around town where muppets are just incapable of the simple requirement to give way?   As someone who got in touch about this this morning said, roads in Christchurch seem to be designed to accommodate the 1% who probably shouldn’t be behind the wheel in the first place.   And that’s what we’re seeing here with this Church Corner decision.   In some respects, I should be congratulating the council for finally making an actual decision on what to do at Church Corner, because it’s been a debacle.    The local community board met three times and couldn’t reach agreement. They’d been mulling this one over for about a year. There were accusations of the board being dysfunctional – which I couldn’t argue with because, from what was reported, it was very dysfunctional.   In fact, the way that particular community board dealt with this Church Corner thing was a great advertisement for doing away with these boards altogether.    So they met three times and it seemed to turn into a bunfight every time.   So the community board members threw their hands in the air and said ‘let’s get the council to decide’. And the council, being the council, did the old consultation thing. Then, the council, being the council, threw the idea of traffic lights into the mix.   And, because that hadn’t been an option in the first round of consultation, the council, being the council, did another round asking people what they thought.   42% of people said they wanted the current right hand turn from Main South Road onto Riccarton Road gone, and a pedestrian crossing put in.   59% of people said they wanted traffic lights and some form of pedestrian crossing.   9% said they didn’t have a preference – why you would actively take part in a consultation process and not state a preference, I’ll never know.   If I’d put a submission in, I wouldn’t have voted for any of the options put forward by the council. Instead, I would have told them they’d forgotten about Option D - which was to do nothing.   Because that’s what I honestly think. If you’re going to put-in traffic lights just because a few people can’t be bothered giving way, then you may as well put them everywhere. And turning Church Corner into more of a traffic shambles isn’t the answer.   Wed, 04 Dec 2024 23:57:30 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-the-problem-i-ve-got-with-sevu-reece/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-the-problem-i-ve-got-with-sevu-reece/ In relation to what happened in the Christchurch District Court yesterday, I could be telling you right now how outraged I am about All Black Sevu Reece getting a discharge without conviction for causing damage to a car and a garage after he was kicked out of a party for being a drunken pain in the backside.   I could be thumping the table, going on about All Blacks being role models and how they should know better, and how —if they do break the law— then, because people look up to them, they should face the full consequences of their actions.   I could be banging on right now about Sevu Reece only caring about what he did that night after Cup Day last year because a conviction could mean an end to his rugby career. Or, put limits on it, anyway.    I could be accusing him of crying crocodile tears about his apparent drinking problem. I could be saying: “oh yeah, is the drinking only a problem when it gets you in strife with the cops and you end up in court?”   I could be saying all of those things, but that wouldn’t be strong enough. I’d be sugar-coating it.    Because this is not just about what happened in court yesterday, this is about someone who I think, in my honest opinion, is taking the mickey.   One discharge without conviction I could probably accept. But two? Forget about it mate. And for me, that’s a far bigger deal than what he did on that one particular occasion last year.   I agree with the judge who said yesterday that the consequences of a conviction for that particular offence would far outweigh the seriousness of what he did.    Yes, he was obviously a clown at that party last year, which is why the guy hosting him asked him to leave in the early hours of the morning.   Yes, he was a muppet to get into that car outside the party, accelerate up the driveway and crash into the guy’s garage.   And yes, I get that it had implications for the victims.   And, yes, I accept that the way the justice system works, the judge yesterday could only consider things from the perspective of that one incident.   But the audacity to even ask for a discharge without conviction when he got the exact same thing back in 2018 after admitting a charge of common assault on his then-partner. That’s what I’m thumping the table about.   Because a discharge without conviction is the ultimate ‘get of jail’ card, isn’t it? It’s a ‘don’t even bother going to jail card’.   And it’s something to be respected. I know if I committed an offence and managed to get the same thing, there’d be no second time.   I’m pretty confident that I would see a discharge without conviction for the second chance that it is, and I’m pretty confident that you wouldn’t see me trying to get it a second time around.   That’s because I’m not another arrogant elite sports person who thinks the world revolves around my career. And that’s the problem I’ve got with Sevu Reece.    When he turned up at court yesterday, he wasn’t saying: “I’m a man fronting up and dealing with the consequences of my actions.”   He wasn’t saying: “Look at this kids - this is what it’s all about. This is about being accountable.”   In my honest opinion, what Sevu Rece was saying yesterday was: “I’m a celebrity, get me outta here”.   And that’s exactly what he did. For the second time. And that, for me, speaks volumes about the man.    It says to me that nothing’s changed. That there is still this thinking that if you represent your country in sport or whatever, then you are owed something. That you deserve special treatment.   And, if I had my way, there’s no way the courts would have even entertained the idea of giving him a discharge without conviction.   Because once is lucky enough. Thinking you can get it a second time, is arrogant and taking the you-know-what.   Tue, 03 Dec 2024 23:58:03 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-8-bus-fares-no-thanks/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-8-bus-fares-no-thanks/ There is no way I would pay $8 to ride a bus, but we’re being warned today that that’s what we could end up paying in just three years.   That’s because the Government has told councils right around the country that they need to find more money for public transport, so that they don’t have to rely so much on rates and government money to keep the buses and trains going.   That’s the polite way of putting it. What NZTA is really saying is that the Government isn’t prepared to keep propping up public transport. Which, in the Greater Christchurch area, means massive fare increases are on the cards.   That’s according to Environment Canterbury (ECAN) regional councillor Deon Swiggs. ECAN, of course, has the job of running buses here and he’s saying that if they followed NZTA’s request to the letter, we’d see the $2 bus fares go up to $8 by 2027.   Where he gets that number from is that NZTA is saying to ECAN that it wants 38% of the cost of running the buses coming from private revenue.    I use the buses quite regularly. I was on a bus on Saturday, and I think the bus service in the Greater Christchurch area is, all things considered, actually very good.   But if the fares got up to $8, who would bother? If you work five days a week and get the bus, that’s potentially $90 a week in bus fares. Forget about it.   Which is why I’m hoping ECAN is going to push back big time on this.   We’ve seen the city council push back on directives from Wellington, and the regional council needs to do the same on this one.   Still, maybe it's not surprising when we’ve got a government that thinks it makes sense to increase the speed limit on the Southern Motorway to get us from Rolleston to Christchurch 49 seconds quicker.   A government that wants to press on with oil and gas exploration, and a government that doesn’t like pinging people with fuel taxes, and wants to make it cheaper for people to use their cars.   It might not be surprising, but it’s crazy to think that people would want to —let alone be able to— pay $8 bus fares.   But Transport Minister Simeon Brown doesn’t think it would be nuts.   He says: “Taxpayers and ratepayers have been increasingly subsidising public transport in recent years. We expect councils to find efficiencies to keep these costs down and to look at maximising alternative revenue streams such as advertising on the public transport network.”   The Transport Minister also thinks outfits like ECAN could lease out more space to retailers at bus stations and transport hubs. But as if ECAN is going to put time and effort into selling advertising or leasing out space. All it would do would increase fares. Through the roof.   And if that happened, I would be kissing the bus goodbye.    Tue, 03 Dec 2024 00:08:46 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-can-someone-please-tell-chris-hipkins-hes-dreaming/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-can-someone-please-tell-chris-hipkins-hes-dreaming/ Chris Hipkins  was talking tough at the Labour Party’s annual conference in Christchurch yesterday, saying he is determined to make the current Government a one-term government.    And sounding like he reckons he’s the guy to topple them. Saying the party’s internal polling shows it slightly ahead of National and putting him slightly ahead of Christopher Luxon as preferred Prime Minister.   You’ve got to be confident, especially in politics. But, if Hipkins thinks he can be the next Prime Minister, then he’s dreaming.  I reckon there is only one person capable of winning the election for Labour. Which I'll get to.   But you might have heard Hipkins talking on 九一星空无限talk ZB this morning. Banging-on about the current government.  And this is where, in my opinion, Hipkins is getting it all completely wrong and it's why I think he’s deluded if he thinks he can lead Labour to victory. He goes on all the time about people wanting change at the last election. But he only pays lip service to the idea of the Labour Party, itself, changing. Let alone he himself changing his tune in any way.  And he won’t be the next Prime Minister, especially if he keeps this up, without saying anything about how he’s going to change. And he won't be the next Prime Minister if he doesn't show more humility about where things went wrong when he was in government.  Yes, the leader of the Opposition needs to criticise and point out cock ups and all of that.  But an Opposition leader who got a thrashing at the last election and who is despised by so many people because of the whole COVID thing, then that someone who has their work cut out for them.  And, a year down the track since losing the election last year, Chris Hipkins is showing no signs of changing and no signs of taking any personal responsibility for what happened.  Which is why I’m convinced that Labour can forget about making the current government a one-term government and can forget about winning an election in two years time if it keeps Hipkins in the top job.  Which brings me to the only person I think has any hope in hell of turning things around for the party.  It’s the Labour MP who, whenever he turns up on the Mike Hosking Breakfast filling in for Ginny Andersen, you get National voters texting in saying they want him on their side.  No prizes for guessing who it is I’m talking about. It’s Kieran McAnulty. He is everything Christopher Luxon isn’t. He’s also the type of person that commentators around the world say all left-leaning parties need to align themselves closer to if they want to win elections.  He’s not a chardonnay or a champagne socialist. The way he talks, he sounds like your average Joe in the street.   He’s taken on the job of campaign manager for Labour at the next election. But they’ve given him the wrong job, as far as I’m concerned.   LISTEN ABOVE Mon, 02 Dec 2024 00:18:04 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-the-sting-in-covids-tail-for-our-politicians/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-the-sting-in-covids-tail-for-our-politicians/ Do you think the last government spoiled things for everyone? There’s a question! Let me clarify that a little bit. Do you think the last government spoiled things for every politician from here on in, with the way it handled the COVID-19 pandemic? Because if we believe the COVID report which came out yesterday, then Jacinda Ardern, Grant Robertson, Chris Hipkins etc ruined the party for every other politician - current and future - because of the damage they did when it comes to the public's trust. It says, if a similar pandemic happened now, the public would have less trust in the Government and there would be less willingness to comply with the rules. And I have no doubt that would be the case. I think that trust in the government will never be restored to what it might have been before COVID-19. And there are two reasons why I think that. One is connected to how Labour ran things. The other isn’t. So, yesterday, we knew the report on the first phase of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into New Zealand’s COVID response was being delivered to the Government. What we didn’t know was when it was going to be released to the public. All the talk ahead of yesterday had been that it was going to be next year before it saw the light of day. But the Government probably assumed that trust was going to feature in the report big time and knew that, if it was going to have a chance of restoring that trust, then sitting on this report for months wasn’t the way to go. Not that I think that it will do much good on that front. Because there are two reasons why I don’t see trust in government ever getting back to what it used to be. Let’s start with the one that isn’t related to Labour’s handling of the pandemic. And this is to do with the global political shift we’ve seen in the last few years, where people have said they’ve just had enough of governments telling them how to live their lives. Because they just don’t trust governments and politicians. The other reason why I think that public trust in the government will never be what it used to be here in New Zealand, is specific to the way Labour handled the pandemic response. I think most people would agree that, in the early days at least, they trusted Jacinda Ardern’s government to do the right thing in the face of what was significant global uncertainty. But like most crises, COVID went on and on and on. We had all the different strains of the virus. We had different countries doing things differently. We had people losing patience with all the lockdowns and mask wearing and COVID cards. So we had all that volatility. But the Labour Government just stuck to the plan it started with in the first place. Delivered with a "we know best” attitude. Which is why people stopped trusting them. And I don’t see public trust in our politicians ever being fully restored. Thu, 28 Nov 2024 23:52:21 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-how-i-feel-now-about-the-vaccine-mandates/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-how-i-feel-now-about-the-vaccine-mandates/ ‘If you think I’m a Jacinda Ardern puppet, you’re going to get a huge surprise’.  Who’s saying that, do you think?   It’s Professor Tony Blakely – the epidemiologist and public health expert who has chaired the first phase of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into New Zealand’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.    And I’m feeling the same way he’s feeling about the COVID vaccination mandates. I don’t know if you can call it “buyer’s remorse” but, like Tony Blakely, I would feel very differently about forcing people to get vaccinated next time around.    So his report on the first phase of the inquiry is being handed over to the Government today, which means his work is done and a new person is taking over to run Phase Two.   You’ll remember there was a bit of political furore over Blakely running the inquiry when he was among the cast of thousands of health experts who were in the news day-after-day during the pandemic.   But it seems any concerns about him not being independent enough to do a proper or thorough investigation —without fear or favour— it seems they might not have been justified. That’s going by what he’s been saying in the last 24 hours.   We won’t know for sure how critical his report is until the Government releases it. At this stage, that’s not going to happen until at least next year. The reason the Government’s giving for that is that it wants Phase Two of the Inquiry to be well under way before we get to see this report.   Professor Blakely says his view on vaccine mandates has evolved.   He thinks we went over-the-top with the vaccine mandates. And that’s where I’m at too. And yes, I was one of those people who talked about ‘no jab, no job’, I’ll admit that.   But that was me then, and this is me now. Because, for me, I’d never experienced a pandemic before. Or more to the point, I’d never experienced such an intense public vaccination programme before.   Whether I can be accused of drinking the Kool Aid, I’m not sure. I don’t know, but what I do know is that if there’s ever something like this again, you won’t hear me banging the drum in favour of vaccine mandates.   If you think that makes me a hypocrite, you’re welcome to think that. But, as Tony Blakely seems to have done as well, my thinking has shifted. That’s something he reckons the people in charge of our COVID should have done a bit more of at the time, as well.    Now you might say that hindsight is a great thing, and I'd agree with you. But it doesn't mean you can’t change your mind, which is why I now think forcing people to get vaccinated was a big mistake.   Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:06:34 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-hotpool-sell-off-idea-leaves-me-cold/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-hotpool-sell-off-idea-leaves-me-cold/ If there’s one city council facility in Christchurch that never seems to have a bad word said about it, it’s the He Puna Taimoana hot pools at New Brighton.    I would actually say that the pools are one of Christchurch’s great post-earthquake success stories.   What’s more, they don’t run at a loss. How often can you say that about anything run by a local council?   Tell that to city councillor Aaron Keown, though. Because he’s come up with this idea of selling the hot pools to try and get some cash in the door, so the council can avoid increasing rates by about nine percent next year.   I’m telling you now. It would be the wrong thing to do. And I don't think it matters whether you’ve been there or not to know how daft an idea this is. Because those pools have become one of Christchurch’s absolute gems.  I haven’t actually been there for a dip myself. But I know plenty of people who have - and they all rave about it.  In fact, I was talking to someone this morning who went there for the first time just a few weeks ago. He described it as “exceptional”.  And if you’re hearing this and thinking ‘oh must give it a go’. Today is your lucky day. Because I checked the online booking system earlier and there are spaces available right now.  It’s your lucky day because, sometimes, the hot pools can be booked out for days - if not weeks - in advance. That’s how popular they are.   That was one of the many things that this person I was talking to today loved about going there recently. It wasn’t crowded. It was very well controlled. That’s a booking system for you.  So why is Aaron Keown even entertaining the idea of selling off the pools? It’s because the council is really struggling to find ways of avoiding that nine percent rates increase next year.  It’s not the only idea that’s being thrown around the council table. But it’s the only one that I’m dead against. Councillor Sara Templeton, for example, has suggested they could sell-off the Lichfield Street carpark.  They can do what they want with that, as far as I’m concerned. But leave the hot pools out of this conversation.  Because not only is it a success story now. It’s been a success story since it opened four-and-a-half years ago.  It was late May 2020 and the council was predicting that it wouldn’t make any money in its first year. It was executing the pools to run at an $886,000 loss.  But it went nuts. And, instead of losing money, it made money. In its first year it turned a profit of $109,000. How many council facilities do that? Not just in Christchurch, but anywhere.  They’d hoped to get 75,000 people through the gates. But they had about 120,000 visitors instead. And in March this year, the 500,000th visitor went through the door.  At the time, the manager of the pools - Merryn Skipper - said the pools had had a massive positive impact on the local community.  She said, since the pools opened, Eftpos spending in the New Brighton area has increased on average by 200,000 transactions a month. Which, all up, equate to about 9.4 million extra Eftpos transactions in the area since May 2020.   It’s a gold mine! So where is councillor Aaron Keown coming from with this idea of his?  He reckons Ngāi Tahu Tourism would be right up for buying the pools. He says: “With another operator it might be better for the area. Especially if we throw them a consent to build a nice big hotel across the road.”  Where I think that idea falls over, is the fact that 85 percent of the people who go there are locals.  Either way, if the council wants to avoid that nine percent rates increase, it needs to come up with other ideas. Flogging-off the hot pools shouldn't be one of them.  LISTEN ABOVE Wed, 27 Nov 2024 02:07:59 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-will-they-wont-they-labours-capital-gains-tax-decision/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-will-they-wont-they-labours-capital-gains-tax-decision/ I reckon former Labour Party leader David Cunliffe might have just done the best sell job on a capital gains tax that any politician in New Zealand —or anyone for that matter— has ever managed to do.  It might have something to do with the fact that taxes —of any sort— get people rather fired up, and a lot of people are anti-capital gains tax. In my experience, even people who say they’re on the left side politically hate the idea of paying more tax than they are already.  But I’ll tell you what, I reckon they’ll be feeling differently after comments from David Cunliffe.  He was talking on 九一星空无限talk ZB this morning ahead of the Labour Party's annual conference this weekend where one of the big things on the agenda is a vote on whether the party will go further with the development of a capital gains tax policy and potentially a wealth tax policy.   And he painted a picture of a capital gains tax scenario that I think would be far more palatable to most people than how capital gains has been discussed before. Which is allowing to offset a capital gains tax against other income taxes.   “I think it’s very possible to, over time, use it to offset income tax. So you know, your teachers, doctors, your farmers can take less growth of or a cut in income tax in exchange for realised capital gains —usually excluding the family home— being brought in at some sort of rate. Just broadens the tax base, and we can give offsets elsewhere.”  Now that in my opinion would do far more favours for most wage and salary owners than some of the tax changes the current Government has introduced.   Of course, whenever you start talking about tax, reality is more complex than the theory. And even I’m starting to wonder how this scenario David Cunliffe talked about this morning would practically work.  But, theoretically, I think people would be less against a capital gains tax if they knew they could offset it against their wage or salary.  The argument for a capital gains tax has always been that it is unfair that we treat different types of income differently. So it's a no-brainer that we do something about it.  David Cunliffe reckons most voters feel the same. What about you?  Mon, 25 Nov 2024 23:54:33 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-the-haka-is-more-than-just-pre-match-entertainment/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-the-haka-is-more-than-just-pre-match-entertainment/ Anyone who thinks we can still stick to that pipedream of sport and politics not mixing probably got a hernia or had kittens yesterday morning before and after the All Blacks match against Italy.  The game itself wasn’t too flash. I think the general consensus is that it was lacklustre. Or the All Blacks were, anyway. So people not too excited about the actual game. A different story, though, with the players taking the opportunity to show their backing for last week’s treaty principles hīkoi during the pre-match haka.  And then, after the match, there were players waving the tino rangatiratanga Māori Sovereignty flag on the field. I’ve got no problem at all with what happened during the haka. But I’m not a hundred percent sure how I feel about the flag stuff. Reason being, that the All Blacks are a national team and using a different flag - other than the official flag - just doesn’t sit right with me. It’s not that I’m anti-tino rangatiratanga flag. I just don’t think it was appropriate for the All Blacks to use. But, as far as using the haka to make a political point, I’m all good with that.   Translating what TJ Perenera said leading the haka, he said: “The sovereignty of the land remains, the sovereignty of the people remains, the Treaty of Waitangi remains".  TJ’s explanation is that it was about expressing unity. And that’s how coach Scott Robertson described it too when he was asked about it after the game. Razor said it was discussed beforehand and the unity thing was what it was all about. But there are two ways you can define unity. One definition - in terms of what happened yesterday during the haka - is this idea that the Treaty of Waitangi actually unites us all. The other definition of unity, is that this could be seen as the All Blacks standing in unity with the 42,000 people who were in the hikoi that turned-up at Parliament last week. Either way, I think the days of trying to keep politics out of sport are over.  I’m good with TJ and the All Blacks doing what they did. Just like I was good with the Hurricanes women's team earlier this year having a go at the Government during their haka. And here’s why:  For me, we’re dreaming if we think we can cherry pick from Māori culture. We seem to be perfectly happy for the haka to be part of the All Blacks machine but some of us want our inclusion of Māori culture to stop right there. As long as we can use that Māori culture to entertain the crowds, that’s fine. But, for some, it’s a different story if the people whose culture we are happy to milk are getting a bit toey about things. What I’m getting at, is that we can’t just pick and choose which bits of Māori culture we want to put on show and which bits we don’t. We can’t just have the show and no tell. And what TJ Perenara and the All Blacks delivered yesterday in Italy was the show and the tell. They showed our Māori culture to the world - as they always have - but they also told the world that it’s not just about the razzamatazz. They told the world that there’s some stuff going on back home that people aren’t happy about. Particularly the people back home whose culture is on show every time the All Blacks take to the field. And what’s wrong with that? Absolutely nothing, as far as I’m concerned. If we have a problem with what happened yesterday, then the All Blacks may as well ditch the haka altogether. Because I think it is hugely disrespectful if we think Māori culture is only good for entertaining the crowds. Or selling a product. We might have got away with it in the past. But we’re fools if we think we can get away with it now. LISTEN ABOVE Mon, 25 Nov 2024 00:54:42 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-jetty-restoration-groups-zero-interest-pipedream/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-jetty-restoration-groups-zero-interest-pipedream/ I don’t know if I’m going to make any friends in Governors Bay, especially with the people involved with the Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust.   Because I think their call that the city council stop charging them interest on a loan it gave them to get the project across the line is, at best, unrealistic. They are dreaming.    I remember the first time I went to the rebuilt jetty after it was re-opened last year. It was a beautiful evening. Very still. One of those brilliant evenings on the peninsula. And I was really impressed.   I’d been to the old jetty plenty of times —that was before it was damaged in the earthquakes— but the new jetty was quite something. Still is quite something.    If you’ve been there, you’ve probably walked up-and-down reading the plaques with the names of all the people and the outfits that gave money to the project. Who only gave money because of those volunteers who decided that the community was going to get its jetty back and who did an absolutely brilliant job making it happen.    Especially when you consider that the city council originally thought it would cost $7.8 million, and these volunteers managed to get it done for $3.8 million. So around about half as much as the council was talking about.    They did it after the council decided that, because it was going to cost so much, it wasn’t worth doing.    Not that it wiped its hands completely, it sold the jetty to the trust for $1 and chipped-in $1.75 million of ratepayer money. It also gave the trust an $850,000 loan at 4% for four-and-a-half years.   So the jetty is back. Everyone happy.    Well, not quite. Because after all the heart and soul these volunteers put into raising the money to get it re-built, they’ve run out of puff.   They’ve worked out that, just to pay the interest on the loan from the city council, they’d have to have the equivalent of a fundraising sausage sizzle every weekend for the next three years. That’s just to pay the interest.   So this week they’ve been to the council, asking it to drop the interest on the loan. The council has said “no can do”. And I’m with the council.   For the exact same reason that the council has given to the jetty people – that, if it agreed to flag the interest on their loan, it would set a dangerous precedent.   Not that the city council is unanimous on this one – Councillor Aaron Keown reckons the council should drop the interest on the loan. He thinks that, instead of setting a dangerous or a problematic precedent, it would actually encourage more community groups to take on these types of projects.    His view is that if you look at the jetty project, the volunteers managed to get the rebuild done for half the amount the council thought it was going to cost. And he’s saying today that “if it delivers infrastructure at half the price, it is good precedent setting.”  Which Aaron, with respect, is a pretty weak argument.    It’s a weak argument because if the council gives on this one, not only will it have other outfits that it’s leant money to knocking on the door wanting their interest waived, it will also have others applying for council loans with 0% interest from the get-go.   There will be a stampede of people wanting free money from the council, and it will be pretty hard for the council to say no if it gives-in and flags the interest on the loan for the Governors Bay jetty.   I mean I get what this volunteer group is saying – that after 10 years working on this project, they’re worn out. But they knew when they took out the loan with the council, what the conditions were.   They knew the terms. It’s not like you or I can go to the bank asking them to stop charging us interest on our mortgage because we’re a bit tired, because it means we have to work more than we really want to.   The bank would tell us where to go. Which is what the council is doing too, as it should, to the jetty restoration people.   Yes, the jetty is an asset for the community. Yes, the fact that it’s been re-built much cheaper than what the council thought it would cost is brilliant. Yes, it is another fantastic example of a community recovering from the earthquakes. It ticks all of those boxes.  But it still doesn’t change my view that the jetty restoration people need to accept the conditions they signed-up to when they took the loan out with the council. And the council is absolutely doing the right thing refusing to stop charging them interest.    Fri, 22 Nov 2024 01:42:56 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-heres-how-to-really-make-life-difficult-for-gangs/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-heres-how-to-really-make-life-difficult-for-gangs/ Today’s the day when one of the most ridiculous laws we’ve ever seen in this country starts being enforced by the police.   As of midnight last night, it is illegal for gang members to wear their patches out in public. Not only that - the Government also wants the cops to stop gang members hanging-out together in public.   As far as I’m concerned, this is just another placebo policy. A policy that might make us feel good but won’t actually make much difference.   And instead the Government should just be letting the cops do more of the great work they’ve been doing to crack down on the criminal activities we know gang members are involved in.   The Comancheros are a perfect example. Remember back in September when the cops arrested pretty much every Comanchero member in the country after that three-year undercover operation?   They charged them with importing and selling drugs, running what was described as a pretty elaborate money laundering scheme, and running military training camps run by a former US marine.   I know we said at the time that it probably wasn’t going to spell the end of the Comancheros in New Zealand. Well, I did anyway. That’s because they’re a gang that actually has clout and international connections.   Nevertheless, the police have shown us what can happen if they’re just allowed to get on with it. And if the Government was serious with all its talk about making life difficult for the gangs, then it wouldn’t be telling the cops to go searching for gang patches in hanky drawers.    What I’m saying is we should be focussing on the crimes already being committed by gang members instead of creating another crime - which is what this new law coming into force today is doing.   In fact, I’d go as far as agreeing with a gang guy I saw on the news last night who said that this gang patch ban criminalises people for doing something where there are actually no victims.   Think about it: if you see someone going down the street wearing a gang patch - does that make you a victim? Now you might say, well yes it does because whenever you see a gang patch you might feel uncomfortable.   But does that make you a victim? I don’t think it does. There are all sorts of people out there who make me feel uncomfortable or intimidated, and they aren’t necessarily gang members.   Tell that to the new police commissioner Richard Chambers, though, who you might have heard speaking with Mike Hosking a couple of hours ago.   Mike was talking to him about the new job and asked him what he thought about these new gang laws, and he said “well, funny you should ask”.    He didn’t actually put it that way, but he did say that in Hastings at three minutes past midnight —mere minutes after the laws came into force— police stopped a gang member travelling in a vehicle. The gang member was wearing a patch, and so they dished out their first charge under the new law.   The thing is —and the Police Commissioner knows this— stopping one guy in a car is a different kettle of fish from dealing with a whole lot of gang members in one spot.   Or going into the homes of gang members and having a nosey around for gang patches, because that’s what the cops are expected to do from today. To go through hanky drawers and wardrobes and pull out the patches if there’s a gang member with criminal convictions living there. What a waste of time and resources.   Another gang person in the news today who I agree with as well is lifetime Black Power member and community advocate Denis O‘Reilly.    He’s saying: “This legislation is just pandering to an anxious, white, middle-class population, who the research demonstrates are the people least likely to be affected by gang activity.”   And he’s spot on.  That’s why I’m calling this a placebo policy. Because making life difficult for gangs isn’t taking their patches off them or throwing the book at them if they’re caught wearing them in public. Because a gang member doesn’t have to wear a patch to tell the world which gang they’re in.   Making life difficult for them is infiltrating their networks. Cracking down on all the illegal stuff they’re involved in. Which is why I think the gangs are going to be winners in this so-called crackdown on gang patches and gang’s congregating in public.  Wed, 20 Nov 2024 23:55:22 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-cowboy-hats-and-feathers-yes-bad-behaviour-no/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-cowboy-hats-and-feathers-yes-bad-behaviour-no/ I can’t accuse NZ First MP Shane Jones of being pale, male, and stale. But he is male, and he is stale with these comments of his about the way some MPs are dressing in Parliament. I do agree with him, though, that some of the rules in Parliament need toughening up.    This has all been stirred-up after the MPs did their haka in Parliament last week.   Shane Jones and ACT leader David Seymour are saying that the rules governing how things are supposed to run in the House aren't up to scratch.   I was reading that the toughest personal penalty that an MP can face for playing up in the debating chamber is $1,000. Which is chicken feed when you consider the salaries MPs are on.   So MPs on Parliament’s Standing Orders Committee are going to look into it and see if they can come up with some stiffer penalties for MPs who break the rules.   Officially, these rules are known as Standing Orders and it is the Standing Orders Committee which is responsible for reviewing and considering the rules that govern how the House operates.   So Shane Jones is happy about that. He’s also happy to let the Standing Orders Committee decide what changes might be needed. But he also reckons they need to get tough on dress standards, as well, in Parliament.   He thinks the way some MPs dress, they look like "scarecrows".     But I’m not upset about cowboy hats and feathers in Parliament. That’s because Parliament is, after all, the House of Representatives. Meaning the politicians in that House are supposed to be representative of us.   And, if you’re somewhere right now where there are other people, take a look around. Is everyone dressed the same? Of course they’re not. Are all the guys in suits and ties? I bet they aren’t. And are all the women wearing smart business suits? I bet they’re not, either.   Whether we like it or not, dress standards generally have changed. You might say they’ve gone backwards. I wouldn’t describe it that way.    The point I’m making is that Parliament needs to reflect the real world. And the real world includes people dressing in cowboy hats. And feathers too, at times.   But where I am with Shane Jones and Christopher Luxon, though, is the need to ensure that the rules that determine how Parliament is run and what is expected of MPs and the consequences for breaking those rules need toughening up.   Reason being that there would not be any other workplace in the country where aggressive behaviour would be tolerated.   And I’m not being anti-haka here, but what happened in Parliament last week was aggressive. The All Blacks’ haka is aggressive, and the haka in Parliament on Thursday was aggressive. Just like Julie-Anne Genter was aggressive when she went nuts at Matt Doocey in the House earlier this year.   And that’s where the rules —or, at least, the punishments for breaking the rules— need a good look at.   Because, just like people wearing cowboy hats and feathers is part of the real world, we should also be seeing our Parliament run in a way that gives MPs the same protections that all workers in this country expect when it comes to not being treated aggressively and being respected.  Wed, 20 Nov 2024 00:02:09 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-dont-point-the-finger-at-david-seymour-for-treaty-principles-mess/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-dont-point-the-finger-at-david-seymour-for-treaty-principles-mess/ An absolute circus is one way to describe David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill.   Or you could say that the thousands at Parliament today to protest against it is what democracy is all about.   Either way, if you want to point a finger at anyone for creating this shambles, don’t point it at David Seymour. Point it at Prime Minister Christopher Luxon.   Who kept telling us last year how much of an expert he was at negotiations. Mergers and acquisitions was what it was all about. And, as we know with negotiations, it often means all parties doing a bit of give and take to get something across the line.    But for someone who likes to go-on about his real-world business experience, it amazes me that he’s created this shambles by acting in a way that no chief executive would. More on that shortly.   But I reckon people are thinking less about Christopher Luxon’s negotiation skills and more about his leadership skills right now. And I bet he is ruing the day that he agreed to include this sham in his coalition agreement with David Seymour.   I also bet he is losing a lot of people’s respect. He’ll know that. If he doesn’t, then someone needs to tell him. His MPs won’t say so, but I bet he’s losing a lot of their respect, as well.   It’s obvious. You talk to pretty much any National MP about the Treaty Principles Bill and they’ll shuffle uncomfortably in their seat. They’ll look away. They’ll say “oh yes, but not past the first reading” blah blah blah.   They’ll try not to let it show in their face. But look into their eyes, and you can see the dread.   That’s because they are embarrassed to be associated with this thing. And they have every right to be embarrassed when you consider that it was only agreed to, to get a deal across the line. Agreed to in a way which means it’s not actually going to go anywhere.   All it’s going to do is give David Seymour a platform for the next election.   Now before you start saying “hold on a minute, hold on a minute - it was only the other week mate that you were saying that we —as a country— seem to be incapable of discussing this sort of thing without it turning into a bunfight."   Yes I did say that. I wasn’t saying I supported the Bill, I was saying that, despite how advanced we think we might be as a society, when push comes to shove, we are incapable of having this “national discussion” that the pointy heads like to bang on about without it turning to custard.   And we’re seeing that play out today. Which Christopher Luxon knew would happen. He would have known full well that there’d be people who would go nuts over it.    But he went with it and, as a result, his leadership is looking weaker by the day.   Because if he had approached his negotiations with David Seymour in a way you would expect a seasoned chief executive to, then he would have done what any chief executive worth their salt does and determine whether a deal is going to do good things or bad things for the interests of the company.   The best chief executives —and I’m talking the absolute best of the best— what they do, is they base all of their decisions on what’s best for the business or organisation that they lead. And, if they're really good, that can sometimes mean making decisions that might even see them lose their job.   I’ll let you decide whether the company, in this case, is the National Party or the country. But this deal with Seymour isn’t good for his party and it isn’t good for the country.    And, if Christopher Luxon is the leader he claims to be, then he needs to show some genuine leadership —some genuine backbone— and use his business skills to get us out of this mess.   If he doesn’t, he will be toast. He will be toast as far as his MPs are concerned and he’ll be toast as far as the majority of voters are concerned.    Because, if he did do what I’m saying he needs to do, then I would respect him infinitely more than I will if he does nothing. If he keeps on with this charade, if he keeps on banging on about how unhelpful the Bill is, how divisive it is.   Keeps on trotting out that nonsense, and then sticks with the plan.   I don’t care about his leadership experience until I see some genuine leadership in the here-and-now. To get us out of this treaty principles mess.   Tue, 19 Nov 2024 00:27:44 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-no-mention-of-money-doesnt-make-todays-apology-hollow/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-no-mention-of-money-doesnt-make-todays-apology-hollow/ When it comes to apologies there are generally two types: a sincere apology and a hollow apology. And survivors of abuse in state or religious care are saying that the Prime Minister’s apology today for that abuse is hollow, because the Government isn’t saying anything today about redress or compensation. The Government’s position is that it needs to take the time to make sure it gets the compensation scheme right and won’t be making any announcement until early next year. Abuse survivors, though, say it should have been working on this long before now and today’s apology is undermined by what they think is a lack of timely action and work on compensation. Or, in other words, they’re saying that the apology is hollow. Which I don’t agree with – I think the Government is right to take its time on this one. Which is probably easy for me to say because, thankfully, I haven’t been caught up in this nightmare. Which is exactly what it has been and still is for these victims, or survivors as they prefer to be known, and they are the people criticising the Government today. You’ll remember it was back in July when the final report on the massive inquiry into abuse of kids in care came out. 200,000 people were abused while they were, supposedly, being looked after by state and religious organisations. And at the time the report came out, the Government said it would be delivering a national apology - which is what today is all about. And that it would be working on determining how the state will deliver what’s called redress. But, essentially, we’re talking about compensation for the victims who are still living. Also included in that work is what changes can be made to try and ensure this kind of mass abuse can’t happen again, which is another priority for the abuse survivors. I think it’s impossible to come up with changes that will stop it happening outright for the simple reason that there are evil people out there who can be very good at getting around structures and rules to do what they want to do. But already the Government has this week announced steps to try and prevent abuse of kids in care. It's introducing a bill prompted by the Abuse in Care inquiry, which will ban strip-searching children. So that’s all part of the redress work being led by Erica Stanford, who is the minister responsible for co-ordinating the Government’s response to the abuse in care inquiry. The other big part of that response is the compensation side of things. Which survivors would have liked to have seen details from the Government today in parallel with the national apology. But I think the Government’s right – this is something that can’t be rushed. I don’t think it’s something that should be neatly fitted-in with the timeline of the Prime Minister standing up today and delivering this apology that the country has to make, and which these poor buggers, whose lives were ripped apart, have been waiting years for. In fact I’ve been very critical of the Government’s pace on some things. It’s been all quarterly action plans and runs on the board and, thank goodness, it isn’t taking the same approach trying to work out how it’s going to do to compensate these people. Remember that it was less than two weeks ago when it announced that it was going to sort out things for people who were abused at the Lake Alice Child and Adolescent Unit, who reached a $6.5 million compensation settlement with the Crown in 2001 but then lost $2.6 million of that in legal fees. So last week, after 20 years, the Government said it would fix them up for the $2.6 million they didn’t get. That’s just one example of why taking a slow, measured approach is the best thing to do. It’s probably a basic example, but there are other reasons why I think the Government is taking the right approach. Another reason why I think the Government shouldn’t be criticised today is that whatever it decides to do, it will be setting a precedent. There will be more survivors coming forward - as they should. So this abuse in care compensation scheme isn’t going to be a one-off. It’s going to be something that will determine the scale of government compensation for abuse by people working for the state, ongoing. Another reason too not to rush it is that it wasn’t just government agencies involved in this hideous abuse – religious organisations were involved too. And the Government will need to negotiate carefully with these organisations - like the St John of God order which ran the boys home in Christchurch where terrible, terrible things happened. Pretty much every time there’s a story on TV about abuse in care you see that stock footage of the van going through the gate and the pathetic-looking water sprinkler. So this complex. The Government has to get it right. And while, yes, maybe it would have been good if it was in a position to announce compensation details today as well as the apology, I think it is much better to do a thorough job and do exactly what it said it would and do the right thing for the people it is apologising to today. Mon, 11 Nov 2024 22:34:26 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-should-the-taxpayer-chip-in-for-your-solar-panels/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-should-the-taxpayer-chip-in-for-your-solar-panels/ If you’ve got solar panels on the roof, you’ll be loving the blue skies.  And a solar energy advocate is saying today that those of us who don’t should be getting financial support from the Government.  Mike Casey says New Zealand is one of the few western countries that doesn’t provide subsidies for solar energy. He says, in Australia, people can get subsidies to convert to solar and - guess what - more of them have. Way more.   I think this is brilliant thinking - but not necessarily a brilliant idea. Because, if we could do all that magic wand stuff - which we can’t - but if we could, I’d say yep - Government subsidies for anyone and everyone.  But there’s no magic wand and so we can’t. So I reckon there should be Government support to get solar into all new builds.  I was talking to someone who, as they put it, went down the solar panel rabbit hole - in that they looked into it. But they just came to the same conclusion that I think most of us have - and still do - and that’s that the numbers just don’t stack up. You can spend the money getting the panels on the roof, but it’ll take you years before the savings in electricity costs justify the spend.  But getting more and more people onto solar energy is a much more realistic way for the Government - and I’m not just talking about the current Government, but all Governments - it’s a much more realistic way of trying to get those power costs down.  Because what other options are there? The Government of the day can thump the table and tell the power companies to stop ripping us off.  But that’s rarely worked with the supermarkets. So as if thumping the table is going to work with the power companies.  The other option up the Government’s sleeve is restructuring the electricity market. But when do you think we’re going to see that happen?  I was reading a history of New Zealand’s electricity reforms back in the 80s and 90s and it took about four years for those reforms to happen. So any changes the Government wants to make to the current electricity market is going to take a fair amount of time, isn’t it?  So, if it wants to, the Government can do that. But I think it needs to be looking for some quick-wins at the same time. And subsidised solar conversion would be a quick win. Because, like anything in life, if you focus on the things you can actually influence - then that’s when you start to make progress.  And providing taxpayer support to get solar power happening more widely, then that would be something the Government could make happen as soon as it wanted to.  There are about two million occupied homes in New Zealand and around 60,000 of them have solar panels.   It took New Zealand more than seven years to get 30,000 houses with solar. The other 30,000 took three years. And so now we’ve got 60,000. Which is about 3 percent of houses connected to the national grid.  Compare that to Australia, which heavily subsidised solar, simplified the installation process, and invested in workforce training for installers and the general figure is about 35 percent (compared to our 3 percent).  In many neighbourhoods in Australia, though, 50 percent of houses have solar panels. In some, as many as 80 percent. Thanks to government subsidies.  Which our Government could bring in today, if it wanted to.   LISTEN ABOVE Mon, 11 Nov 2024 00:49:10 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-health-and-safety-is-off-the-rails/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-health-and-safety-is-off-the-rails/ You'll have your own way of describing this crazy situation where we’ve got KiwiRail telling the Christchurch City Council that it has to close a 1.5 kilometre stretch of cycleway for two years, because the cycleway needs some safety improvements. KiwiRail reckons the Heathcote Express cycleway, which is near a railway crossing, is so dangerous that a death or serious injury could happen there once every 1,000 years. Yep, once every 1,000 years. Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that any death or injury —no matter how infrequent— is acceptable in any way. And KiwiRail says the section of railway that the cycleway crosses is the busiest section of the South Island rail network, with about 35 trains using it each day. The cycleway opened less than a year ago and the locals seem to love it.  In fact, some local school kids turned up at the city council this week to tell councillors how important it is and how worried they are about this section of the cycleway being closed for two years while the safety upgrades are made to the railway crossing. Here’s an idea of why they’re so worried about not being able to use the cycleway for two years and being forced onto a road busy with trucks going to and from the port at Lyttelton. “We would need to bike on the highway. Port Hills Road is 60km. Lots of trucks, underpasses, and it’s scary and dodgy. It’s very dangerous crossing the Lyttleton offramp.” And you’ve got to say, the possibility of something bad happening once every 1,000 years surely has to put it at the lower end of things. And certainly not a priority. And this is the key thing here. I certainly don’t think it’s worth forcing cyclists off a safe cycleway for two years and onto a stretch of road that these school kids and other people who use the cycleway everyday say is a way more dangerous way for them to get to school and work. Now I’m not saying get rid of health and safety, because that old Kiwi “she’ll be right approach” is not something I’m in favour of.  But surely this type of crazy directive from KiwiRail shows how all the brilliant changes that have been made to keep people safer can be tarnished by another consequence of the health and safety laws. Whether it’s an unintended consequence, who knows, but the layperson’s term for this consequence is “backside covering”. That's all KiwiRail is doing here, because it knows that, whenever this once in 1,000 years death or injury might happen, it will be in the firing line. That’s the only conclusion you can come to. But that’s what health and safety has become. Backside covering. The other thing about this too is the safety upgrade being forced by KiwiRail is going to cost ratepayers $6.5 million. I remember the last time I was in a managerial job, and I had to make my team go to a health and safety briefing. And the so-called expert started banging on about a “cable strategy”. And I couldn’t help myself - because the old BS detector was going off left, right and centre. So I put my hand up and asked what this “cable strategy” was that they were going on about. Turns out it was a documented plan on how to handle things like computer cables and other cords, so that they didn’t create a risk of people falling over. That was the point when I realised that health and safety was becoming an industry. And that’s how I’m feeling about KiwiRail’s plan to force the Christchurch City Council this 1.5 kilometre section of the Heathcote Express cycleway for two years. It's also another example of how health and safety is out of control in this country. Fri, 08 Nov 2024 00:33:53 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-im-not-buying-into-the-trump-hysteria/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-im-not-buying-into-the-trump-hysteria/ I think I’m going to trust my gut instinct more often.   Because yesterday, I didn’t like the idea of it, but my gut was telling me that Donald Trump was going to win the presidential election.   And because I’m going to listen to my gut instinct more often, today I’m going to tell you that —even if we don't like it— we need to calm the farm a bit with all the hyperbole being thrown around.    Because even though things are a little bit different this time around, did the world fall apart last time Trump was president? It didn’t.   He’s another one of those people who you know is just making stuff up —and you know they’re a nasty piece of work— but somehow people fall for them. And enough people have fallen for Donald Trump. Again.     But even though I felt he was going to take it out, I was still blown away with how the numbers looked from the start.   Because you know what it’s like with elections and how the early stages of counting can skew things quite a bit – which is what I was thinking when I kept refreshing the screen on the phone following the results yesterday afternoon.   But those Electoral College numbers just kept piling up for Trump. But, unlike last time he won, I wasn’t in the least bit surprised.   There are some aspects that did surprise me. Example: the move in support from black voters —especially African American men— from Democrat to Republican.   But even then, that shouldn’t really be a surprise when you consider how Trump campaigned. Where he just kept asking voters the rhetorical question: are you better off now than you were four years ago?    And that’s a question that’s relevant to anyone from any cultural background. And it seems, for enough of them, the answer to that question was “no”. No, we’re not better off.   And that, it seems, is what it came down to for the Americans who not only voted Trump back in as president but who also put the Republicans in charge of the Senate.    Which is bringing some dire warnings today. Which I think would be very easy for me —or for anyone— to jump on board with. Because I think for a lot of people their default position is anti-Trump. Even though I think he’s a horrible person, I’m not going to switch to default.   When I watched him making his big victory speech, I did wonder how many of his cronies who were on that stage with him will still be with him in four years time. There will be some casualties, we know that.   And he made it very clear that America is going to be his first priority. In fact, he said that.   But, on the basis that the world didn’t fall to bits last time he was president, I’m not buying into the hysteria. I could be proven wrong, but that’s my gut instinct.      Unlike political commentator Matthew Hooton who is putting a very dire warning in the NZ Herald today, under the headline: “America entering most dangerous period since 1861”.   He’s saying today: “The world enters its most dangerous period since World War II, with Trump threatening to abandon Ukraine, withdraw the US’s security in Europe which will encourage Russia’s Vladimir Putin to expand his ambitions westward, launch a global trade war and collapse the World Trade Organisation.”   Matthew Hooton goes on to say: “Trump has also promised to jail his political opponents. He made similar threats in 2016 that he did not act upon, but back then his circle included at least some people who could be relied upon to keep his most extreme tendencies in check.   “There are no such people around him this time. Nor is he constrained by the need to worry about re-election.   “Barred from standing for re-election in 2028, the danger is he will seek to hold on to power by other means.”   And Matthew Hooton concludes by saying: “The US enters its most dangerous period since 1861, the start of the Civil War.”   I’m not buying into that. What about you?   Thu, 07 Nov 2024 00:32:12 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-what-my-gut-instinct-is-telling-me-about-the-us-presidency/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-what-my-gut-instinct-is-telling-me-about-the-us-presidency/ Historic. Knife edge. Too close to call. That’s what they’re all saying about today’s presidential election in the States. What you never see though, splashed across the screens on CNN and Sky 九一星空无限 and BBC, is “gut instinct”. My gut tells me that it’s going to be Donald Trump. And, this is the great thing about gut instinct, it doesn't really matter whether you’re wrong or right - it’s just how you feel about something. And I’ve got this feeling that Trump is going to take it out. And the reason I feel that way can be summed-up in one word: change. When it comes to elections, people love change. The media loves change. But voters, especially, love change. And you’ve got to give Trump credit for doing something Kamala Harris hasn’t done - and that is to do a much better job of selling the idea of change. Trump still represents change. Just like he did back in 2016. He still does now. I think no one would disagree that Joe Biden stepping aside and letting Kamala Harris run for president was a no-brainer, it just took Joe a while to come ‘round to the idea. But that is where the change started and stopped for the Democrats. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. From a distance —and this is the danger when you judge politicians from a distance— but, from where I sit, Harris wins hands down. But I don’t think she deserves to be the next president. And I am confident that enough Americans will feel the same way and that’s why I think enough of them will give their vote to Donald Trump and he will be the next president. When she did that first TV debate after she took over as the Democrats candidate from Joe Biden, I watched that and thought she had it in the bag. When Trump came up with all that nonsense about immigrants eating people’s dogs and cats, I thought she handled all that beautifully. And I thought he had blown it – not just with the dogs and cats stuff but all the rambling. And the rambling hasn’t stopped, of course. The stuff that comes out of his mouth is nonsense half the time - if not most of the time. But, if there’s one thing going for Trump —certainly in the eyes of American voters— it’s that he oozes change. You know he’s going to shake things up. You know he’s going to say what he really thinks. You know that he’s all talk about loving Puerto Ricans and all that nonsense about protecting women and making America great again. It’s all nonsense. It’s all awful. But compare that to Kamala Harris —and put it through the filter of voters loving change— and he wins hands down. Ever since that TV debate —where she was the obvious stand-out— I’ve found her talk of change hollow, to say the least. As someone said to me last night when she was on the TV news saying it’s time for change and time to do things differently and it’s time to end the division - someone else who was watching said to me ‘hasn’t she been part of this so-called problem over the past 10 years?’ And, for me, it’s got to the point where I think the majority of American voters will be thinking the same thing. Tue, 05 Nov 2024 23:35:34 Z